LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1932, Page 125

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Leer sae"

176 Proceedings of Thirty-Fifth Regular Convention,

tained. It is being recognized with no dissenting voice that an
gelical discipline must be based upon accurate knowledge conc ahaa
the nature of the particular lodge with which we have to deal; th
only by staying within actual facts may we deal successful] , cat
a brother whom we must convince of his error. ye

In many cases
success of such negotiations has been reported to us by our aston

; “The situation has undergone a favorable change from a directj
which no one ‘could foresee three years ago. The lodges appe “n
have passed their culmination point a few years after the war *Thik
they still number some 30 million members in this country th
on the decline. The ritual no longer has drawing power. Most lode
complain bitterly of lack of attendance. While it would be fol on
deny that the lodge is still a power for evil, we may at least b i e
that the hardest conflict ig past.” seve
, Both paragraphs certainly contain vital and assuring informa-
theo ought to encourage us in our testimony for Christ against

Our recommendations on Memorial 404 :—
retained the Bureau of Information Regarding Secret Orders be
2. That this Bureau of Information be asked to compile, to suppl
as requested, and, if necessary, to publish all official pronouncements
of Synod on its lodge practise;

3. That all necessary clerical help be supplied the Bureau to car:
on its work. %
7 Memorial 405 holds that lodge-members should under no con-
dition be admitted to Holy Communion, but that in cases of imminent
death a conscientious pastor may give the Sacrament to a person who
“though still outwardly connected with a lodge, is able and willing to
examine himself, sincerely repents of his sins, and confesses faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.” This declaration Synod ig asked
to substitute for Point Three of Synod’s lodge resolutions of 1929,
since this paragraph, it is alleged, “has been deplored by many friends
and greeted by many enemies of our Synod as a concession to, and

compromise with, lodgism.” ,
With respect to Memorial 405 your Committee is convinced that
the mode of procedure outlined therein is not in harmony with the
evangelical spirit expressed in the pastoral advice of our sainted
fathers. While persons who are antagonistic to the decision of Scrip-
ture on the lodge question or who are indifferent and callous should
not be admitted to Holy Communion, the hands of conscientious pas-
tors should not be tied to deal in exceptional cases of outward lodge
connection as their conscience, bound by the Word of God, dictates.
This has always been the advice of our sainted teachers, and your
Committee is convinced that it accords with Holy Scriptures, although

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1932. 177

we insist that in the light and with the background of the other points
of the resolutions a liberal interpretation of Point Three of the Reso-
lutions of 1929 is impossible.

Memorial 406 petitions Synod to refer the following questions to
the congregations of Synod, with a request that the replies be returned
for tabulation prior to the convention of 1935: —

Question 1: Do the resolutions of 1929, published in the Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-fourth Regular Convention, page 113 ff., depart
from the constantly reaffirmed position of Synod?

Question 2: Shall we continue to abide by the original position
and practise of our Synod?

Question 8: If the answer to these questions should show a di-
vision of opinion among our congregations, shall we, in this question
of the application of Scriptural principles to Christian life, respect
one another’s conviction and conscience and bear with one another as
brethren ?

The request for a referendum is made because, as the memorial
declares, 1) the interpretation and application of the resolutions of
1929 are disturbing consciences and therefore the peace and welfare
of Synod; 2) time and circumstance, it is claimed, seem to make im-
possible a full discussion of the lodge problem on the floor of Synod;
and 3) the lodge problem, it is said, will never be solved until the
entire matter has been carefully studied by the individual congre-
gations.

With regard to the historical questions involved in the discussion,
your Committee is convinced that the resolutions of 1929 represent
the historical lodge practise of our Synod. While it is true that the
lodge practise has not always been uniform in all our congregations,
Synod itself never tolerated laxness on this score, but recognized lodg-
ism as unchristian and antichristian and prescribed an evangelical,
yet vigorous practise by which its members might be preserved or
rescued from lodge entanglements. If the question is asked whether
the quotations sent to various ministers and congregations actually
set forth the historical lodge practise of the Missouri Synod, an
opinion, written by a special committee of the Faculty of Concordia
Seminary at St. Louis and sustained by the entire Faculty, replies that
“the presentation is far from complete and satisfactory” and clinches
its reply with an emphatic no. We likewise refer Synod to the Report
of the Synodical Conference of 1904, in which the same lodge practise
is prescribed as in the resolutions of 1929. In this report the general
tule concerning communing of lodge-members is stated thus: “Kin
Logenbruder, der zum Tische des Herrn gehen will und des Herrn

Tod verkuendigen muss and dies auch tun will, kann dies nur in der
Weise tun, dass er der Loge den Ruecken wendet, das Band mit thr
12