Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 4-9 (Text)

<1tnurnrbtu aJ4rnlngtral :tInut1Jly CODtiDaiDg LEHRE UNO WEHRE MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LUTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLy-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. IV September, 1933 No.9 CONTENTS Biblical Ethics Concerning Young People. P. E. Kretzmann Wie muss Gottes Wort gepredigt werden, damit Glaube entatehe in den Herzen der Zuhoerer? F. Pieper •.•••• Objective lustification. Th. Engelder ••..•.••.••..•..•••• Das Verhaeltnis der gratia universalis zur Gnadenwahl. P. E. Kretzmann •..••••••• Propositions Concerning the Election of Grace. Page 841 653 v 684 676 P. E. Kret2mann •• . • • • • • •• 682 Die Hauptschriften Luthers in chronologischer Reihenfolge 685 Dispositionen ueber die altkirchliche Epistelreihe ........ 686 lliscellanea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 692 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich ·Zeitgeschichtliches . . .. 696 Book Review. - Literatnr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 713 Ein Prediger mUBB niOOt alleln tDeidM, alao u.. er die Bchate unterwellle, wie oie rechte 0brI&ten lOlleD aeiD, lOodem aum daoeben den Woelfen weArm, dua lie die Bchate Dicht usreIfen lIOd mit talscber Lehre nrtuehren IIOd Irrtum em· fuehren. - Luther. Es ilit kein D~. du die Leate mehr bel der Kirche behaelt deDD die pte Predigt. - Apolol1ie. Ar'. t~. If the t rumpet gift In UDCertain IOUDd, Ivho shall prepare himaelf to the battle, 1 Oor'~J8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCOlmIA. :PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, lito. 696 Theological Observer. - .Ritd)lid)'3eitllefd)id)tlid)e~. Theological Observer. - SHrdjndj~3eitgefdjidjtIidje!8. 1. AUYl.'riktt. Lutheran Unity.-Every true Lutheran desires it, prays for it, works / for it, and will crucify his flesh in order to attain it. When we hear men V pleading for Lutheran unity, our heart goes out to them. Addressing several synodical conventions, President Knubel addresses this plea to th~ Lutheran Church of America: - "The United Lutheran Church in America desires first of all and above all else the consolidation of the Lutheran Church in America. . .. We are impelled and compelled to this by the unanimity of Lutheran devotion to the Gospel of Christ. It is for Christ's sake, for His Gospel's sake, that we seek the solidarity of American Lutheranism. That is the kind of unionism in which our soul delights. We are impelled and compelled als(l by the experiences of the last fifteen or twenty years. The ever-increasing process of American Lutheran merger, cooperation, and mutual considera- tion during these two decades has not been simply the work of men. We do not believe that the will -oel in this respect has gained all of its ends as yet, and we will the' ___ of God. We are impelled and compelled fm-thermore because the Lutheranism of the United Lutheran Church in America has become very dear to us. Vie hold it, not merely by in- heritance, not merely by study of its values, but as something that has kept us and that has been tested through storm and fire. . .. The storms and diseases of rationalism, of revivalism, of legalistic and legislative Puritanism, of Fundamentalism and Modernism have swept about us. 'Na were exposed to them because our pastors and people were always using the language of the land. We believe that as a result we are more deeply rooted in our faith than otherwise would be possible and that nothing can tear us out of it. That faith is our most precious possession. Once more, we are impelled and compelled in favor of American Lutheran solidarity because of all that we have gained from other Lutheran groups as they came later to these shores. Those who know the history of our Church in this land know that those gains were definite. We desire the richness of additional impartation from them which will be possible by closer con- tact. The United Lutheran Church in America desires first of all the consolidation of the Lutheran Church in America. The United Lutheran Church in America seeks in the second place the purity of Lutheranism in America. Let us frankly recognize that no one group of Lutherans is perfect, and that each knows its own faults better than the others know those faults. Yet much as we may know our own faults or those of others, let us be sure that the real dangers to pure religion are always subtle and often unrecognized. One of our greatest dangers as American Lutherans can, I believe, be described in various ways. For instance, the Gospel of Christ is a wonderfully harmonious thing. As a consequence, if we exaggerate some part of it, we can make the whole seem horrible .•.. The same idea may be described in a seeond way. The center of the Gospel declares a man is saved alone by the free grace of God in Christ. The worst heresy is that a man can by his own good deeds make himself pleas- Theological Observer. - .Rhcl)Ucl)=8eitgefcl)icl)tncl)e§. 697 ing, acceptable, to God. There are, however, thousands of forms of this heresy. I do not believe that a Christian while on earth is ever fully free from it. Christ releases us from one form of it, and we with our proud human tendency to trust ourselves are soon entangled in some other form of the same thing. If now the Church emphasizes strongly to Christians one form of this danger, she leaves them the easy prey to all other forms of the same heresy. That one form has become exaggerated in the eyes of Christians, and they become dangerously blind to other forms. Just one more description of the idea. v'Therever there is great unanimity of life, as in a true family, dissensions will arise at times over single offenses and will throw into obscurity all of the rich, loving unity which binds that family. The single offense becomes exaggerated out of all proportion to the whole. With the help of these suggestions I hope to make my meaning clear. In the American Lutheran family there have