Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 111

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 111

What these two people and their family do about private or simul-
taneous prayer is influenced by the family relation, which should
not be broken up.

To prayer at intersynodical meetings, where there is still sep-
aration because of doctrine, the confessional principle and Rom.
16:17 apply. The effectiveness of the testimony that lies in prayer
is weakened if joint prayer, which suggests unity, follows testimony
that points to absence of unity.

Participation in unionistic meetings or celebrations is some-
times defended with the plea that it offered a wonderful oppor-
tunity to preach Christ. St.Paul’s word to Timothy is quoted:
“Preach the Word, be instant in season, out of season.” Seldom is
the passage quoted in full. It continues: “Reprove, rebuke, exhort
with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when
they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” These
wonderful opportunities are seldom embraced as.an opportunity to
reprove, rebuke, exhort with sound doctrine; they are seldom at-~
tended with any danger that the speaker will lose prestige in the
community or be criticized by the public.

When these opportunities to preach Christ to the adversary
are of our own seeking and contriving apart from our clear call,
they may be dangerous, too, as leading ourselves into temptation.
Peter had no call to follow Christ into the courtyard of the high
priest; but once he was there, he did have a wonderful opportunity
to preach Christ. We know how badly he fumbled it. It would
have been much better for him to go home and watch and pray
lest he fall into temptation. Our faith is put to all the tension it
will stand when our call leads us into a situation where we must
testify against opposition; when we break in where we have no
call, we may expect to take a bad fall. We need not be surprised
in that case if we wind up as a member of the party that we
started to reform. That’s what unionism does.

We of the Wisconsin Synod have been admonished in the
second Fraternal Endeavor not to work toward a separation, and
our consciences have been appealed to to cease rushing into a
separation. We, on the other hand, have pleaded with Missouri
not to establish the contemplated union with the A.L.C. on the
present basis. Missouri has consistently defended all its actions
connected with the union endeavors. If a satisfactory settlement
of all old differences has been achieved, if the Missouri Synod is
satisfied that there is now complete agreement between it and the
American Lutheran Church, and if it is convinced that the Amer-
ican Lutheran Church now is of one mind and one spirit, and
speaks the same language and means the same thing as Missouri,
then the logical and natural course would be for the synods to
declare and practice pulpit and altar fellowship.

Such a union would, of course, now link Missouri intimately
with the other synods in the American Lutheran Conference,
notably with the E.L.C., and the ties that bind the A. L. C. would
then also bind Missouri. That action would be hailed by the
National Lutheran Council of Churches and by the Christian Cen-
tury as one of the greatest forward steps in the Lutheran Church
since the Prussian Union, but it would kill the Synodical
Conference.