t 1
-
Continuing
LEiHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LUTH. HOMILETlK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
vol.xm Dece b T , 1942 0.12
CONTENTS Pace
Youth Leadership. P. E. Kretzmann _. _____ .. __ ._ .. _. ________ ... ____ .. _ .................. .... 882
Verbal Inspiration-a Stumbllng-Block to the Jews and Fooli b-
ness to the Greeks. Th. Enr,,1 e _ ... _ .. _ ............ . _ ... __ .. _ ................. 888
Outlines on Old Testament Texts (Synolitcnl Conference) ......... _ 926
List of Text~ or hI' Church r .. _ ... _ .... ___ .. _ ....... _ ........ _ ...... __ ... _. 940
T Il'ologic I 0 rver. - Kirchlich.Zeitge~chichtliches _ .... __ .. _ ...... _ .. 941
001-- '\ iew. - Literatur ._ .......... __ .. _ .. _ ......... _ ................. ........ _._ .... _ ... 954
edlger muss nlc:bi alleln wei-
ft. el" d)e. ~c:hr.fe unter-
'. wi ..:.. .:ch to: C !lrlsten .DlIen
RIn • n dem aucb daneben den Vcel-
feo wehf'en. da .. Ide die Schafe nicht
aogreifeo uod mit falBcher Lehre ver-
fuehren und Irrtum elnfuehren.
Es 1st keln Ding. das die Leute
m cl>". bel der K1rche bebaelt dezm
dij, gute Predlgt. - Apologie. Art. 14
11 the tru'DP t I an \D) tiD
sowld. wh • • llJ)4I'e llJma-d. to
the j:,;,tt.' ,? - 1 ern'. 14:8
blL.hed for the
. S 110 oW'i, Ohio, and Other 'S
USE, St. Louis,
Theolo[' erver - ~ifdjndj~geitgefdjidjmdjd~
The Lutheran Church and Isolation. - At the meeting of Lutheran
editors held this fall Editor H. C. Caspersen of the Lutheran Free Church,
according to a report in the Lutheran Standard, pointed out that there
is a common factor among Lutherans, "namely, our common adherence
to the Augsburg Confession and to Luther's Small Catechism." He
pleaded for "a friendly, sympathetic attitude toward the World Council
of Churches in order to counteract the tendency toward isolation that
has developed in certain countries." In an address which President
Conrad Bergendoff of the Augustana College and Seminary delivered
on the same occasion, he spoke, as the Lutheran Standard reports,
"about the relationship of our Lutheran Church to other ohurohes."
Some of his remarks are summarized in that report as follows, "He
began with the indisputable assertion that in America we Lutherans
shall have to live with Christians of other denominations. Through his
study of American history he has come to understand some of the
problems of the other churches, and he is not so sure that we Lutherans
have solved our own problems much more successfully than other
churches have solved their problems. We Lutherans have been inclined
to meet problems which rise in America with answers which were
worked out in Europe, perhaps centuries ago. Today ... we do not know
where we stand over against other Christians. We arrive at our
attitude toward non-Lutheran churches and ecumenical movements
too quickly and are unwilling to try to discover whether the attitudes
we take fit the real conditions."
What must be our reaction? The Lutheran Church was built on the
principle that the Word of God must be adhered to at all hazards, that
whatever is in keeping with the Scriptures is right and whatever is
against the Scriptures, even if it should be sanctioned by the organized
Church or by hum8n reason or by tradition, is wrong. Every true
Lutheran will agree that that position must be maintained. If such a
course leads to isolation, we regret such an outcome, but we cannot
on that account change our course. Isolation is wrong if it is chosen
on its own account. If it is thrust upon us on account of our adherence
to the Scriptures, we have to bear it cheerfully as a cross which is
unavoidable. At the same time, no true Lutheran should deny that
he owes his fellow men, created by the same God as he, redeemed
by the same precious blood of the Savior, a tremendous debt, that of
acquainting them with the full treasures of Jesus Christ. That obligation,
too, must be discharged. Jesus, we do well to remember, addresses the
Christians as the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He does
not want them to keep their light under a bushel, but to put it on a
lamp stand. In charting our course these various truths must be
borne in mind. A.
