Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 1-4 (Text)
enen \Bruber mit. ~efe~
befte~t a~ einem IBUb ~re~ IBtuber~, mit einem Heinen lY~en eine~ feiner
~leibun~ftiid'e barauf genii~t. ~i~ fon niimlidj biele !munber berridjtet
~aben, unb fo erltlarlet f dne 6djltlefter, baf3 ein 6tUd' 2eug bon i~m audj
in biefer ffiidjtung niiftig unb ItIitffam fein ltIerbe. 'l)abei ItIirb ltIeHer
beridjtet, baf3 ber lYan be~ ~iu~ ie~t bem betreffenben ~omitee altle~
,\)eiligfl'redjung be~feIben borliege unb ba'i3 au biefem 21t1ed' brei beglau-
bigte !munber ~inreiCfjenb feien, um i~n ber ,\)eiligfl'redjung ItIiirbig au
madjen, obltlo~l nadj IBe~aul'tung ber 6djltlefter bie ~na~l feiner !munber
fidj tatfiiCf)Iidj in bie ~~enbe beliiuft. ~er aufmerffame IBibellefer ltIei'i3,
ba'i3, feIbft ltIenn foldje !munber beltliefen lViiren, biefe bodj feine~ltIe~ ein
IBeltlei~ filr bie ffiein~eit ber 2e~re lviiren; benn ber ,\)@rr ~rlf~ gillt
eben ~ al~ ein 2eidjen be~ ~ngften 5tage~ an, baf3 falfdje ~rifti uub
falfdje ~Ol'qeten !ommen unb grote 8eidjen un!> flBunbet tun tuetben, fo
300 Theological Observer. - .Ritd)lid)~.8titgtfd)id)tltd)d.
bll\3 in ben ;'5rrtum !:Jerfii~rl merben, menn e~ miigridj mare, audj bie ~w~
ertvii~rten. ~atfadjIidj ~anbeIt e~ fidj um foldje ,mge~aftigen Sh:/ifte uub
2eidjen unb jffiunber', !:Jon benen ber ~pofteI fdjreibt." 8'. ~.
The Dangers of Unionism Recognized. - While it is only too true
that this is a unionistic age, which cares little for fidelity to God's revealed
doctrine, but seeks satisfaction in forming large church-bodies, there are
men even in thoroughly unionistic denominations, voices in the wilderness,
as it were, who see that this unionistic course must lead to ruin. Thus
we read in the American Ohurch Monthly, published within the Protestant
Episcopal Church, the following striking observation on the danger lurking
in the Federal Council of Churches: "We fear the erection of a, great
ecclesiastical machine which will endeavor to mold the opinions and control
the actions of the members of the Protestant denomina,tions. The matter
of our [the Episcopalian] affilia,tion is constantly growing more serious
because of the Council's increasing activities. More and more it undertakes
to intervene in all manner of moral, economical, and political questions and
to advocate specific legislation under all these heads. It assumes to speak
authoritatively for all the Protestant bodies, though there are several,
notably the Lutherans, who have declined membership. Our own member-
ship with the Federal Council is only partial, but it is precisely on the
social side, where it is most active,'that we are in closest touch. We believe
that there is great danger that the Church will be dragged, through this
agency, into unfortunate commitments, and we doubt the mora,} right of
even the General Convention or the House of Bishops to put the members
of the Church into such positions." The paper then discusses the recent
action of the Los Angeles Federation of Churches, which sent a telegram
to Washington endorsing the law proposed by Senator Sheppard, putting
the purchaser of liquor on the same leve( with the seller. On this action
of the Los Angeles Federation of Churches our contemporary very properly
says: "This body of California ministers undertakes without hesitation
to determine a legal and legislative question which is gravely debated by
the friends of the cause it concerns. That the Federation should make
prohibition a religious instead of a social and political matter is bad
enough, but when it steps out of its territory so far as to undertake to
guide Congress in deciding on the method of enforcement, it is arrogating
to itself a more than papal authority, which every true American should
resent." The Presbyterian, from which we have taken these excerpts,
quotes them with approva,}. In the Watchman-Ewaminer (Baptist) a
similar note was sounded not long ago. This paper placed before its
readers the words of Dr. George A. Gordon, of Boston; from which we
quote these striking sentences: "Let us make over the problem of a split
and vexed Protestantism to the great Captain of our salvation. Let us
fight, each in our own regiment, under His guidance, with good will and
good wishes to aU the others. The Church was united once, the holy
Catholic Church, through~ut the world, and what was it? An unspeakable
tyrant, denying freedom over its whole broad domain and crushing the
intellect and the spirit into a dead uniformity."
