Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 93

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 98

2. No religious unionism is evident in such joint prayer. No
error is being condoned. On the contrary, error is being dealt with,
as God wants it dealt with. It is an effort to make it possible for
those that are spiritual to restore erring ones in the spirit of
meekness. In fact, in practically every conference I attended no-
body wanted to defend error as error, most of them were not con-
scious of there being any error upheld. Here the fellowship of
faith, which is a real and active principle according to Scripture,
is given an opportunity to assert itself in an effort to achieve the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. A prayer for help at this.
kind of conference is to the glory of God all the way.

To speak of the people that met at these free conferences as
“persistent errorists” and therefore not to be prayed with, as has
been done in the discussion at the President’s conference, is prob-
ably due to the fact that such objectors never have had the privilege
of attending these conferences. My experience has been that here
we met with honest and sincere Christian men, who did not want
to be errorists and who as far back as 1938 in their Declaration
had, for instance, gone so far as to set aside intuitu fidet (in view
of faith) as an explanation of election. Occasional individual
exceptions were usually quickly dealt with, if we were ready to
speak the truth in love.

The Wisconsin Tract 10, “Prayer Fellowship” (pp. 5, 6), lists
two objections against joint prayer at intersynodical conferences:

1. “First of all, it must be established that the A. L.C. and the
Missouri Synod are actually in agreement in their desire for unity.”

What evidence is submitted that they are not?

a) “Repeated attempts to come to agreement,” and still there
is disagreement in lodge practice and “in basic doctrines.” If with
“basic doctrines” there is meant the fellowship question, we concede
there is no agreement. But the Common Confession shows that
agreement has been reached in the basic doctrines, where there
had been disagreement. Convictions are not made by men, they
are born of the Word by God’s Spirit. We cannot force agreement.
God must give it. The fact that complete agreement has not been
reached in everything can indicate that there is a real desire for
unity that flows from God’s Word and not from resolutions drawn
up by chureh groups. Our experience with the Fellowship Com-
mittee of the A.L.C. in the past has been of such a nature that
we could not doubt the sincerity of their purpose.

b) No “common ground in their attitude toward the role that
Scripture plays in determining how much agreement is necessary
before church bodies can unite” is a further reason given by the
tract.

We will show that there is such a common ground, when we
treat point 6 concerning continued negotiations with A. L. C.

The reference to 1 Cor. 1:10, to be “perfectly joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment,” does not in any
way touch the matter of joint prayer at intersynodical conferences,
Joint Prayer is referred to neither in the text nor anywhere in
the context.

2. The second objection reads: “Representatives of the Missouri
Synod and of the A.L.C. meeting to discuss differences, cannot