Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 2-2 (Text)

. . (t!nurnr~iu IDqtnlngirul 4nut41y Continuing Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI) Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LIV) Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920) -Theol. Monthly (Vol. X) Vol. II February, 1931 No.2 CONTENTS PIEPER, F.: Dr. Friedrich Bente ........................ . MUELLER, J. T.: Atheistic Propaganda in Our Country KRETZMANN, P. E.: Das Schicksal der letzten Koenige Judas .................................................. . KRETZMANN, P. E.: The Last Twenty-five Years of Page 81 87 95 Peter's Life ............................................ 105 LAETSCH, TH.: Sermon Study on 1 Cor. 1, 21-31.. . . . .. 115 Dispositionen ueber die von der Synodalkonferenz ange- nommene Serie alttestamentlicher Texte............... 124 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ...... 131 Book Review. - Literatur .................................. 151 Ein Prediger muss nicht allein weiden, also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie sie rechte Christen 80llen sein, 80ndem auch daneben den Woelfen wehr(J1l, dass sie die Schafe nicht angreilen und mit falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein· fuehren. - Luther. Es ist kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kirche behaelt denn die gute Predigt. - Apologie, Art. 24. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle Y 1 Cor. 4,8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo . II ,Wlenfdjen. ;Dutdj Me C§tfenntni£l feinet Eiebe witH et @egenHebe, 1~o~.4,i9; S,iff. 5illeH eben aUdn bet 5illeiVc£ljame bet @ldjlange ben S\'opf 3et±teicn, Wen aUein ba£l ~ott bom S\'teUil un£l bom @latan befteien unb au 0.lotte£l S\'inbem madjen fann, wa£l aubet£l luoUen loit jJtebigen af£l anciu ¥~~(!ifunt, ben 0.lefteuaigten? 0.lott fegnc Dieie ~tebigt an unfet arrct . ~etaen! ~ 5 • :it. Q. Theological Observer. - SNrdjndj~geitllefdjidjtlidje~. 1. ,2(merika. eHtiertte~ ~ttliiIiilt11t unferer ftttijerifdJett SHrdje itt ll!rrrellthtien. ltntet bicfet ftocrfdjrift ocridjtete ba£l "Sl)itdjenblatt" bon ~otto 0Iegte, ba~ (lrgan unfet~ mrafiHanifdjen ~iftriU~, gegen @lnbe be~ borigen ZSafjte~: ,,@l£l finb fiinfunbal1lanaig Z5afjte betgangen, feit Die IDUffourtf~nobe Die ik \!ItueH in ~h:gentinien in Wngriff genommen ljat. Z5m ZSaljre 1905 l1lutbe P. lm. Wlaljler, ber bamalige ~riife~ be~ mrafHianifdjen ~ifttift~ unfetet Sl)irdje, bon P. b. Wlattljefiui3 ttadj @San ZSuan, I!Xtgentinien, gerufen. @lnbe 1905, al[o gerabe bor fiinfunbamanaig ZSaljren, fam bann P. lmittrocl' at~ etfter WliHionar nadj Diefem ,\lanbe. @Seitbem ljat [idj bie I!Xrbeit immer ~i meOr aui3gebeljn± unb tro~ bider S)inbetniffe mandj ~errridjen @Sieg er- tungen. ~abon legt ba£l mUdjIein, ba~ mir in biefer lJlummer anacigen, limb! 3eugni~ afl. jffio P. lmHtroct frUljer aUein ftanb, bod mitten gegen- l1lartig 18 ~aftoren j im fommenben Z5aljte mctben e~ botau~fidjtIidj 23 fein, ba mefjtete @Sterren, bie augcnoHdHdj oatant finb, in niidjftet 3eH befe~t tuetbcn foUen. lmo bor filnfunbatuanaig Z5aljten nut e i n e 0.lemeinbe lie~ ftanb, finb ie~t einige 80 organifietie ®emeinben unb Wliffion~gcmeini)­ rein botganben. ~et Wtgentinifd)e ;Difttift fjat feit eff Z5agten eine mUdjet- ~. agentut unter bet gefdjicl'ten ,\leitung P. S\'toget~. ~et ,~itdjenbote', bet bon ben PP. S)Ubner, Sl)toget unb ~tiinom rebigied wieb, ftefjt im 13. Z5agc- gang. @Sett 1926 gat bet ;Difttitt eine eigene Eegtanftart, Die fid) Die bot- · •. ··· •. Hgen ~fjtiften au~ eigenen mUteln eebaut ljauen. I!Xn bet ~nftart untet~ '" • ridjten bie !j3rofefioren m. @ltgang, ~.~. Sl)tamer unb .'OiIf~fefjtet ,\lang. ~tiife~ be~ Wrgentinifdjen Sl)ifttift~ ift P. ®. S)illiner. lJHdjt nut in ber beutfdjen @5jJtadje, fonbetn aud) in ber fjJanifd)en if± fdjon mebeutenbe£l gcfeiftet 11l0rben. @Sidjerlidj finb untet bem ®nabenlieiftani) ®otte~ aile !Botaui3fc!Jungen au einem gefunben fitdjIidjen lmefen borljanben. ,@So ein ameb wirb fjerrHdj gefjarten, fo fceucn fidj nTfe 0.lHeber mH!' 1mb: in mrafUien fonnen e~ be~fjaIli nidjt untetIaffen, im ofogefe" mit: ,,~adj Dr. ~eif3mann tourben in ben fetten ~afjren in @5otoiet~ 13 .aniUionen manbe bon Qenin~ !llietfen beroreitei, unb stoar in ~a~ luar 3erftorun\!