nurnrbtu
UJqtnlngirul ly
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. XII February, 1941 No.2
CONTENTS Page
Faith. Ed. Koehler 81
Luther's Spiritual Martyrdom and Its Appeasement. Theo. Dierks 102
Teaching Situations, Outlines, and Lesson Plans. P. E. IuetzmnlUl 108
Some Observations on the Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel.
R. T. Du Hrau _____ ... ___ . _________________ .... ___ .. ________ 114
Outlines on the Wuerttemberg Gospel Selections __________ . __________________ 118
Miscellanea ___________ .. _______________________________ . __ .. __ _________ ___________________________________________ 126
Theological ObserveI'. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ______________ .. ____ 139
Book Review. - Literatur ______________________________________________________________________ 153
Em Predlger muss nJcht allein wel-
den, also dass er die Schafe unter-
weise. wle sie rechte Christen Bollen
sein. sondern auch daneben den Woel-
fen Ibelmm, dass sie die Schafe nicht
angrelfen und mit faIscher Lehre ver-
fuehren und Irrtum einfuehren.
Luther
Es 1st keln Ding, das die Leute
mehr bel der Klrche behaelt denn
die gute Predigt. - Apolol1le, Art. 24
If the trumpet give an uncertain
sound. who shall prepare himself to
the battle? -1 COT. 14:8
Published for the
Ev. Lutb. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
Theological Observer - .reitd)ltd)',8eitgefd)td)tltd)es 139
Theological Observer - ~ifdjlidj • .8eitgefdjidjtlidje~
The Resolutions of the U. L. C. A. Pertaining to Lutheran Union.-
We reprint here the recommendations made at Omaha last October by
the U. L. C. A. Commission on Relationships to American Lutheran
Church-bodies.
"1. We recommend that the United Lutheran Church in America, in
convention assembled, approve the three Articles of Agreement with the
American Lutheran Church submitted with this report, believing that,
when similarly approved by that body, they wi11lead to full pulpit- and
altar-fellowship between us.
"2. We recommend that the United Lutheran Church in America
approve in principle the considerations set forth in the second section of
this report, herewith recording its understanding that the three Articles
of Agreement herewith submitted do not in any wise alter the funda-
mental positions of the United Lutheran Church in America and that
they are not contrary to, or contradictory of, the positions set forth in
the Washington Declaration of 1920, the Savannah Resolutions of 1934,
or the Baltimore Declaration of 1938.
"3. We recommend that the United Lutheran Church in America
continue its Commission on Relationships to American Lutheran Church-
bodies with a view to the organic union of all our Lutheran forces in
America, on the basis of our Lutheran Confessions alone."
The three Articles of Agreement referred to in these recommenda-
tions are the so-called Pittsburgh Agreement, dealing with lodge-mem-
bership, pulpit- and altar-fellowship, and the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures. All three recommendations were adopted, although the first and
the second did not receive unanimous approval. After the above action
had been taken the following additional resolutions were adopted:
"WHEREAS, The agreements reached by the Commission on Relation-
ships with American Lutheran Church-bodies and the similar commis-
sion of the American Lutheran Church have been approved by this con-
vention; and
"WHEREAS, Said agreements involve statements on matters of prac-
tice and doctrine which, the commissioners of the American Lutheran
Church have represented, were the only matters of difference between
our two bodies and the only obstacles to the establishment of pulpit-
and altar-fellowship between said bodies; and
"WHEREAS, The United Lutheran Church in America has not recog-
nized heretofore, and does not recognize now, any obstacle to the estab-
lishment of pulpit- and altar-fellowship or even to organic union with
the American Lutheran Church; now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the United Lutheran Church in America, That it
hereby declares itself ready to establish pulpit- and altar-fellowship
with the American Lutheran Church and authorizes the President to
declare such fellowship established upon the adoption by the American
Lutheran Church of a resolution of like effect; and be it further
140 Theological Observer - .!!'hd)nd)'.3ettoercf)td)Uicl)e~
"Resolved, That the United Lutheran Church in America hereby re-
iterates its request to the American Lutheran Church to authorize its
commission, or appoint another commission, to negotiate with our com-
mission with a view to the organic union of our two church-bodies;
and be it further
"Resolved, That the President be, and hereby is, instructed to bring
these resolutions to the attention of the American Lutheran Church at
the earliest possible moment, so that it may have them for consideration
at its convention now in session in Detroit."