And lastly we wish to quote from an article which appeared in a
German paper, the Kirchenzeitung of the Reformed Church, and was re-
printed in the Lutherischer Herold. The author discusses the union of
Theological Observer. - .Ritd}lid}~geit\lefd}id}tltd}e~. 301
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists in Canada, which was
opposed by a strong minority in the Presbyterian Church, which, however,
was simply trampled upon. The result was that those Presbyterians who
looked upon the union as an unholy alliance formed a Presbyterian church-
body of their own. The writer says: "Though the separation was painful
and involved heavy outward losses, the Presbyterian Church did not view
it as a misfortune. Through the withdrawal of the majority it was freed
of such elements as were uncertain, and those that remained were knit
together all the more closely. Many congregations with their property
were preserved to the Church, and where the majority took all the church
property into the United Church, another organization was undauntedly
started on a new foundation. To-day, four years after the division, the
old Church, with its 180,000 members, its two theological institutions, its
Foreign and Home Missions, is more alive and ready for work than before.
The grea,t sacrifices were not brought in vain. The Church has come to
love its confession, its simple services, its Presbyterian polity, IiJI the more
and has arrived at a deeper understanding of these matters. But with
respect to church unions the Presbyterian Church has become very sensitive.
It was too much the object of unholy attempts at bringing about an
alliance. It believes that a separate Church which is obedient to God is
more acceptable to Christ than a united Church which has achieved union
by violating the consciences of its most loyal children." These statements
are worth careful perusal and consideration. Separation for the sake of
separation is, of course, an unholy thing, too, but separation for the sake
of the truth should never be deplored. A.
Dr. imore~enb ~riifibent be~ 2ut~erifd}en tmdtfonUent~. ~et ,,2uff).
~etorb" oeridjtet: "Dr.;S.~. mOteljeab, @;!efutibbiteftot be~ National Lu-
theran Council in ben betfIoffenen fieoen ;saljten unb bOtljet biet ;saf)te
rang motfitlet bet eutopitifdjen SfommiHion be~ Council, regte au l8eginn
bet alDiHften ;saf)te~fonfetena be~ National Council im Hotel Vanderbilt
fein ~mt ar~ ~iteftot niebet. ~et !Riicfttitt etfoIgte, um Dr. moteljeab
@eIegenljeit au geoen, feine gefamte geit feinen ~fIidjten ar~ ~tiifibent be~
2utljetifdjen jffieUfonbent~ (Lutheran World Convention) IDibmen au Wnnen.
~efet jffieUlonbent ift erne foOpetatibe l8elDegung, bie 81 miUionen 2utlje~
tanet in allen 2iinbem bet jffieU umfaBt. ~et Sfonbent ift au einem gtoBen
:l:eU aw bem .\:lUf~lDetl be~ National Lutheran Council in @;Uropa unb
anbem @;tbteUen nadj bem jffieItftieg ljetbotgegangen." P. !RaIpf) 20ng
bon bet Oljioftlnobe ift an mOteljea~ 6telle getreten. ;So :l:. m.