~arlieit. ~emgegeniioer oetidjtet bie ffiu'"""'M unn 2ru~riinbifdje l8ioe1gefeUfdjaft, ban fie in bemfefbcn 3eitraum mioern, ~ef±antcnte unb mioeIteiIe in 890 @5j>radjen unb ~ia" rcfien betoreite± liat. ~a~ toar Wufbauaroeit. II ~. ~ • .an. The Luthel'an Home Missions Council of America. - "This is :he newest development in American missions," writes the News Bulletin .Tuly 10, 1930); "five Lutheran bodies united to form it in Ohicago, July 1 nd 2." How it came about the News Bulletm explains in the following: this year the Board of American Missions of the United Lutheran issued an invitation to the presidents of the Norwegian Lutheran Church, the Augustana Synod, the United Danish Church, the Joint Synod of Ohio, and the Iowa Synod to send representatives to consider the ad- isability of closer approach and cooperation in Home Missions in America. All of them responded favorably and appointed delegates. They met in the Sherman, Chicago, and revealed a harmony of spirit and clarity of which promise great things." The purpose of the Home Missions Oouncil is stated thus: "All Lu- bodies in America are to be invited to join the Lutheran Home Oouncil. It is to be as widely representative as it can be made. No group, however small, shall be overlooked. The field is the Western Hemisphere. Our aim is to establish and extend the Lutheran Church in Canada, the United States, including Alaska, the West Indies, Mexico, } .. merica, and South America. . .. They propose no more duplica- and overlapping of Home Mission congregations anywhere in Amel'ica. includes relocation of established churches as well as the planting new missions. The Ohurch's resources of men and money will be safe- guarded in this united endeavor .. " The Lutheran Home Missions Ooun- 134 Theological Observer. - .Ric([)nd)~{)dtGcfc()id)tlid)es. eil of America is a high adventure for Christ and His Church. comprchensive surveys of the Home Mission fields on these Western It is a partnership and cooperative enterprisc which stands for progress. Its controlling purpose is to win America. for Christ and establish the kingdom of God in the hearts of mell." The Council meets annually 011 the fourth Tnesday of January. The first regular meeting under the new constitution will be held in the Chi. cago Luthcmn Bible School, January 27, 1931. According to agreement, the United Lutheran Church will have eight representatives; the Nor. wegian Lutheran Church, five; the American Lutheran Church (Ohio, Iowa, Buffalo), five; the Augustana Synod, fonr; the United Danish Church, two. "Thus," the report reads, "we begin with an enrolment of twenty-foUl'." The Lutheran Home Missions Conncil of America is' a high adventure in unionism,' one of the most phenomenal which the Lutheran Church in the "Western Hemisphere has ever witnessed. What it mcans, and what it will mean still more in the future, is almost incredible. Practically the union of all Lutheran church-bodies in the United States outside the Synodical Conference has been consummated; for, while organic union, which for many reasons is undesirable, has not taken place, the Lutheran Home Missions Council of America presumes fellowship of faith. For if church-bodies cooperate in the way the Home Missions Council pro- poses, divisive differences can no longer be said to receive recognition. In the report on the organization of the Council we read: ""Ve prayed together . We counseled together . We planned for the futnre. Every vote, after thorough discussion, was unanimous. We were conscious of the im- mediate presence and guidance of the Spirit of God. . .. We can do won- ders for the Kingdom." J. T. M. Unionism Openly Advocated in the United Lutheran Church.- The U. L. C. not only tolerates the unionism practised by a portion of its members, but the Lutheran even advocates and recommends it. We quote from an "Open Letter" published in its issue of August 28, 1930: " ... While we need in America a Church like the Lutheran, that offers spiritual comfort and consolation, yet we are also in need of churches like the Methodist, that are militantly aggressive in their championship of social reform, or the Quaker Church, whose members made such prac- tical opposition to slavery. (My own opinion is tlJat, if heaven is re- served for only one Church, that Church is the Quaker.) This is no criticism of our Lutheran Chnrch; fOl' surely it is also needed, so that too mueh emphasis will not be put upon the social side of religion, but it is a criticism of many of our ministers, D. D.'s and otberwise, who seemingly feel that anything that is not Lntheran is decidedly inferior. They are not inferior, they are merely different and are needcd ill our American life as much as our Church is needed. Let me hasten to add that the editorials of the Luthemn do not carry this attitude toward other churches that so many of our learned pastors seem to have. Es- pecially (10 I like tIle Bane stand taken by the paper towards prohibition, and I only wish that the newspapers, when they quote Lutherans on that much-argued question, would quote the Lutheran onee in a while as well as the Missouri Synod. Hoping to receive the Lutheran for next week 135 t'(for I consider it and the Western Ohristian Advocate two extra-good \ weeklies) , I am, yours truly, John McCleary. (Olle whose name shows .