Dr. Reu (Ki1'chliche Zeitschrift, December, 1940) comments as follows:
"Auf diese letzten drei Beschluesse bezog es sich - und nicht auf
die d1'ei Saetze des Pittsburgh Agreement, wie man aus dem Bericht des
Lutheran (30. Okt., S.21) schliessen musste - dem Pittsburgh Agree-
ment stimmten Bagger, Krauss und Miller zu; sie waren ja Glieder der
PittsbW'gher Kommission; die Delegaten der Zentral-Permsylvania-
Synode dagegen werden zu denen gehoert haben, welche gegen dies
Agreement stimmten - werm in del' Schlusssitzung am 16. Oktober drei
Glieder del' Pittsburgher Kommission: Dr. H. Bagger, Paul Krauss und
Clarence Miller, und die 70 Delegaten der Zentral-Permsylvania-Synode
unter del' Fuehrung ihres Praesidenten Dr. M. R. Hamsher ihren Dis-
sensus zu Protokoll gaben. Sie gaben ihn gesondert, weil sie offenbar
aus ganz verschiedenen Gruenden diesen letzten drei Beschluessen nicht
zustimmten."
After Dr. Reu has reported the action of his own synod, the American
Lutheran Church, on relations to the U. L. C. A. and on future negotia-
tions in general (see CONe. THEOL. MONTHLY, Dec. 1940) , he submits these
comments, which should be made lrnown to our readers:
"Was soIl en wir zu all dies em sagen? Wir freuen uns natuerlich von
ganzem Herzen, dass die Vereinigte Luthel'ische Kirche die drei Saetze
des Pittsburgh Agreement mit grosser Majoritaet angenommen hat, und
erkerm(m darin auch wirldich einen Beweis dafuer, dass das konservative
Element in diesel' Kirche erstarkt ist, wofuer wir besonders Praesident
Dr. Knubel zu dank en haben. Abel' die Wahrheit verlangt es auch, zu
sagen, dass diese unsere Freude doch noch durch allerlei getruebt ist.
Del' erste Beschluss billigt wohl das Pittsburgh Agreement, fuehrt aber
mit der Hinzufuegung des Partizipialsatzes "believing that [the adoption
of the Agreement] will lead to full pulpit- and altar-fellowship between
us" einen eigentuemlichen Grund fUel' diese Billigung ein. Zur Annahme
des Pittsburgh Agreement sollte nul' eins fuehren, naemlich die Ueber-
zeugung, dass es mit del' Schrift stitmnt. Kirchenpolitische Gesichts-
punkte sollten dabei entweder ueberhaupt nicht in Betracht kommen
odeI' doch nul' in ganz sekundaerer Weise. Hier ist es del' einzige Grund,
del' erwaehnt wird. Nun haben ganz gewiss viele fUel' die Annahme del'
Saetze gestimmt, weil sie von ihrer Schriftgemaessheit ueberzeugt sind,
abel' genarmt ist nul' die Hoffnung auf die aus del' Annahme resultierende
Aufrichtung von Kanzel- und Altargemeinschaft.
"Auch del' zweite Beschluss enthaelt Elemente, die einen stutzig
machen. Damit, dass er sagt: We 'approve in principle the consideration
set forth in the second section of this report,' scheint er die Annahme
Theological Observer - .Ritdjndj'3eHoef(~i(~tH41es 141
q,erselben doch stark einzuschraenken. Man wird aber noch mehr
stutzig, wenn man die Fortsetzung des zweiten Beschlusses liest:
"'Herewith recording its understanding that the three Articles of
Agreement herewith submitted do not in any wise alter the fundamental
positions of the United Lutheran Church in America and that they are
not contrary to, or contradictory of, the positions set forth in the Wash-
ington Declaration of 1920, the Savannah Resolutions of 1934, or the Bal-
timore Declaration of 1938.'