8uU4~me nn lVUffionnren. ;sn dnet mitteilung au~ bem ,,6enb~
ooten" refen lDit in bet ,,2utlj. Sfitdjenaeitung" iibet ~ auneljmenbe
~nteteffe fUt bie miHion ~ ~oIgenbe: "Untet ben ~naeidjen, bie auf
ern auneljmenbe~ ;snteteffe fUt bie djtiftIidjen miffionen ljinbeuten, if! bi·e
:l:atfadje, baB bie galjr bet neUen miffionare, bie 1928 ljinau~geaogen finb,
bie 1927 ljinau~geaogenen um ljunbett iibetftieg. ~a~ lDar b~ etfte ;saljt
feit 1920, in lDeIdjem eine gunaljme iibet baa botljetgeljenbe ;saljt au bet-
aeidjnen lDat. ~ie galjr bet re~te~ ;saljt ljinau~geaogenen miHionare oe-
trug 667, abet biefe galjr ift nidjt ljinteidjenb, um ba~ miffion~petfonar
im ~u~ranb aUf bet j~igen .\:liilje au etljaUen. jffienigfte~ 1.500 lDetben
jaljdidjoeniitigt, um bie butdj Sh:anlTjeit, !Riidttitt unb anbere Utfadjen
entfteljenben 2iiden au fiiUen in ben gelamten ptoteltantifdjen Sftiiften bon
302 Theological Observer. - .Ritd)lid):8eitgefd)id)tlid)d.
ungefii~t 80,000 llniffionaten. ~otbanterifa ~at bon bet .8~I u&et biet
6ie&tel geIiefett, fo baH jebeB ;'§~t lUenigj'tenB 850 bon ~otbamerifa
~inauBge~eit f oIIten, urn bie gegenlUiittigen llniffionBfriifte in ben ~eiben"
liinbern au et~arten." ;'§. ~. lln.
The Lutheran Church and Lodgery. -Last year the Rev. Dr. O. D.
Baltzly, pastor of the Kountze Memorial Lutheran Church in Omaha, him-
self a 32d-degree Mason and Knight Templar, declared in a. sta.tement given
to the press that "the Lutheran Church a.s a Church does not trouble
itseU or anyone else a.bout the lodge question; that there a.re just a. couple
of Luthera.n synods in America. that ha.ve rules aga.inst the lodge, chief
of which is the Missouri Synod, with headquarters at St. Louis; and that
the largest Lutheran body in America, the United Lutheran Church in
America., to which the Kountze Memorial belongs, does not bother itself
about the lodge question. Every member can do a.s he pleases about it."
This statement wa.s a.t once challenged by the pa.storal conference of
the Missouri Synod at Oma.ha, and letters were addressed to the va.rious
Lutheran synods requesting information on their attitude toward the lodge
question. The replies that were returned contain most interesting and
valua.ble information and in the aggregate prove that the deelara.tions of
Dr_ Baltzly are simply not true. The Synodica.l Conference, the synods
of Ohio, Iowa, and Buffalo, the Norwegian Lutheran Church, and several
of the smaller independent Luthera.n synods are una.nimous in their out-
spoken opposition to the lodge. The decla.rations of other Luthera.n synods
are listed in the February number (Vol. 11, No. I) of the Omaha, Lutherar&-,
and these are of importa.nce, since some of them represent Luthera.n synods
which ha.ve not gone on record a.s officially opposing the lodge. A few of
the quotations are here given to enable the student of the lodge question
to form his own opinion.
The Suomi Synod, (Finnish. c. m. 20,659) reports: "Concerning the
a.ttitude of our Synod toward the lodge question I ha.ve to say that the
synod does not ha.ve any article in its constitution concerning the question.
But in principle the synod is against secret societies, a.nd the pa.stors of
the Church are not permitted to join them."
The United, Danish Ohuroh (c. m. 29,600) declares: "The United
Da.nish Ev. Luth. Church in America ha.s alwa.ys in theory been opposed
to the lodge system, especially the Masonic Order, which is a. religious
system without Christ, the only Sa.vior of man. A lodge-member has never
been ordained in our Church_ None of our pa.stors are lodge-members.
Three years ago the a.nnual convention of our synod pa.ssed a. resolution
to the effect that no ca.ndida.te who is a. lOdge-member ca.n be ordained in
our Church, and no pa.stor who is a. lodge-member can serve a.s pa.stor in
The ]i'ilwn-ish NationaZ Ohuroh (c. m. 4,200) says: "The Finnish Na-
tional Church does not testify against the religious principles of the
Ma.sonic or a.ny other lodge. There are pastors a.nd members of the Church
that are a.bsolutely aga.inst them, but the synod has not pa.ssed any reso-
lution concerning the membership of the different lodges."