Union Resolutions of the American Lutheran Church. - When the
A. L. C. in the first half of October held its biennial meeting in Mendota,
Ill., quite naturally the question of fellowship with other synods formed
a topic of discussion. The A. L. C. has been negotiating with the Mis-
souri Synod about the establishment of fellowship since 1936. Simul-
taneously it carried on negotiations with the United Lutheran Church
of America, although the work was done by two different committees.
As a result of its negotiations with the Missouri Synod the A. L. C.
commissioners drew up the so-called Declaration, in which they stated
the position of their church body on questions on which a statement
was required. The results of its negotiations with the U. L. C. A. were
laid down in the so-called Pittsburgh Agreement, which in its three
paragraphs speaks of the attitude Lutherans should take concerning
lodge membership and unionism and on the doctrine of the inspiration
of the Holy Scriptures. At the convention of the Missouri Synod in
1938 the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod and the Declaration of
the A. L. C. commissioners were declared to constitute a sufficient doc-
trinal basis for future church fellowship. A similar declaration was
made by the A. L. C. at its meeting in Sandusky in the same year.
In 1940 the Missouri Synod commissioners stated that according to their
conviction five factors still prevented the establishment of pulpit and
altar fellowship between the A. L. C. and the Missouri Synod, to wit:
1. The affiliation of the A. L. C. with the other synods forming the
American Lutheran Conference, all of which are not in fellowship
with the Missouri Synod;
2. The affiliation of the Missouri Synod with the other synods of the
Synodical Conference whose consent will have to be sought before the
Missouri Synod can enter into fraternal relations with some other body;
3. Disagreement concerning various points of doctrine or fellowship
caused chiefly by statements in the Sandusky resolutions of the A. L. C.;
4. The approach of the A. L. C. to the U. L. C. A. based on the Pitts-
burgh Agreement which Missouri does not consider adequate;
5. Matters of practice especially such as pertain to lodge membership
and unionism.
When the American Lutheran Conference held its meeting in No-
vember, 1940, at Minneapolis, Minn., the hopes of Missourians that the
A. L. C. would make a strong effort to improve conditions in its sister
synods of the American Lutheran Conference in matters of doctrine
and practice were not realized. The convention of the Missouri Synod
held in Fort Wayne 1941 devoted a good deal of time to a discussion of
the fellowship question. While it was gratefully recognized that the
fellowship negotiations were not in vain, the Synod was convinced that
fellowship between the A. L. C. and the Missouri Synod could not yet
be established. It was resolved, however, to continue the official con-
ferences, and the Committee on Lutheran Union was instructed to draw
up with the A. L. C. commissioners and with representatives of the other
Synodical Conference bodies one common document containing the
articles of doctrinal agreement, because it was felt in many quarters that
the method of bringing about fellowship on the basis of two documents
(the Brief Statement and the Declaration) was not satisfactory. The
resolutions which were adopted by the A. L. C. at its recent meeting form
the next official document which has to be considered in a study of
the fellowship question. We herewith reprint the resolutions:
I
943
Resolutions Adopted by American Lutheran Church
"Intersynodical fellowship is a matter of deep concern to us.
Faithful efforts have been put forth, and considerable progress has been
made. We thank God for His blessings, and we express our appre-
ciation to our brethren who have served on these committees. We offer
the following resolution for adoption:
"WHEREAS, The Committees on Fellowship of the American Lutheran
Church have negotiated with both the United Lutheran Church in
America and the Missouri Synod to the end of establishing Pulpit and
Altar Fellowship with these honorable bodies; and
"WHEREAS, The American Lutheran Church has adopted the Pitts-
burgh Agreement and accepted the Brief Statement of the Missouri
Synod in the light of the Declaration of the Commissioners of the
American Lutheran Church as a basis for pulpit and altar fellow-
ship; and
"WHEREAS, Though these documents-the Pittsburgh Agreement on
the one hand, and the Brief Statement and Declaration on the other-
differ in wording, yet both express the true position of the American
Lutheran Church; and
"WHEREAS, The United Lutheran Church in America has adopted
the Pittsburgh Agreement; and the Declaration of our Commissioners in
connection with the Brief Statement has found acceptance within the
Missouri Synod and was proposed by the intersynodical commissioners
of the Missouri Synod as an integral part of the doctrinal basis for
future church fellowship; and
"WHEREAS, To our regret fellowship has not resulted since appar-
ently in both bodies there are large and influential groups in disagree-
ment therewith:
"Therefore Be It Resolved, That the American Lutheran Church
declare its readiness to establish pulpit and altar fellowship with either
or both of these honorable church bodies on the basis of their full and
wholehearted acceptance of, and adherence to, either of these docu-
ments, in the hope that the existing obstacles may be removed and that
such pulpit and altar fellowship may be declared at an early date;
and therefore, that the Commission on Lutheran unity be continued."