"SolI das heissen, dass das Pittsburgh Agreement nUl' eine durch die
Verhaeltnisse wuenschenswert gewordene weitere Ausfuehrung des im
Konstitutionsparagraphen niedergelegten Bekenntnisstandpunktes ist und
dass auch del' im Pittsburgh Agreement enthaltene Satz ueber die
Schrift zwar ueber die bekannte Baltimore Declaration von 1938 hinaus-
geht, abel' doch nicht in Widerspruch zu ihr steht? Sci moechte es die
Liebe auslegen, und wenn diese Auslegung richUg ist, wuerde del' zweite
Beschluss sein Befremden verlieren. Eines will bloss nicht recht dazu
stimmen, naemlich del' Umstand, dass die Baltimore Declaration gerade
im Unterschied und Gegensatz zu del' damals schon von uns vorgelegten
Form 'ohne Irrtum und Widerspruch' angenommen wurde, waehrend
man jetzt zu dem 'irrtumslos' sich bekennt. Ich kann sehr gut die
Ruecksichten verstehen, die zur Vorlegung dieses zweiten Beschlusses
gefuehrt haben, aber sie scheinen mil' wieder auf kirchenpoUtischem Ge~
biet zu liegen, und Ruecksichten solcher Art sollten in Dingen, von
denen das Agreement handelt, nicht bestimmend wirken. Sie schaffen
auch keine wirkliche Ueberzeugung, und nul' feste Ueberzeugungen wer-
den das auf diesem Gebiet nicht immer leichte praktische Handeln er-
zeugen und zum Beharren dabei fuehren. So, wie del' zweite Beschluss
lautet, kUngt er aIs eine Einschraenkung des ersten, und del' kuenftige
Kirchenhistoriker, del' einerseits das Handeln in Baltimore genau kennt
und Einsicht in das Protokoll unserer letzten Sitzung in Pittsburgh
nimmt, wird schwerUch andel'S urteilen koennen. Das Pittsburgh Agree-
ment ist in seinen ersten zwei Saetzen allerdings nul' Wiederaufnahme
del' entsprechenden Washingtoner Erklaerung, aber in seinem dritten
Satz, del' Ausfuehrung ueber die Schrift, geht es in dem Sinn ueber die
Baltimore Declaration von 1938 hinaus, dass hier ausgesprochen wird, was
auszusprechen man sich in Baltimore noch geweigert hat. Wie gut und
notwendig war es unter diesen Verhaeltnissen, dass es von unserer eige-
nen Kirche in Detroit unmissverstaendIich ausgesprochen worden ist, in
welchem Sinn und Umfang sie dem Pittsburgh Agreement zustimmt:
'with the definite conviction that this agreement is in complete harmony
with our Declaration and the Brief Statement.'
"Am dritten Beschluss faellt auf, dass die Kommission del' Vereinig-
ten Lutherischen Kirche mit allen andern lutherischen Kirchenkoerpern
'with a view to organic union' verhandeln solI. Hier verfolgt man ein
Ziel, das wenigstens vorderhand noch phantastisch und vielleicht fuel'
immer bedenklich ist. Jedenfalls hat unsere Kirche durch ihre Kom-
mission von Anfang an erklaert, dass sie mindestens zur Zeit an keine
organische Verbindung mit andern Kirchenkoerpern denkt, und die be-
142 Theological Observer - .Ritd.J1Id.J~8eitgefd.J\dJtlIdje!l
schlossene, aber noch zu ernennende neue Konunission hat keine Autori-
taet, in dieser Richtung zu handeln. VerstaendUch ist, dass als Basis fuer
solche Unionsverhandlungen nichts anderes als die historischen Be-
kenntnisse der lutherischen Kirehe dienen sollen. Es bleibt bloss die
Frage, was damit gemeint ist. SolI das heissen: Der Umstand, dass ein
lutherischer Kirchenkoerper nach seiner Konstitution auf den symboli-
schen Buechern WlSerer Kirche steht, ist ausreichende Grundlage, auf der
man sieh mit ilun organisch zusammenschliesst; oder soIl damit eine
gegenseitige Vergewisserung verbunden sein, dass die doctrina publica
und das kirehliche Handeln der in Betracht kommenden Kirchenkoerper
den Bekenntnisschriften unserer Kirche entspricht? In welcher Form
diese Vergewisserung vor sich geht, ist von geringer Bedeutung, sie
seIber aber ist unerlaesslieh. 0 wie wuerden wir uns gefreut haben,
wenn die Omaha-Beschluesse nicht so bedenkliche Limitationen in sich
zu tragen schienen; und wie wuerden wir Gott danken, wenn sie in der
gesamten lutherischen Kirche unsers Landes - auch bei uns seIber fehlt
es vielfach - ohne Einschraenkung durchgefuehrt wuerden!" A.