The Ioelanilio Lutheran Synod, (c. m. 6,009) writes: "The Icela.ndic
Lutheran Synod ha.s taken no notice of the 'lodge question.' No reference
is made to secret societies in the constitution of the synod nor of the
Theological Observer. - aitdJ1idJ.8ettaefdJidJt1~i. 303
COngrega,tiODll. This question has never been raised in the synod.. Many
members of secret organizatioDll are members in good standing in our
However, the most interesting a.nswers are those that come from the
Umted liutherQlll, Oh'Urc1J" of which Dr. Baltzly himself is a member. In
the constitution 'Of the U. L. C. (Art. 8, Sect. 6) the lodge is condemned at
least by description, if not by name. The statement reads: . "The United
Luthera.n Church shall also have the right, where it deems that loyalty
to the Word of God requires it, to advise a.nd admonish concerning associa.-
tion a.nd affiliation with non·ecclesiastical a.nd other organizatioDll whose
principles or practises appear to be incoDllistent with full. loyalty to the
Christia.n Church; but the synods alone shall have the power of discipline."
Dr. F. H. Knubel, in his reply to the letter addressed to him, admitted
that this paragraph referred to the lodge, though also to "much else."
The laxness of the U. L. C. with regard to lodge·membership is, however;
apparent from his declaration "that there exist only a few ofticia.l actioDll
which have a bearing upon the topic." The United Luthera.n Church as
such does not desl with the lodge question, since the "synods alone have
the power of discipline."
But just what is the attitude of these synods! Quite a number of
them at least bar their pastors from membership in lodges.
The German Iilv. L'Ut1J,. Synod of Nebraska has embodied this paragraph
in its Constitution (Art. 9, § 10): "Pastors of our synod must not be
members of any secret society. If pastors participate in unchurchly a.nd
other organizatioDll and become members of them, • . • then Synod shall,
if it deems it advisable and thinks the Word of God demands it, warn a.nd
The Wartb'U'l"g Synod likewise prohibits its pastors to join lodges a.nd
for this purpose has included a paragraph to that effect in its coDlltitution.
President Neumann writes: "In reply ... will say that the constitution
of the Wartburg Synod prohibits membership in the Masonic Lodge to
pastors. None of our clerical members belong to a.ny lodge of a.ny kind."
The Twas Synod has the same provision. President Eberhardt, now
deceased, declares: "Permit me to state that the Texas Synod does not
permit its pastors to be members of any secret society."
The IilngUsh Iilv. L'Uth. Synod of the Northwest, through its president,
Rev. R. H. Gerberding, testifies: "Complying with your request, ... I am
enclosing copy of the coDlltitution of the Synod of the Northwest, with the
paragraph referring to lodge-membership of pastors marked. This rule is
enforced. We have no lodge-members in our ministry, a.nd none ca.n enter
our ranks. . .• The constitution recommended to congregations of our
synod has this among the duties of members of COngrega.tiODll: 'To ab-
stain _ . . from all associatioDll of infidel or doubtful character or which
claim for themselves what God has given to His Church alone.'''
Furthermore, that not all pastors of the altogether lax and indifferent
synods of the U. L. C. are personally in agreement with the practise that
pastors belong to lodges is clear from several letters sent to the above-
named pastoral conference by individual ministers of such synods. One
of them, coming from a very lax synod in PenDllylva.nia, reads: -
"I have never been able to understand how a Lutheran minister could
304 Theological Observer. - Rirdjlidj.3eitgefdjidjUidje~.
be 9. member of any secret order. It might be different in the case of
a minister in some other denomination, but in a deeply doctrinal Church
such as ours I cannot understand how a minister can unite in what seems
to me pagan rites. This is my firm conviction. If all Lutheran ministers
would voluntarily demit from all secret orders, the kingdom of God would
be tremendously advanced."
The Omaha Lutheran concludes with the remarks: "These 'pesky
lodge-qUestion' articles have had, and still are having, their beneficial
effect. Our own people have been enlightened, especially on this subject,
and have been renewed in their faith. Others will be thankful to know
that even great men may err. . .. Sooner or later we shall publish another
article showing that besides the Lutheran Church in America there are
other church-bodies that condemn the lodge."
Pastors dealing with the lodge question ought to order copies of the
Omaha Lutheran. The subject is worth studying. J. T. M.