\ fhat his Lutheranism was not inherited for many generations and who ,"tannot understand why any Lutheran would be so thoroughly Lutheran f ~hat he cannot wod{ with Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and many others, or even join their churches if a Lutheran church were not in his ",,',iieighborhood.) " ",' If the scntiment expressed in the postscript had appeared on the r::;editorial page, we would be justified in charging the Lutheran with qirect advocacy of unionism. As it is, we make the same charge. The \"1 letter is published without one word of oomment. Mr. McCleary needs ""to be set aright. And if the letter was to be published at all, the rebuke ~eeded should have accompanied the publication lest some of the readers take comfort in its sentiments. The Ll~the1'a1b, by its silence, be- l!omcs pa1·tioep.Q orimu"is. The Ll~themn OO'JIlpanion, of Lhe Augustana Synod, is certainly right when it says: "If the broadest wing of Lutheranism in our country would 'cease its unionism with other creeds, discipline its clergy as to secretism, and stand for a genuine Lutheranism, it would hasten unity." The Ll~­ S tanda1'd, publishing and commending the address of President Rein which approved of the Oompanion's verdict, takes the same stand. the Luthe'l"an Ohlt1'oh Hel'ald (Norwegian Lutheran Church) agrees its sister periodicals. It characterized, on September 9, 1930, "the liberal Unitcd Church" as "radical in spots where unionism and secretism is not only tolerated, but professed." In spots. The testimony of Mr. McCleary to the same effect, that "many of our ministers, D. D.'s and otherwise," take an antiunionistic is duly noted, and noted with pleasure. A grave responsibility upon them. They will not themselves commit unionism. Will they its commission by othel's? That, too, would be unionism. E. The Centennial of the Lutheran Seminary at Columbia, S. C., observed in November of last year. From Dean Voigt's remarks as cn""mt,Mi in the Lutheran we glean these facts: The seminary was founded the South Carolina Synod, numbering at that time ten ministers and congregations. After almost two decades the North Carolina Synod began to coopcrate in the maintenance of the school. Having first a home at Lexington, S. C., the seminary, in 1858, was removed to Newberry, S. C. During the Civil War it carne close to dissolution. After the war it was moved from place to placc, and in 1872 was located at Salem, Va., where it stayed for twelve years. Next we see it back in :rewheny, then at Mount Pleasant, a suburb of Charleston. Finally, in 1911, it was established in Columbia, S. C. In 1889 it had been adopted by the United Synod of the South. Viewing the vicissitudes whicll befell this school, it seelUS certain that there is no theological seminary in the Lutheran Church of America which has had such a varied history as this institution, which now serves the six Southem synods of the U. L. C. The theology taught in it during tIle early years approximated the Gettys- burg type. At present, with Drs. Greever and Voigt in its faculty, the seminary has perllaps come closer to the ideal of confessional Lutheran- ism than ever before. We wish we could say that it has entirely turned its back on the uncertain, wavering position of the U. L. C. A. 136 Theological Observer. - mtd)lidJ<'3citgefd)id)md)e~. Lutheran Seminaries Fellowship Each Other. -' Our Lutheran exchanges inform us that recently the Association of Lutheran Seminal'Y Studcnts met at Capital Seminary, Columbus, 0., for its annual conference. Eleven institutions were represented: Capitol, Luther (Norwegian), Luther (American Lutheran Church), Wartburg, Philadelphia, Waterloo, Augus- tana, Chicago, Gettysblll'g, Augsburg, Hamma. '1'he general subject dis- cussed in several of its phases was "Practic"l Luthemnism." Prof. A. R. Wentz of Gettysburg presented a paper on the Augsburg Confession, Prof. vVeswig of the Norwegian Luther Seminary spoke on "Practical Lutheran- - ism and Our Young People," Prof. L. F. Gruber of the Chicago Seminary spoke on "Present-day Religious Unrest," and Professor Sverdrup of Augs- burg on "Effective Seminary Curriculum." Three Studeuts, representing three different institutions, submitted papers dwelling on the development of the intellectual and spiritual life of the Lutheran seminarian. In the paper from which we take the above details, the resolutions passed are thus reported: "The resolutions confirmed the purpose of the conference: 1) to create a stronger bond of fellowship between the students of the various Lutheran seminaries; -2) to maintain and promote a common consciousness in faith, life, and theological thought; 3) to broaden the vision of seminary students that they might gain a vision of the Lutheran - Church in its entirety; 4) to make for a more practical application of the 'faith of our fathers.''' Knowing, as we do, thtLt some of the men who participated in this gathering are opposed to unionism, at least in ubSt1'UOto, we are at a loss how to account for their willingness to take part in a conference of this kind, which, in spite of the common