The "Journal of Theology" Report on the Fifth Biennial Convention
of the American Lutheran Conference. - As many of our readers know,
the Journal of Theology is the official organ of the American Lutheran
Conference. It is edited by a committee on which the various synods
composing the American Lutheran Conference are represented. Its
editor-in-chief at present is Dr. J. M. Bruce of the seminary of the Nor-
wegian Lutheran Church at St. Paul, Minn. In the December number
of the Journal, on three and one half pages, an account is given of the
events at the meeting of the American Lutheran Conference held Novem-
ber 13-15 at Minneapolis, Minn. We submit some of the chief items.
The convention was opened with a divine service on Wednesday
morning, November 13, in which the sermon was preached by Dr. E. E.
Ryden, the president of the body. In the various devotional services,
addresses on topics pertaining to doctrine or the religious life of the
Church were delivered. The subjects discussed in these addresses were:
"Open Doors for the Church in the World Today"; "Dangers to the
Church in the World Today"; "The Hope of the Church in the World
Today." At a fellowship banquet Dr. Conrad Bergendoff, president of
the Augustana College and Theological Seminary, Rock Island, TIl., spoke
on the topic "The Lutheran Church in Today's World." The officers of
the American Lutheran Conference as elected at this convention are:
President, Dr. E. E. Ryden, Rock Island, TIl.; First Vice-President, Rev.
Alfred Wilkie, Minneapolis; Second Vice-President, Rev. Clarence J.
Carlson, Minot, N. Dak.; Third Vice-President, Rev. Karl Wilhelmsen,
Racine, Wis.; Secretary, Rev. L. M. Stavig, Northfield, Minn. Subjects
discussed on the basis of committee reports were: "Church Unity";
"Student Service"; "Parish Education"; "Social Relations"; "Home Mis-
sions." Since the American Lutheran Conference has now been in exis-
tence for a decade, anniversary addresses were given by Dr. P. O. BerseH,
president of the Augustana Synod, speaking on the subject "Ten Years
of Fellowship in the American Lutheran Conference," and Dr. T. F. Gul-
lixson, president of Lutheran Theological Seminary (Norwegian),
Theological Observer - SUtd)tid)'8eitgefd)idjttl!()e§ 143
St. Paul, Minn., on the subject "The American Lutheran Conference in
the Future."
An editorial in the same nwnber of the JOU'rIUlJ contains a few
paragraphs which we here reprint because they are the nearest approach
to a discussion of the difficulties confronting the Conference that we
find in this issue. "From expressions heard in private conservation and
in groups, it was evident that many had come to this convention with
more or less pronounced misgivings as to the character, success, and
results of the convention. We are confident, however, that no one left
this meeting without a sense of gratefulness to God for the heartening
fellowship enjoyed, the fine spirit that prevailed, and the significant ac-
complishments achieved. No one could leave the convention without the
feeling that it had brought Lutherans of five independent church-bodies
affiliated in the Conference to understand one another better, to ex-
perience an increased sense of unity of spirit and a recognition of the
fact that a closer and wanner bond of fellowship had been established
between them. The convention was in the best sense a love-feast,
a cloud-remover, and a workshop. Whatever misgivings and doubts may
have been entertained beforehand seemed to vanish like dew before
the sun as the convention advanced from session to session. The voices
of the few fearful members which voiced warnings and tabus, restraint
and repression, were soon silenced, not by rebuke or censure, but by
the very spirit that prevailed and gradually placed its spell over all.