!illotte, ba nidjtfJ ijinter ift. ~ie iBeteinigung ber ~bangeIifdjen 6L)nobe
bon Worbametifa mit ben iBereinigten f8riibetn unb ber !Reformierlen ~itdje
in ~metifa ift our ~aifadje geltJotben, unb hie bier ijiidjften f8eamten bet
6L)nobe (~tiife$ ~. f8aI~et, ~iaepriife$ ~ . .\>. f8ecfer, 6eftetiit @l. iYifdjet unb
bet 6L)nobaIfdj~meifter ~. f8obe) ijalien iijte ~mter an bie bon bet @leneraI.
fonferena in !Rodjefter, W. g)., erltJiiijrten WadjfoIger abgegeben. ~ijte im
"iYtieben$boten" ltJiebetgegebenen ~bfdjieb$ltJorle unb ,,6egen$ltJiinfdje" finb
beaeidjnenb unb geltJiiijren bem 2efet einen tiefen ~inbncf in ben unionifti.
fdjen @leift bet bi$ijetigen ~bangeHfdjen 6L)nobe bon Wotbametifa. 60
fdjreibt a. f8. P. f8ecfet: ,,~a$ foUen ltJit bon bet in ~u$fidjt genommenen
~tdjenbeteinigung ijarten? f8ebeutet fie nidjt ben ~ob unfeter 6L)uobe ag
foIdjer? ~itb fie nidjt iijre ~bentitiit betHeren? iBedieten benn bie ~affet
be$ IDlonongaijda unb be$ ~UegijanL) iijte Iebenfpenbenbe fuafj: unb iijren
Wu~en, ltJenn fie beim ,3ufammenfIienen in ~itt$butgij, ltJo fie fidj ber.
einigen, um ben ()ijio au bUben, iijre 60nbetnamen ptei$geIien? unb bet
()ijio unb bet IDliffouti, ltJenn fie fidj mit bem IDliffiffippi beteinigen? Wein,
fie bermeijten iijte 2eben$ftaft unb iijre f8taudjbatfeit, inbem fie hie .\>anbeg.
fdjiffe ber Waiion hagen. Unb ltJenn audj mit bem 60nbetnamen unfere
~bentitiit teiIltJeife bedotenaugeijen fdjeint obet ltJitfiidj bedotengeijt, bet.
fidjerl un$ nidjt .bM ~orl be$ .\>eHanb$, ban foIdj felliftIofe .\>ingalie au
gtonem f8taudjbatfeit beftudjtet, ltJenn et fagt: ,~aijtndj, ltJaijdidj, idj
fage eudj: ~$ fei benn, ban bM ~eiaenfotn in hie '~rbe faUe unb erftetbe,
fo bIeib±'$ aUein; ltJo e$ abet etftirbet, fo btinge±'$ bier iYtiidjte'? ~a, bet
,3entner, bet unfetet 6L)nobe anberltaut ift, ltJitb nidjt ijinau$geltJotfen,
ltJenn bie iBeteinigung aUftanbe lommt, fonbetn et ltJitb bem grOnen ~tbeit$'
fapitaI in bet f8anf @lotie$ ijinaugefiigi, bon bet heue !Rentner gefegnete
~ibibenben in einem gottferigen unb griiclfeHgen 2eben aieijen roetben."
~ine foIdje iBetltJenbung bet ~orle bet 6djtift ijeint nidjt$ anbete$ aI$ mit
@lotie$ ~orl feinen 6pott heiben. ~. ~. IDl.
From the Ausgustana Synod. - Last year the Augustana Synod
observed an important anniversary. At its convention it was addressed as
follows by its president, Dr. G. A. Brandelle: "On this occasion I deem
it proper to call the attention of our people to the circumstance that this
year marks the eightieth anniversary of the beginning of the work of the
Augustana Synod in this great and wonderful land of ours. About the
Theological Observer. - aitd)liif) • .8eitllefd)id)tltd)e~. 305
1st of September, 1849, the Rev. Lars Paul Esbjijrn and family accom-
panied by a number of immigrants from Sweden, landed in New York
after an eventful journey of something like two months. In a few weeks
the company reached Andover, Ill. Immediately thereafter Rev. Esbjijrn
took up the work of the preaching of the Gospel to those who h&d come
with him as well as to others who had arrived from Sweden at an earlier
date .. " The outward circumstances of the immigrant community were
hard and bitter in many ways. Their earthly resources were for the most
part very limited; they were strangers in a strange land and unfamiliar
with the customs and language of the same, ha~assed by diseases of various
kinds, and thrown upon their own means and ingenuity as never before.