denomi- national name claimed by all members, bears all the earmarks of unionism. For, however one wishes to justify this gathering, it cannot be denied that here a number of people met representing two sections of the Lu- theran Church which are opposed to each other on important points, that they fellowship cd with each other in the manner of brethren, and that they declared it their set purpose to continue in this course. If it is argued that the common name affords a sufficient basis for such frater- nizing', we must reply that on that basis evcry union of people who call themselves Christians could be defended. Where such a course is pur- sued, what, we ask, becomes of the warning of St. Paul against the "little leaven which leaveneth the wholc lump"? What of all the injunctions of the pastoral letters to adhere to sound doctrine? The situation would have been different if the mecting had undertaken to remove the existing differences by examining them in the light of God's Word and correcting such crrors as need corrcction, although it will be granted that this task does not belong to seminarians, but to responsible men whom the Church has entrusted with work of this nature. We fear that the conservative Lutheran theologians who are sponsoring this conference, doing so with the best of intcntions, we have no doubt, are sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind, that they are assisting in destroying in their own students that sensitiveness and dread with respect to false teaching which is a prominent characteristic of Lutheran theology, and that they are paving the way for conditions such as almost wrecked the Church in the latter half of the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nine- teenth century. A. Theological Observer. - mcd.Jnd)~8eit\lefc'()td)t!idJeg. 137 A Remarkable Concession. - Under the heading "Darwinism Is ','{'Dead" thc Golden Book ]J[agazilne for July, 1930, cites a passage from "''l'he HUJtory of Biologica~ 'l'heM'ies by Emmanuel Radl (E. J. Hatfield). ,pur readers will be interesteel in the following sentences: "Ideas are like c"men. They come' into the worlel, but no one knows whence they came; .~hey grow and flourish and for a time cherish the illusion of eternal life, ,.' and then they depart into tl1at land 'from wllOse bourn no traveler rc- ;turns.' This was the fate of Aristotelian science, of the ambitious science " of the eighteenth century, of Cuvier's idea«, of naturalism; this fate is ,'now rapidly overtaking Darwiuism. MallY still hold that Darwin was '-'right and proudly point out that no one has yet given any better explana- tion of the facts of animal history. This is true. But Darwinism is not "'being replaceel by a better view; it is simply being abandoneel. Not one of those who had become convinceel Darwinists afterward recanteel, neither /'Darwin nor Huxley nor Spencer. But they grew old, they vanisheel from . ';the world, anel were replaced by new investigators, who had not expe- '"denced the vital glow aroused by the original Darwinism. Darwin is dead; and in that peaceful home to which philosophers from the whole '"vorId came as pilgrims a girls' boarding-house (was once) established. New names come into prominence, and a revision of values is in prog- \iress ... , We may sum up the modern position in Driesch's words: 'For '"those with insight, Darwinism has been dead for a long time. The last i''', < .. pronouncements in its favor were little more than funeral odes inspired "by the text De m01·t1tis nihil nisi bene; they contained a complete ad- "mission of the inadequacy of the defense.' Darwinism as a tyrannic doc- 'trine, which imperiously enchains the minds of men, is dead. :But it will ~;~ontinue to live as a great intellectual system, worked out by men with f great minds amI of high ideals. III the future it will be included among 'the greatest of the ideas which form the legacy of the past; on it investi- '·\gators of the future will train their intellectual talents .... " Our interest was not so much roused by the statement that Darwinism ~;'was dead. We knew that. We were impressed by the remarkable conces- >sion that Darwinism in a certain aspect was "a tyrannic doctrine, which '" {'imperiously enchains the minels of men." Darwinism, once haileel as the .~ 0,,,~ruth which was to make men free from superstition and prejudice, to ""iree men from the chains and fetters of J ewi8h traditions regarded as "religious tenets, this Darwinism is described by one of its admirers as ,,,:110 tyrannic doctrine, enchaining the minds of menl What a remarkable "concession! Nor does the author hold out any hope that men will in future .