Even the voice of a rather officious and superior-minded church official,
who rolls out his words with ponderous accents on every syllable, even
when uttering the most puerile thoughts, and pours contempt and scorn
on the opinions and work of others, tapered off materially from session
to session as the impact of the real convention spirit made itself felt with
increased power and effect.
"One clerical representative came to us and confided that he had
prayed much for this convention, saying that he had prayed God to give
the Scandinavians and the Germans sense enough to part company, for
they were not of the same spirit. We assured him that God would not
hear such prayers, and we are confident that the last day of the con-
vention especially vindicated our assertion. We need not close our eyes
to racial differences or to differences in traditional, cultural, and re-
ligious backgrounds, for knowledge and recognition of these should
enable us to evaluate one another more correctly and deal with one
another more intelligently and sympathetically; but we need to empha-
size the barrier-destroying, unifying, equalizing, and harmonizing power
of the Spirit of God more, so that the oneness in Christ, the communion
of saints, which we confess, may become more apparent and effective
in our mutual relations."
It will be noticed that this report, like the one we submitted last
month, makes no mention of any earnest endeavor to come to grips
with the questions pertaining to doctrine and practice which agitate
the Church at present. We cannot understand the course which is being
followed. How can true unity be established if there is no discussion of
great pending issues? A.
144 Theological Observer - mn~Ucl)'.Beltoefcl)td)tlicl)el)
What Constitutes Unionism? - Under this heading the Australasian
Theological Review (July-September, 1940) which just reached our desk
contains a brief but exceedingly lucid and infonning "help toward the
solution of the very real, very perplexing, and very painful difficulties"
arising in connection with the problem of unionism, by the able pen
of Prof. Henry Hamann. Defining unionism (syncretism) as the "estab-
lishment or practice of religious fellowship where theTe exists 11,Q true
union based on doctrinal and confessional unity," the essayist first states
five "fundamental Scripture axioms" that must be considered at this
point, namely: 1. Only Scripture is the source and norm of all teaching
in the Church; 2. the Church must be a confessing body, declaring all
truth of God and Christ and rejecting, and bearing witness against, all
erl'Or; 3. no one has the right to teach otherwise in the Church than
God's Word teaches; 4. persistent false teaching, continu~d against all
protests, instruction, and admonition, must at last lead to separation,
either through the withdrawal of the orthodox from the heterodox or
through the exclusion of the hetel'Odox from the orthodox Church,
where toleration of the error, in the sense of bearing with the weakness
of some members, is no more possible; 5. such separation excludes or
precludes church-fellowship on the part of the two factions now repre-
sented, that is to say, the mutual recognition by word and (or) deed
as Christian brethren and members of onc spiritual family. Judging
according to these principles, Professor Hamann next tabulates "what
is always and necessarily unionism," namely: 1. church union without
doctrinal and confessional unity; 2. pulpit-fellowship, or the exchange
of pulpits, on the part of those differing in doctrine and confession,
though not every filling of a heterodox pulpit by an orthodox preacher is
unionistic; 3. altar-fellowship, that is, "open," or ''mixed,'' Communion,
since Holy Conununion is justly regarded as a symbol of unity (1 Cor.
10: 16, 17); 4. union services, united services, combined services, of every
kind., participation by pastor or congregation in such services; 5. united
prayer on the part of officials or representatives of various churches;
6. the support of heterodox churches and missions and of union en-
deavors which are evidently of a religious nature; 7. remaining in
heterodox bodies and in communion with them in spite of better knowl-
edge. "All these and similar instances constitute unionism, since they
represcnt a public and official exercise of church-fellowship or religious
fellowship."