It will be observed that these resolutions do not state whether the
A. L. C. is willing to have its commissioners together with the com-
missioners of the Missouri Synod draw up one common document
setting forth the doctrinal agreement that has been reached. It is
evident that the A. L. C. does not go beyond its resolutions of 1940.
In the Missouri Synod the hope had been entertained that in these
days of doctrinal confusion the A. L. C. would issue a statement con-
stituting a strong trumpet blast in behalf of conservative Lutheranism,
a statement serving notice both to the synods of the American Lutheran
Conference and the U. L. C. A. that the A. L. C. will not endorse laxity
and looseness in doctrine and practice. We are afraid that its resolu-
tions will not be interpreted as having this significance.
The resolutions, it is true, do not justify the statements made in
the public press that the American Lutheran Church and the United
Lutheran Church of America are now joining hands and are estab-
lishing pulpit and altar fellowship. The careful reader will see that
the A. L. C. makes the establishing of fellowship contingent on the
"full and wholehearted acceptance of, and adherence to," the respec-
tive document of agreement. It is well known that in the U. L. C. A.
944
there has been sharp dissent from the position taken in the Pittsburgh
Agreement, and it is difficult to see that in the face of such a dissent
there can be full and wholehearted acceptance of, and adherence to,
this document in the U. L. C. A. in the near future. H the American
Lutheran Church insists on this part of its resolutions, fellowship with
the U. L. C. A. may be a very remote matter. Developments of the next
years will have to show whether the conservative element in the A. L. C.,
which is quite strong, will be able to assert itself and successfully oppose
the wave of unionistic sentiment in its midst, which likewise, sad to
say, does not lack force and numbers. A.
The Federal Council and the U. L. C. A. - The question which con-
fronted the U. L. C. A. convention in Louisville whether it should change
its status in its relations to the Federal Council of Churches and instead
of having a consultative membership advance to full membership was
answered in the negative. There had been a strong movement to make
the U. L. C. A. a full member of the Federal Council. In fact, the
latter organization had invited the U. L. C. A. to take upon itself full
membership in the Council. While we deplore even this consultative
relationship, we are glad to note that the convention declined to accept
the invitation and to accede to the wishes of those who urged full
membership. In the Lutheran Church Quarterly a symposium was
published of prominent U. L. C. A. members expressing their views on
the question that was mentioned above. Some of the contributors said
things which have to grieve a conservative Lutheran. A number of the
writers entirely overlook the fact that in the Federal Council flagrant
denial of precious truths is tolerated, that, for instance, proponents
and signers of the iniquitous Auburn Affirmation with its denial of
things that are absolutely fundamental in the Christian faith hold
membership as well as others that are more positive in their Christian
teachings. One writer advances these five arguments for acceptance
of the Council's invitation: 1. A united spiritual front is needed to
preserve and strengthen the interests and convictions that are peculiar
to Protestantism. 2. The U. L. C. A. ought to have a full share in serving
the country along the lines mapped out by the Council. 3. It ought to
be made plain that the U. L. C. A. "stands for the democratic tradition
in Lutheranism as over against reactionary isolationism." 4. One serves
best by joining one's fellow men in solving the problems that confront all.