~ be freed from this slavery to tyrannical doctrines similar to Darwinism. , "'t, The views replacing dead and abandoned Darwinism are no better views, "mind you. The author concedes "that no ODe has yet given any bettel' "~explanation of the facts of animal history." He assw'es us that Dar- ~inism "will continue to live as a great intellectual system, worked out by men with great minds and of lligh ideals"; "it will be included among ;"the greatest of the ideas which form the legacy of the past." Now, the '>point wc wish to make is this: If Darwinism, this gJ'eat achievement of ~, (,man's mind, was a tyrannic doctrine, imperiously enchaining the minds .of men, will any of the newel' views, which are conceded to be no better than the opinion they are replacing, do more for men than tyrannically, imperiously, to enslave their minds? Having run their course, having cherished the illusion of eternal life, luwing fettered tIle minds of mell enchained their intellect, enslaved their reason, these theories finally di~ and depart into that land from whose bourn no traveler returns!' What, then, will become of their poor, deluded followers? A prospect more dis- couraging, more hopeless, we cannot imagine. - After all, there is but one truth that makes us free indeed - the truth spoken by Christ in His Word, the incorruptible 'Word of God, "which liveth and abideth forever." "This is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you," 1 Pet. I, 23. 25. T.L. Present Church and Theological Situation. - Under this head, Mrs. C. A. Mason, in the Watohman-Examiner, issues an earnest warning against the encroachments Qi Modernism in the Baptis.!; demoninations of our country. The rapid spread of Modernism since 1907 she attributes largely to the liberalistic Divinity School of the Clficago University, which its first president, Dr. R. Harper, has imbued most thoroughly with the virus of infidelity. What his associates and followers urged in place of traditional Christianity a few excerpts show:- "Out of those centers (universities) will come a new interpretation of life and religion. The Church teachings cannot be cast into the mold of antiquated dogma and command respect. They must undergo the most thoroughgoing criticism and be brought before the bar of reason to answer for themselves. The New Testament story of supernatural hirth, miracle, resul'l'ection, is an antiquated affair, a relic that is worthless to cultivated classes, . .. Historical science must repudiate the entire supernaturalist position. . . . The hypothesis of God has become superfluous in every science, even that of religion itself. . .. An intelligent man who now affirms his faith in miracle can hardly know what intellectual honesty means." (Prof. George B. F'oster, Chicago,) "The Bible is not now, and has not been in the past, an authority in any sense of the word." (P?'ot. F1'anlo Lewis, Crozer.) "Jesus was the child of his time, a merely human Christ, who does no more and no less than interpret to us the eternal reve1a tion of God in human nature. . .' In Foreign Missions increased emphasis is being placed on the claims of the political and social future of the non-Christian peoples .... The missionary enterprise is rapidly being conceived as a demo- cratic social program." (P1·of. G, Birney SrnUh, Chicago.) "The Greeks had all that was important to religion, and, in fact, Socrates and Plato were in some respect in advance of Christ." (Pro- fes8o?' Shore IJ, ) "On any sane philosophy this univorse is engaged in a business too vast to be solicitous about merely individual desires." (Dr. Ha1'?'y l!1. Fosdick.) In criticism of these pronoullcements of the sheerest kind of unbelief by Baptist Church loaders, Mrs. Mason writes: - "These glimpses into the modemist mind seem to indicate that, while those who hold these views have a perfect right so to do, they can hardly at the same time call themselves Baptists. For the essentials are seen to he the rejection of the supernatural in toto, including the deity of Jesus and the authority and integrity of the Scriptures. In the second place, Theological Observer. - Jl'itdjHdHleitaefd)icf)tIld)c!l. 139 ,what preparation, if any, had been madc among Baptists at large in the i'ifil'st and second decades of the new century for the new teaching? Had I"their point of view been undergoing any modifications favorable to its "acceptance? Inevitably. Since they are living in this highly privileged I 'scientific century, they cannot remain untouched by its spirit. The young r[,people of Ba.ptist families, being taught psychology in their schools, leal'n that sin is an obsolete notion and that religion has nothing to do with the ',New Testament and its doctrine of ,salvation and a risen Ohrist, 'so lacking i" ,in objective reality.' It may further be said tllat no spiritual convietion fil, 'is likely to be widely opemtive when the urge towards material comfort, enjoyment, and advantage has become so overwhelming as it has to-day. These and other characteristics of our mechanistic age have llad their ;part in bringing about important modifications of the original Baptist singleness of