The writer, however, readily admits that sometimes there is room
for doubt even if there is public or even official connection with heterodox
or unionistic bodies. Here the principle obtains: "Not the external
presence, contact, or connection but the unwarranted fellowship is to
be avoided." The canon applies: "WhateveT cleeLrl1J violates our duty to
confess the tndh, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the
divine W01'd, and hence also violates the corresponding dut1J to denounce
and j'eject ever1J en'or opposed to theLt truth; wheLtever compromises or
contradicts our confession of the truth and, on the other hand, invali-
dates, nullifies, ?'enders of no effect, ou?' protest against error; what-
ever assigns to error equal place eLnd equal right with truth; whatever
clearl1J creates the imp1'ession of church-fellowship, of full agreement
Theological Observer - .Rtr(~nd),geltgtfd]ld)mcl)tll 145
and harmony, where these do not exist, - all this is plainly unionism,
indiiJeren.tism, syncretism." (Italics ours.) So also in the case of
"unionism in the private conduct of Christians": "There can be no ques-
tion oj unionism where the presumption oj unwarranted church-fellow·
ship or religious jellowship, or the presumption oj the toleration of error,
cannot in reason and in fairness arise." (Italics original.) "If, thus, I am
in some one's house (some one's not in communion willi me) or he is
a guest in my house, I cannot see the least justification to excuse myself
at that stage or to show by an attitude of studied indifference or non-
attention that I dissociate myself from the proceedings." "The parties
are meeting not as members of differing church-bodies but as relatives
or friends, or their relation is for the present merely that of host and
guest, and usually the matter of church-fellowship, of confession and
doctrine, does not at all arise." If against this, the charge of "fellowship
in prayer" is raised, such fellowship is "merely external," for here no
"establishment of religious fellowship is contemplated or insinuated or
indicated or consummated, and no such purpose can even be presumed."
"Of course, in the circumstances spoken of, situations may arise that
would require us to act differently. 1fI have reason to suspect that my
host or my guest considers my conduct as equivocal or that he thinks
I am dealing with him on a basis of real fellowship instead of merely
accepting a situation from which I cannot in decency escape, then it is
my duty to disabuse his mind of this mistake. Or suppose that my host
and I had been discussing questions of doctrine and after tea he were
to say to me: 'After all, these doctrines are of little consequence; let us
show that we still acknowledge each other as good Christians and
brothers in the common faith by uniting in reading the Scriptures and in
offering prayer,' at once the circumstances would be materially altered.
I should find myself in statu confessionis, and it would be my duty to
say, 'Quod noni'"
In the concluding paragraph (the article is by far too long to be
quoted extensively) Professor Hamann writes: "I believe that there are,
and always will be, situations where the decision as to whether unionistic
practice is involved is both difficult and doubtful, with the consequence
that there may be a difference of opinion among orthodox Lutheran theo-
logians; for we are now dealing with a practical question, involving the
application (italics original) of certain Scripture-truths to new sur-
roundings and to a great number of changing and shifting circumstances.
It follows that various incidents which may from time to time have to be
examined jor unionistic implications belong to the field of casuistry and
that something will often have to be left to the individual conscience."
(Italics ours.) "This is not to say that uniformity of practice is not
desirable and should not be aimed at."
Professor Hamann's essay on unionism is valuable not only because
it clearly defines the essence of unionism, but also because it shows that
the fact or occurrence of unionism must not be judged in a mechanical
or external manner, as if a mere accidental juxtaposition of orthodoxy
and heterodoxy constituted this offense, and again, that on this point
we are dealing with a practical question, involving the application of
10
146 Theological Observer - .lth(I)lidj.,lJeitllefdjidjttldjell
Scripture-truths to new surroundings, so that "something will often have
to be left to the individual conscience." Professor Hamann thus com-
bines in splendid harmony the full rigor which God's Word demands on
this point with that charity which we owe a brother or sister under
given difficult circumstances, always remembering, however, that uni-
formity of practice is highly desirable and should always be aimed at,
for which reason the question should have our constant prayerful study.
His detailed description of unionism (given above in italics) is, we be-
lieve, classic both as substance and form. J. T. M.
Vagueness in Doctrinal Statements. - The following appeared in the
TheologicaL Forum (Norwegian Lutheran Church) in 1934 (October issue
p.1S7). Our readers will understand why we call attention to it at the
present time.
"One of the grave dangers that are threatening the Christian Church
today is that many who profess to be its members no longer accept the
Bible as God's inspired Word. Even among Lutherans strange sounds
are sometimes heard regarding this subject. 'There are some Lutheran
theologians who find it rather difficult to declare unequivocally their
exact position on the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. To
some of these it seems an unpleasant task to make their position clear,
and often the distinction in sounds is such that it is impossible to say
what has been piped or harped (1 Cor. 14: 17).' " E.