5. In this way the cause of Lutheran union will be aided.
The last argument strikes one as particularly strange inasmuch as
several of the contributors take the very opposite view and urge that
on account of the cause of Lutheran union full membership in the
Council should be refused. The writer quoted, who urges full mem-
bership, says, "It is less than honest to plead that we must not join
the Council now, lest it interfere with the progress of Lutheran union
in America. Such a plea serves only to increase the distrust which is
helping to keep American Lutherans divided. If other Lutheran groups
refuse union with us because we hold membership in the Council,
we are dishonest in platming membership after the union has been
effected. Lutheran union can be built only upon the foundation of
absolute honesty and mutual trust. Let us be our best selves then.
t
Theological Observer -- ~HtdjIid)<8eitgefd)id)tIid)es 945
Let us emphasize the democratic, American, co-operative type of
Lutheranism which has always distinguished us at our best. If having
the courage of our convictions, if being our best selves, is going to
stand in the way of Lutheran union, then may the Lord have mercy
on the cause of union. This writer is all out for Lutheran union. But
it is possible to pay too high a price for it." In a similar way a number
of other writers argue for the view that the U. L. C. A. should take
upon itself full membership in the Council.
One of the contributors opposing the move is Dr. O. W. Heick of
Ellis, Kans. He stresses that some of the objectives of the Federal
Council strike "at paragraph 2 of the Pittsburgh Agreement (on Union-
ism) and the Galesburg Rule, which have guided a large section of
the Church in the past. If the U. L. C. A. accepts the invitation to full
membership, the development towards sound confessional Lutheranism
would thereby receive a serious setback. The confessionally-minded
among us will be forced into opposition. All the progress that has been
made since the days of Schmucker's 'American Lutheranism' would be
jeopardized at once. This would spell the end of all hopes of unity
within the Lutheran Church in America. We do not suggest that the
delegates to the Louisville convention should be guided, in any degree, by
a consideration of what is expedient. Union or no union with the
other Lutheran bodies: a vital principle of truth is at stake. By sub-
scribing to the constitution of the Federal Council we would surrender
our right to bear witness to the whole truth of Scripture as proclaimed
in our Confessions over against the peculiarities of the Reformed tra-
dition. The history of the Lutheran Church in Germany is full of
evil portent in this respect. By joining the Deutscher Evangelischer
Kirchenbund, the Lutheran Church first had to tone down, officially,
what is unique in the Wittenberg Reformation, and later it became
almost extinct when, in 1933, the Kirchenbund merged into the Deutsche
Evangelische Kirche. Obsta principiis!" Finally Dr. Heick remarks that
what the Federal Council stands for is chiefly the social gospel. He
correctly says, "Time and again the Council has equated the Kingdom
with a world free of war, guilt, and fear. But the Kingdom is not
humanity refined. It is truly God's kingdom, transcending every achieve-
ment of the human race." Arguments such as those Dr. Heick utters
were effective at the U. L. C. A. convention in Louisville. May God
grant that they are heeded to an ever larger extent in his church body
and outside of it. A.
Is This Lutheran Doctrine? - We were amazed to find the following
paragraphs in an article by Dr. W. H. Greever published in the
Luthemn of September 30, 1942, page 19.
"This sacrament of communion is such because through it Christ
promises His real presence and special communication of Himself to
those who corne to His table in faith. He declares that He makes His
real presence effective to tllem by giving His body and blood to them,
in, with, and under the bread and wine. This gift is not physically
discerned, but is spiritually received, without change in either the
bread or wine with which it is mystically connected.
60
946 Tl . )logical Observer - ,\l:itdi1id)~8eit(Jefd)id)mCf)e~
"The purpose of this sacrament is to bestow the gift of grace by
which faith is confirmed and assurance of forgiveness of sin is attested.
It is essential to the health and vigor of the soul. It is God's continued
assertion of the personal covenant He made with the individual soul
in Baptism."
In His Holy Supper Christ does not merely promise His real
presence to those who come in faith. He actually gives to all partici-
pants, believers or unbelievers, His body and His blood. Does the
Lutheran deny this? Nor is the Lord's Supper essential to the health
and vigor of the soul; else it would have to be given to little children.
T.L.