mind, modifications which contribute to facile reception of a reversal of tlle principles for which tlleir fathers fought and bled. FOl' cannot be denied that Puritan restraints and coercions a generation ago a thing of the past aud that tIle conception of 'a regenerattl church- membership' is largely lost." Regarding tlle effects of the attack of modernistic infidelity on the "faith of the fathers," the writer ventures the following gloomy fore- cast: - "Those who compose the modernized wing among Baptists consider ,themselves by 110 means unethical in their position. They have been, and are still, fiercely accused of 'bOl'ing from within,' of using their position within the denomination for purposes of propaganda subversive of the Baptist faith and the like. But a certain latitude of the use of pious strategy has always been allowed in tIle formative phrases of a new cult. The insistent fling: 'You are Unitarians. You have no right to call yourselves Baptists. Why do you not go where you belong?' leaves the 'enlightelled' unperturbed, unresentful. 'J'hey will bide their time. They might, indeed, execute a wholesale exodus into the Unitarian fold. They would be warmly welcomed. They are already cordially affiliated. But they can show a more excellent way than this would be. The present method :unds endorsement among Unitarian leaders themselves, one of whom, alluding to nominally evangelical men and women who have aban- doned their ancient faith, but not their church-membership, says:- "'A good mallY Unitarians are doing more good where they are than they can do anywhere else. They arc undoubtedly capturing strong- holds that we could never carry by direct attack. They are the Modern- ists of Protestants who are working within the fold. , .. We want more of tllem, and we want them where they are.' "POI' contra, why should the Modernists within the Baptist "ranks precipitate !L movement to attach their own religious body, numbering more than 8,000,000 communicants, to anotller of far less ancient lineage, numbering less than 120,000 members? The fact that, as the Union could not exist half slave and half free, so the Baptist denomination cannot exist permanently half evangelical and half modernist is now obvious. A break must comc. Dr. Shailer Mathews thinks tcn yeai's will bring about the necessary realignment. 'The older type of confessional Chris- tianity,' he foresees, 'will not disappear immediately, but it will be in- 140 creasingly ineffective. The Modernist movement can hardly fail to pro."~ ceed.' The head of the Baptist Divinity School of Chicago knows whereof J he affirms. Modernism is at the helm in the new system of church ",uver·ll.", ment, as it is also in many of the marc important so-called Baptist schools and colleges of the North. H. G. Wells mournfully says: 'The Bible lost hold, but nothing has arisen to take its place. That is tile gravest aspect of the matter. It was the cement with which our Western com. munities were built and by which they were held together.''' A final thought is given to a motfus olJel'andi by which the "genuine, old-fashioned Baptists of the evangelical type should meet the situation." But it is here that the inherent weakness of American Fundamentalism reveals itself. On perusing the writer's clear and emphatic denuncia- tion of Modernism, we had expccted that, having analyzed the tragic situation so thoroughly, she would suggest perhaps Spurgeon's method of witnessing against errol'. But that step American Fundamentalism ill unwilling to take, and it is for this reason that the pl'opheey of Shailer Mathews that "the modernistic movement can hardly fail to proceed" may come true. A half-hearted combat will never save evangelical faith from the destructive forces of Modernism. As did Spurgeon in his day, so to-day the Baptist Fundamentalists must come out from among them and be separate; in other words, they must abandon their program of unionism. J. T. M. Why Methodists Are Model·nists. - Dr. A. C. Knudson's dogmatical work The Doot1"ine of God, which is an exponent of extreme Modernism, is being advertised in Methodist periodicals as follows: "This is a book of masterly scholarship, which increases its tempo and power, reaching a brilliant climax in the treatment of the Trinity. It is the first really great book written by an American on the doctrine of God in the past quarter century." No wonder Modernism flourishes in the Methodist Ohurch. For a review on the book see CONCORDIA THEOLOGlOAL MONTHLY, Vol. I, No. 12. J. T. M. The Difficulty of Formulating a Creed Confessing and Denying the Deity of Christ. - Peter had no difficulty in expressing his faith in the deity of Jesus. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Matt. 16, 16. John had no difficulty. "This is the true God and eternal life," 1 John 5, 20. The framers of the Nicene Creed easily found suit· able words. "Jesus Christ, God of God, Light of Light, very Goel of very God." The Small Oatechism has words of clear, unmistakable meaning. "Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity." Dr. H. S. Ootlin, president of Union Seminary, finds it an easy matter to give ex- pression to his belief that J csus was just a man. But he finds himself in difficulties when he attempts to formulate a statement which would declare that Jesus, while not true God, is still true God. A review of an article by him had stated: "The article is written from the standpoint that Ohrist is just a man, a very remarkable man, it is true; but there is not a single clear-cut assertion to His deity. 'Jesus kept constantly drawing all the universe for the resources which He needed to bc Him- self.' . .. He does indeed use the word Son, but it is clear that this is not meant to imply the godhood of Jesus Ohrist. Anointing with the Spirit, Theological Observer. - ~ltd)Hd')~8elt\1efd)id)tric6e~. 141 'iNirgill Birth, a preexistent Word made flesh, these are called 'first-cen- :, tury metaphors.' . .. Noone who believes in the deity of Chl'ist would ~< or could have written this art,iele." That drew the following indignant i'jJliacdjen aUf ben anbem geerflet, unb [lie] ~aoen gc\1.1ui3t, audj gcgTaulit, 1fba~ ®ott buxdj ben geoenebeiten @)amen, butdj G\:~dftum, ttJorrte @)egen, :®nabe, .\?eH unb :itroft geflen. $Datum, fo fie berftunben, baB ljicrilu{anbe aUe rut~erifdj fid) nennenoen Glemeinfdjaften bOm @Staate nitbljiingig unb in bem @linue "lYreifirdjen". Woer bamU finb fie nodj idjt gegen hie @lefaljr gcfdjli~t, in i~ren t~eologifdjen \:SaMtiiten .2cljrer ~aben, bie bet Glleidjoeredjtigung betfdjiebener ffiidjtungen innerljaTh bet ertfdjen SHrdje, audj bei nidjt borfjanbener fibereinftimmung in ber te, bai3 irBod rebcn unb baburdj ba~ 3uftanbefommen ber minigfeit in r'2eljre ljinbern. lY. ~. 'l)er metne ~ntcd)t~utlt~ .2l1tijer~ itt 'l)ctttfd)Innb. ~ie ,\'Jerbfttagung §. @b.-.2utlj. Qanbdlfdjurberein~ ltJurbe am 8. unb 9. Nooentber b.~. ab- 'ljgHen. But )Beratung lag bot arrent bor bie )Befvredjung be~ ~atedji~­ mit bem berbinbIidjen .2ernftoff, ein ~ema, tuorU6er Dr. Shopatfdjef tietie. fibet ben lBedauf ber 5t'agung bcridjtet nun bie "W. m. Q. ~. ", tute fgt: ,,)Radj einer rebljafj:en Wu~fprad)e ltJm:be einmiitig in etner groBen ffe,l1tridjen lBerfamnthtng forgenbe @ntfdjIieBung angcnommen: ,irBit er~ j 50 Theological Observer. - .Rttd)nd)~-2eit~eid)id)md)es. fennen banfoar an, ban nadj langeI' Bcit tuadjfcnbcr lffiiUfilr cin ~Rinbcf ma5 an lletoinbHdjem 2ernftoff fiit ben llteligionsuntertidjt in alfen ~o'(f idjufen @'Jadjfens borgcfdjrieoen worben ift unb Eutfjers ~reinet statedjisml ben ~inbern toiebcr in hie ~fmbe gegeoen toitb. @)ine bom Eanbesfdju berein in toieherfjorten @)ingaben unb stunbgebungen erfjooene ~otberunQ ift bantU enbHdj ntunbfiiiJIidj ctfliUt toothen. . .. lffih: betmilfcn [aoet] tocHer bie @)rfilllllng llnfctet aUen ~orbetung, baf:3 her SHeine ~atedjii3nt\@ mit Qutljets @)tHiitunn 3U hen Beljn @eooten, ben @fauoen"adiMn Unb bem ~aterunfet allstoenbig gdernt ttitb. Bur@)tteidjung bieies Biere~' fothetn loit nadj toie bot @)tljoljunn bel' @'JtunbenaaI)I flit ben llteIigion1.li nntetridjt. !Uii3 baljin oIeiot e1.l jj3fficljt bet @)Itetll, in @)tguni\ung bei3 llteTv'> gionsunterridjti3 in bet @'Jdjule butclj bctnteljrte jj3ffege djriftlidjet 1tnter~ toeifung unb @)t3ieljung in ~au1.l unb SNtdje ben stinbcrn ,hen statedjgmui3" aW ,ein1.l bet fidjtbatcn cinigenben @'Jtiici'e ebangeIifdj~htnietifdjen @fauben1.l. unb mefenntnisleben1.l, bie in Beiten be£; @'Jdjtoanlen1.l boppen ni:Hig etfdjcb _ nen' (WHniftcrialtat Dr. SHcinf)ofb in bet ,@'Judjf. @'J±aagileitung'), beth:aut, ncb unb toert ill! madjen. II ~. ~. We. ~1ttoreralti1 in @51Janicn. IDa1.l ,,@)ll. ;;Deutfdjfanb" oetictjtet: ,,@)ine bet ge!efenf±en ~agc£;ileitunoen in Wealn:ib, Heraldo de Madrid, octidjte± bon eincnt ncuen ~aIf, in bent cin @)bangeHfdjet (!Uonifacio ~oaquin @ateia) ,in ben €ifanbaf eine1.l jj3toaeffe1.l llertoici'eH lvutbe', tueH et cineI' statljo!ifin' eine ebangeHfdjc @'Jdjtift beraoxeidjte. ;;Daoei ift au oemetfen, bail et ba~ mlidjTein bet oeiteffcnben ~ta1t, bie Wnaeige erftattete, aUf beten befonbexe mUte iibetgab. ;;Del' C:l;ljeftebafteut be£; genannten !Uratie£; nimmt mit !Jlecljt in bem WrHfef @'JtcIfung ,gegen Die ubergtiffe beB bOtfHdjen ~anatismu1.l gegen bie metbteitung ebangeHidjct :;Sbeen'. ;;Det iSaff, HocI' ben un1.l cine !UeftiiHgung bon iluftunbiget @:iteIfe iluging, ±tug jiclj in &uifanbo (jj3tobina Wl.1Ha) au. . .. ;;Del' fUtandj in matcefona aogeljaHene Btoeite @'Jpanifdj. @)bangeHfdje ~ongren, bet bon bet @'Jpaniidjen ~eteinigung bet @itJangcH. fdjcn lffiertaIfianil beranftartet tturbe, qat an bie ffiegierung cine !Uotfdjaft geridjtet, ,U111 mitter ilU etgteifen, bie aUt boUftunbigen ~l:eiljeit bet @oitei3. bienfte in bet itJanifdjen @efe~gebung fliljten'. ;;Die gegentouttigen @efe~e ljuHen fidj afs ungeniigenb etttlief en. SDer iiingfte ~arr aelgt erneut bie metedjtigung biefet ~orberunnen bel' ffieIigionBfreiljeit, toie fie in ber !Uo±. fdjaft aUBgefptodjen finb. II lffiie fidj bei fofdjen ~etljiinniffen in fa±ljoUidjen 2i:inbetn ber tomiidje @'JtuljI iibet "ptoteftantiidje ~ntofetanil" oeffagen fann, in 2Cinbctn, too er bodj getoaHig lI3topaganba tteto!, ift uns nidjt berftunbfidj. :;So ~. m. jffiieberbetelttt9tlltll gleidj !lUh'ff,e~t. :;sm WnfdjhtB an f eine lI!Uetidjte aus bem llitdjfidjcn Z5aljtoudj jj3rof. Dr. :;So @'Jdjneibeti3" fdjtei6t D. f£. @'Jdjiefet im lI~riebeni3boten" liber eine etloaige lffiiebetbereini(1unl1 tJtoteftantifdjec @emeinfdjaften mit bet jj3apftfttdje: IIlffiiebcttJereinigunl1i @'Jdjon \)oe ljun. bett ~a~ten truumten babon :;SbeaHften, unb in ullferer Beit naf)men ge. toiffe ~b.:djenmi:inner in ttoljIgemeintet 2fofidjt biefcn @ebanfen aUf. @'Jogar au£; bem Z5cfuttenotben lamen @'Jtimmen bet ~oretana aUt ,lffiiebetbcreini. gung int CMlauoen'. lffiaiS man bantit meint, ljat bet jeiJine lI3aPft in ieiner mulle Mortalium .Animos Har aenug crIIiirt. 'Ilatin ift aUiSgefl'rodjen, ban eiS idjfedjtetbings fcine anbere lffiiebetbeteinigung giM ali:l ffi it c't f e ~ t in ben @'Jdjon bet aUeinieIigmadjenbcn ~irdje lltomi3, Book Review. - l.Jitcratut. 151 C~'ntetlvetfung unht ben \l3tima± be~ lI5apite~, in ,m:n~ :;\~il~nnunll unb @Jeljorfam unter llet autodtatiben @ewaft \l3etri unb feinet i~'~elijtmii\'3igen ~adjforger'. .€i~ .. Bibt ali;t aud) unb mu\'3 Beoen ein eIJ~n~ ;;,;,.g~nfdjel! NOll possumus (!illtt fonnen mdjt) 1 ffi:om ljat naclj bem !illeltfnell ~f~fne €irnte mit gto\'3et !illemruBljeit einaulitingen gelt.1U13t. ~al! imjJoniett t:itltllegeuet. ,~et l'0Wifdje €iinffuf3 lle~ m-omani~mu~ wat in ~eutfcljlanb (,~ltillm iemag fo gto13 tuie in bet @Jegentuatt', fcljteibt Dr. @5cljneibet. €it !~r::g~igt iiclj in bet @5taatl!IJetwartung, et witH ficlj allil im f o3iaTen .2eoen, i;~~e;; macljt fidj gerteltb faft bi~ in£: fieinfte SDotf. Unb bodj macljt bie fatljo~ .tt~~J;Ufclje jUelJi.ilfetunrr SDeutjdjlanbS nidjt gana cin SDdttef (32.36 \l3tOaent) au\O. ~;))~elttfcljranb ift au awei SDtittern el1angcfifdj. Unb wie fieljt e~ in Wmetifa ~!·1!r. biefem \l311nft au~~ 1llcadjt nidjt allclj ljier bet statljofi3i~mll~ gewartige ~,:,'~ortfcljtitte bOn ~aljt all ~aljt ~ ~et SDuolleafitcljenftaat, hie ,Q1atifanftabt', :r·'1.'Der \l3ajJft ein @5ouuetan, bet Q1etttaB mit ~tafien, lUorin bie failjofifclje ~:1Jtengion @5taat\Otefigion ift, llie~ aHe~ fticljt ~utoficljtigen in bie Wugen I It -.'~' ~.:it.M. ~ffi~" \ReIinion luicber \l3ffidJtfndJ. SDie ,,9L @. 52. Sr." beridjtet: "SDet @5djur" ~~;l~~etra\3 1ie£l {etten bcullnidjtl.leigifcljcn foaiafbcmohatifcljen j8olf~6iIbllng~" ~~i~'mtniftet~, bel; ben [\raullfdjtl.lciger €ldjulen ben ~I)arafter bet [\efe1tntni~" djulen naf)lt1 unb an Hjte €lteHe bie @emeinfdjafHlfcljure felJte, ift bon bent t'Cuen nationalfoaiarifHfdjcll Shtnu~miniftet Dr. !Stanilen allfgeljo6en hJotben. ~it lliefem ueuen €ldjuletla13 hJitb bie ffi:eHgion wiebet \l3ffidjtfadj unb ift ef 3enfuten ilU beadjten. 9htdj bie Wnbadjt in ben @5cljulen wirb wieber trlgefilfjtt. 9'(n ben ffieidj~innenmintfter fanbtc Dr. !Stani3en ein €ldjteioen, . bem bon bet ~{ufljc6ung lle~ foaialbemo!tatif djen @5djuretIaffe~ srcnntnii3 f!:icoeocn witb. SDiefe IDWteilllng war notwenbig, ba a1uifdjen bem fdHjcten \6i:aunfdjweigifdjell Q1orf\06Hbung~miniftet unb bem m-eidj~innenminifter aUf 'bie 9fuitiige be~ @bangeIWGen €iHem6unbei3 be~ ffJ;eiltaate~ [lraunfdjweig . t~anbfungen lioer me ffied)gllngiifiigfeit lle~ foaiafbemoftatifdjen Q5djur" .;i1'!f~t!affe~ gefiiljti hJlttben." ~. :it. IDe. 9:A y )",-~' Book Review. - .s!iteratur. :.(Hdediifclj,belltfdJe~ lmi.lftcdiudJ u1tllt lnellelt ;teftnlncltte. 9.nit SJlad)\tlcig bet SUbtueid)ungcn be~ lteuteftamenUid)en €:3~tad)\Jelitaud)s bom SUttifd)en unb mit ~inlvels auf feine i'tliminftimmung mit bem ~elieniftifcl)en ®tied)ifdi. Dr. ~ e In rId) @: li eli n g. iltitte ~luf{a\Je, ~a~nfd)e 18ud)!)anb!ult\l, . ~annober. 1929. 434 €:3eiten 7 X9%, in £\einllJanb mit ®oloUte! ge. liunoen. illefe~ aueeft hn ~ol)re 1912 etfd)iencne !illortetliud) ~at nun feine brttte, f~lvett !uir fel)en, Ullbetiillber!e I!luflage etlclit 11nb ift unfers ~rad)teng bas tuee!. ~I)Uftt lUt3m, aliee flit bell tiiglld)Cll &ebeaud) burd)aus ausreid)ettbe !illilctetbud) "afmt ~letten Xeftantent, UllS petfiintld) fO tucrtboU, bau Ivi., J.1b\tlo~1 lule bie ~:~;.,~Bfleeen !illilttecbitcl)ec bon !illme.®dmm~Xl)a~et, !13teufd)en~18auet lInb G:temet~ ~.\t5\Je( liefitcn, bei tuid)thlcn !illilrtetll aud) @:liellng l)eran31e~eu. ilcr betftocbcne ttfaffer luae flafjifcljet !13l)itolo\1, 2el)ret bet Ilded)ifd)en I5p.ad)c on elnem beut~ I'f«Jcn &~mllllfium, 1mb es ~ot [cinen grouen !illcrt, tuCllll aud) ein !illilttceliua) )'3'ltin l)letten Xeftament \JOlt eittem Iltied)ifdJen €:3pradJgele~tten llca.lleitet 1ft, bet