Is the Pope the Antichrist?-The Journal of the American Lutheran
Conference, December, 1940, says on page 875: "The early reformers be-
lieved the Pope to be the Antichrist. Now, we know that the Pope may
have belonged to the antichristian system, but he was not the final Anti-
christ. Two reasons suffice. First, the evil Popes have come and gone,
and the world still goes on. Secondly, the Popes admitted there was
a God, and the final Antichrist will not admit any God besides himself.
The final Antichrist wUl be atheistic in spirit. It may be that the final
Antichrist will be a Pope who will go farther than any of his predecessors
and will claim divinity for himself.
"Communism of today fits this description of the final Antichrist
better than does the pre-Reformation Papacy. But we are not safe in
saying definitely that this prophecy is fulfilled in its entirety today.
We cannot tell. We shall not know untU the Son of Man Himself de-
scends from heaven with a shout. The final Antichrist may arise from
the line of prelates in Rome, a more iniquitous figure than any Reforma-
tion Age Pope. It may be that he will arise out of Communism or out
of Fascism. Had the end come in Luther's time, Christ would un-
doubtedly have considered the Pope as sitting in the temple of God, as
the Antichrist. Had Christ come during the eighteenth century, He
would have found the spirit of Antichrist in the likes of Voltaire and the
Encyclopedists. If Christ comes today, Communism with its opposition
to Christianity and to all religion except the worship of Lenin would
be the Antichrist. But Christ may postpone His return, and in latter
times a more literal fulfilment of the prophecy may be apparent,"
One statement in the above is correct, that of the opening sentence.
The "early reformers" certainly taught that "the Pope is the very Anti-
christ." (Smale. Art., n, Art. IV, § 10.) E.
147
Orphaned Missions. - This is a term used to designate those missions
in foreign cOWltries which are cut off from their home base. It refers
particularly to German and Scandinavian Lutheran missions, which on
account of the war can no longer receive supplies from the home Church.
That the men and women who carryon the work of these missions are
facing or even enduring dreadful sufferings is not surprising. In our
Synod moneys are being gathered to help these people in their physical
distress. In Lutheran circles outside of the Synodical Conference an
agency has been organized called Lutheran World Action. It represents
the bodies sponsoring the Lutheran World Convention, and its aim is
to assist orphaned missions. Mr. Paul E. Empie, assistant director of the
Lutheran World Action, in the News Bulletin of the National Lutheran
Council, has published information on conditions in the orphaned mis-
sions which we herewith submit to our readers. Mr. Empie writes:
"Lutherans in America who are joining together in their efforts to
rescue orphaned Lutheran missions are mindful of the dire circumstances
existing in these missions and ask us continually with deep concern,
'What are the conditions over there at the present time?' We cannot
always answer to their satisfaction. Letters are infrequent, and authentic
information is rare. This is a case where the old adage 'No news is
good news' does not apply. We know that ordinary channels of com-
munication have been cut off, that special eharmels are expensive and
uncertain. We think nothing of writing a letter to a friend but should
not forget the instance told us during the Emergency Appeal of the
missionary in China who had to use his last few pounds of rice in order
to purchase an air-mail stamp. Few of us have ever had to count
pennies like that!
"Two letters from the mission-fields arriving in New York about the
beginning of December provide illustrations of the present circumstances.
One coming from Canton, China, and signed by a missionary says in
part: 'I beg to apologize for not having written to you earlier to express
my hearty thanks for the kind assistance which you rendered for the
work of the Berlin missionaries in China. . ., May I assure you that
without your help we would not have been able to continue our work.
Your kind attitude brought us new hope and made us sure of the
fellowship of the Christian communion, which cannot be destroyed ....
Some time it seemed to us rather hopeless to carryon, as we even had
not the minimum to meet our expenses for living, not to say of what
the work required. . .. The Chinese people suffer unutterably; starva-
tion is quite common and help insufficient.'