Rededication to Missions. - The Watchman-Examiner (July 2, 1942)
reports editorially: "Prior to the Cleveland Convention, rumors were cir-
culated among Northern Baptists in certain places that the day of foreign
missions was past because of so many closed doors. The answer to all
this kind of talk was given by the Cleveland meeting. In a unanimous
action, Northern Baptists voted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, We as Northern Baptists believe that the foreign mission
cause is God's cause and that it rests secure in His abiding purpose for
all mankind; and
WHEREAS, The difficult days through which we are now passing have
helped us to see that the world mission of Christ is no fair-weather
enterprise, but the most serious, the most sacrificial, and the most stead-
fast movement in human history; and
WHEREAS, History reveals that in times of stress God has led His
people forward in the extension of His kingdom, this being made possible
because in such times Christians have evidenced a deeper desire to share;
therefore, be it
Resolved, That we as Northern Baptists reaffirm our faith in the
adequacy of Christ for the whole world and the whole of life and in
patience, humility, and love rededicate ourselves to world-wide missions
in His name."
A Lutheran committee on resolutions might in some places have
framed the wording in a somewhat different way. For example, for the
words "The foreign mission cause rests secure in His abiding purpose
for all mankind," we would have said: "It rests secure in His good and
gracious will toward the salvation of all men." Nevertheless, these reso-
lutions, in their general scope, are so praiseworthy that we offer them
here for adoption by our own churches in a form suitable to their
circumstances. Certainly, the day of foreign missions is not past! In
view of Matt. 28: 19, 20 no Christian has a right to take such a defeatist
attitude. Many doors may be closed just now, but (unless Judgment
Day should intervene) we may rest assured that upon our earnest inter-
cessions God again will open them as He sees fit. Christ's last great
commission makes it obligatory upon us to evangelize all nations unto
the end of the world. We are happy to know that also the Northern
Presbyterians at their last general convention adopted similar resolutions
for greater after-the-war foreign mission work. May the spirit of holy
willingness be richly given us for sharing with others the inestimable
treasures of Christ's precious Gospel. J. T. M.
Theological Observer - .Rird)licf)'8citgefd)id)tlid)e~ 947
Financial Figures. - In the NationaL Lutheran Council Bulletin an
article on Lutheran giving appeared which was of more than usual
interest. The contents are well summarized in The Lutheran of
October 21:
"In 1941 the Lutherans of the United States and Canada gave
$58,352,808 for the work of their churches, reports the National Lu-
theran Council. This sum is considerably above the total of recent
years. It was given by 3,573,383 people and averages $16.33 apiece.
"Giving per person has been on the way up among Lutherans.
In 1937 they contributed $13.88 apiece; 1938 - $14.43; 1939 - $15.01;
1940 - $15.13.
"Lutherans of the Augustana Synod are the most generous givers
over this five-year period. Missouri Synod is next; United Danish third,
ATn""i""" Lutherarl fourth. Highest in per capita giving to general
church purposes, other than local congregational expenses, is the Nor-
wegian Lutheran Church of America.
"Lutherans as a whole are slightly above the average of giving
among Protestants of America.
"Lutheran church membership in the United States and Canada
totaled 5,052,321 at the close of 1941."
The Exegesis of PremiHennialists. - In Bibliotheca Sacra an article
which appeared on its pages in 1888 is reprinted in which the position
taken by premillennialists is defended. Speaking of the exegetical
procedure of premillennialists, the writer says, "Whether their con-
clusion be right or wrong, their arguments evidently depend on the
rigid application of the grammatico-historical, inductive method of
interpretation which Bengel in the last century did so much to intro-
duce and which, it is not too much to say, has secured the adhesion
of the chief part of the most eminent exegetes of our day. Pre-
millennialists, therefore, are everywhere marked by the most emphatic
rejection and repudiation alike of the allegorical, the dogmatic, and
the so-called rational systems of interpretation as also of the eschato-
logical conclusions which the application of one or other of these
methods has led men to adopt."
Weare willing to believe that premillennialists desire faithfully to
follow the Scriptures in their teachings, but when their exegetical
methods are spoken of, we have to point out that in these methods
there becomes apparent a sad inconsistency in adherence to