The task was an appalling one even to the strongest among them. They
tackled it with a determination to win, and the results far outran their
fondest expectations. Victory wa,s wrested from every form of opposition,
prosperity came to them both materially and spiritually. Additional
immigrants arrived and settled in Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, and
in most of the Eastern, Central, and Northern States of the land. In every
Swedish community of any size there was organized a Swedish Lutheran
congregation, until to-day there is not a community of our people of re-
spectable number anywhere in our land that has not a Lutheran congrega-
tion in its midst served by a minister of the Au,,<>"UBtana Synod. Behold
what God hath wrought!"
On coopera,tion of the various Lutheran synods, President Brandelle
says, after having pointed to the recent mergers and rapprochements: "It
should likewise be mentioned that the different Lutheran bodies in Iowa,
Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin, with the exception of one only,
feel the necessity of cooperation in their work and have for this reason
negotiated agreements between themselves with a view of introducing and
furthering close cooperation at all times, so as to eliminate overlapping
and to avoid friction." The one exception, of course, is the Synodical
Conference. We are convinced that a higher law than that of the exigencies
of practical church-work compels us to avoid fraternizing with such as
do not fully accept our teachings. How could we join hands with Augus-
tana as long as it fellowships Archbishop Soederblom?
On the seminary of the Augustana Synod in Rock Island the conven-
tion report, from which we have been quoting, presents interesting informa,-
tion. The semina,ry' has seven professors and last year had 68 post-
graduate and 94 undergraduate students and one special resident graduate,
a total of 165. One is struck by the large number of postgraduate students.
fiinfuljr ber ~ilicl in mufEIQnb lJerliottn. ~ie bOt furaem in mu13~
lanb tDiebet in~ !!Bed gefetlte ~tollaganba fUt ~t~ei~~ ~at ie,t, tDie bet
.. ~Ilologete" beridjtet, bie roeuete lRnful)t bon !8weln in bi~ bom :reufel
gelllagie Eanb unmiiglidj gemadjt. ~et ,,~Ilologete" fdjtewt: ,,!8~ bot
futaem roat e~ nodj miiglidj, in (§inae1fenbungen !8weln nub anbete djrift~
lidje 6djriften nadj ffiu13lanb au fdjiden. ~odj bantu ift e~ ietlt audj botbei.
~ie :rote finb bollfommen gefdjloffen. ~ie IDliffion~gefelIfdjaf± ,Eidjt im
Often', bie b~ lIule~t nodj bide @5enbungen nadj ffiufllanb gelangen Hefl,
306 Theological Observer. - .Ri.d}lid} • .8eitllefd}id}tnd}e~.
roill Hdj nun in bet ~aUj.1tfadje ber ~iffion~arfjeit unter ben /JIiid1tlingen
au£! !Ruf3lanb auroenben." @ana mit !Redjt madjen firdjIidje 8eitfdjriften
barauf aufmerfj'am, baf3 !Ruf3lanb mit feinem immer grimmiger ttlerbenben
!lEfrten gegen bie djriftridje !Religion Die innere Sb:aftlofigfeit be£! Unglau~
ben£! flat bettleift. ~er ~tljei£lmu£! fann fidj nur fo ljalien, baf3 er mit
brutaler @ettlalt aIle !Religion au£!rottet. !lEie bergebIidj aber Die£! Unter~
neljmen ift, ljaben bie frangiififdjen !Rebolutioniften geaeigt. 6elbft ttlelt~
Hdje lBliitter ttleifen barauf ljin, baf3 ber lBolfdjetvi£!mu£l mit feiner religiiifen
lBrutalitiit eine Sb:ife ljerlieifUljren tvirb, Die au feinem Untergang fUljri.
SDie 6t. 20uifer ~age£!aeitung Globe-Demoorat fragt: ,,~er fUnfaigfte @e-
liuri£!tag Z§ofeplj 6talin£!, ber in !Ruf3lanb !lEeiljnadjten abfdjaffte, ttlurbe
bon ben lBolfdjetviften mit grof3em Z§ubel gefeieri; aber mit ttleldjem @!ntlju-
fia£lmu£! ttlitb man ttloljl feinen fedjaigften @eburi£!tag feiern?" Z§.~. IDl.