"The other letter came from the Danish mission at Beirut in Syria,
a portion of which was written in late August. The following are
extracts from a very lengthy description of the work and conditions:
'You will no doubt be wondering why you do not receive more word
from Syria, but perhaps you realized before this that the ordinary mail
routes have been interrupted ever since May. Now and then we receive
a letter by air mail, but for the most part we are in the dark about what
is going on in America. I fear the same may be true of you in reference
to us. . .. We were greatly cheered [in receiving a letter] about the
aim of the Lutheran Church to secure $20,000 for the year for Syria.
148 Theological Observer - mt~nd)~>13eit\1efd)\d)tHdfe§
You have no idea how happy this word made the Danish missioilaries
when we had the privilege of passing it on to them.
"'We have received no support from Denmark since the early spring
of this year. . •. The medical work has been continued all through the
summer by keeping the out-patient department open and taking in the
most urgent cases. At the end of the summer vacation the hospital will
open normally, and we hope to open all our schools as welL This is
made possible only by the willingness of the Syrian mission-workers to
begin the new year without any promise of salaries. . .. We hope and
pray that God will make it possible for us to continue mission-work
here. No other Protestant mission is working here in these parts.
"'Bird's Nest is the name of a lovely home by the seashore of
Djaubeil, Lebanon. There the Danish Women's Missionary Board has
been caring for Armenian children from the most miserable and starving
families.' (Here a description is given of the school classes, infirmary
and internal routine of this fine institution. - ED.)
"'In April this year we suddenly found ourselves cut off from any
communication with our native country and ow' Missionary Board.
Later we received word through the International Red Cross that it
was impossible for them to send US help of any kind; so we had to face
the sad task of cutting down the work and perhaps closing the home
altogether. . .. We know that every child we are sending out will go
back again to misery and suffering of many kinds. . .. Most of the
children are sick and undernourished when they come, unable ~ play
and laugh; but many of them soon grow healthy and beautiful; it is
a joy to see them develop. . .. It has been a very hard task to decide
which of our 260 children should be sent out. Again and again each
child's case was examined, and about 120 of the oldest were sent to
relatives. The family conditions of the rest were such that we could not
bear to send them out; we decided to keep them as long as we had
something for them to eat. Most of those who were sent out are now
in great distress; many of them are again sick and hungry and live
mostly in the streets because the street is better than the small, airless
hole which is supposed to be th~ir home. They beg us to take them
back, and we have already taken some because we could not bear to see
their dark, begging eyes filled with tears while clinging to us, ...
and constant prayer "Oh, please take me back!" is constantly ringing
in our ears.
"'It is not uncommon that children drop from the school-bench
fainting from hunger. Many of them get only a piece of bread in the
morning and stay over in school, having the same and maybe a tiny
bit of cheese or a few olives.
"'I would like my readers to see for themselves the Armenian
refugee camp, with all its huts made up of old rubbish. Each family
has only one small room, which serves as bedroom, kitchen, and alL
No bedstead is found; all sleep on the floor. Rats and mice are frequent
guests. Insects are iImumerable and intolerable. The water is scarce
in the summer-time, but in the winter-time the camp is a pool of mud
and dirt. But in spite of misery and poverty the Armenians are doing
their best to survive and progress.'''
Theological Ob,server - .!l'\rd)ltclH3ettoefcf)ict)tltd)ell 149
It is impossible to read messages like the above without being deeply
touched. Whatever we can do to alleviate such misery we should not
hesitate to undertake. It is true, of course, that we must not assist in
the spreading of error; but where there is actual physical suffering,
we cannot withhold our help. A.
The Situation in .Japan and Korea. - On account of the attitude
of the Japanese government Christian missions in Japan and Korea are
in great distress. One burden laid upon them is government action which
demands that the disunion of Protestant churches cease and that there
be one Protestant Church-an action obedienoe to which, it seems, must
involve indifference to confessional teachings.
The Presbyterian of the South (quoted in the Presbyterian) made
this statement: "To anticipate government action, forty Japanese repre-
sentatives of various Protestant churches met in Tokyo on August 27,
to discuss amalgamation of the different denominations, the cessation of
financial help from abroad, the elimination of foreign missionaries, and
Japanese missionary work in Manchukuo