been dissensions. Offenses have arisen at times, and as a result we hear certain terms used which are reminders of these dissensions and offenses. Calvinism, pre- destination, lodgism, unionism, exclusivism, liberalism, such are some of the words which the initiated understand and of which even the laity has partial knowledge. The danger is that these terms and the things for whieh they stand become more or less definitely exaggerated until they appear as definite tests of LutheranislIl. J:lJey are nothing of the kind. If we must have specific tests, then the tests are the evangelical conception of God, the evangelical conception of life, and the willingness to trust just that Gospel for the redemption, the reformation, of mankind. The terms that have been mentioned are at the worst single offenses in the family unity; they are single forlIls of a heresy of which in some form all are guilty. . .. Let us be done with smaii tests of Lutheranism. Let us be done with exaggerated parts that disfigure the whole. Let not the glory of Lutheranism, which is the glory of the harmoniously pure Gospel, become a discord to the ears of others and to our own ears because we exaggerate single notes." - The Luthemn, June 8, 1933. It is, after all, a plea, not for Lutheran unity, but for Lutheran union on the basis of unionism. Lutheran unity will never be brought about hy ignoring the doctrinal differences among the various Lutheran synods. Much as we deplore the state of disunion existing between us and the United Lutheran Church, brought about, among other things, by the unionism it practises, tolerating, for instance, the denial of Verbal In- spiration in its midst; much as we deplore that we are charged with sinful exclusivism and sometimes with Calvinism, much more we would deplore the accomplishment of a Lutheran union which had been brought about by ignoring the weighty doctrinal differences which separate ns. vVhy should we refuse to meet and discuss, openly and thoroughly, these differences? It will take longer to arrive at the desired goal in this way, but it will bring about a real and lasting union. E. The Difference between Unionism and Syncretism. - May a 1-::: Christian partake of a Hindu sacrament? Mrs. Harper Sibley says the y Christian may do so. She did it herself. And she is proud of it. She told of it in a speech at a meeting held in connection with the notorious Lay- men's Foreign Missions Inquiry. She was one of the appraisers sent to the Orient on that mission. She attended the All-India Women's Con- 698 Theological Observer. - .Ritd)fidj~.Beitgefdjidjmdje§. ference and went "on an all-day picnic with 400 Indian women. We went to a place where at the noon hour we could ascend a high mountain where the Hindu temples were. There we were to witness the great ceremony of the feeding of the white eagles. These sacred birds live near Madras, but are supposed to bathe every day in the Ganges, although one young man who belonged to those educated college graduates told me on the side that of course he did not believe that, but the common people did, and it was right that they should. We have all heard that kind of thing expressed in our own country. . .. After a little while the priests went forward and tapped on the great rock, which was like a great altar on that mountain top, and these white eagles - really white hawks - came down from a tall tree, and there they fed them on the rock. And then at the end of the ceremony those Hindu priests said, 'Will all orthodox Hindus come forward and receive the sacred food?' I had not realized that they had a ceremony so much like our own sacrament, and there was a moment of terrific suspense, and then a woman from the back of the group said, 'There are no such distinctions here. We are all one, and either we all come forward, or no one will come forward.' And the Mohammedan woman who stood next to me - she was not yet out of purdah because she wore the Imrlca - said, 'I am going forward, are you?' I said, 'I had not thought of it. I don't know whether we will be wel- come.' She said, 'That does not matter. believe we should share in these religious experiences.' And so in a few minutes, after a consultation of those Hindu priests on that altar rock, the priests came down among us and offered to us their sacred Hindu food, - to Hindu, to orthodox, to out caste, to :Mohammedan, and to Christian they offered the Hin(lu food." ~1.rs. Sibley, by the "vay, acted in line \vith the principles avowed by the Appraisal Commission. Its report points out as one of the out- standing requirements of the future "the necessity that modern mission make a positive effort, first of all, to know and understand the religions around it and then to recognize and associate itself with whatever kindred elements there are in them," and Mrs. Sibley found in the ceremony of feeding the white eagles a sacrament akin to the Christian Sacrament.- Now, the Living Church of June 3, in reporting this incident and censur- ing, rather mildly, the syncretistic mixed communion indulged in by Mrs. Sibley, a churchwoman, draws a parallel between her act and the intercommunion occasionally practised by members of the Episcopal Church and members of other Protestant churches. And the comparison is not far-fetched. The unionist would be in a difficult position if, while ad- vocating mixed Communions, he would condemn :"i1rs. Sibley's act. The best he could do would be to show that, while lVII's. Sibley looks upon most (if not all) doctrines of the Christian religion as matters of in- difference, he merely treats many of the Christian doctrines as matters of indifference. In other words, the difference between unionism and syn- cretism is that syncretism is a gross form of unionism - unionism a mild form of syncretism. E. Unionism - Liberalism. - We are not the only ones who declare that unionism spells Liberalism. The "unitists" (term used by Charles Macfarland) say so, too, and say it complacently. A report made for the Institute of Social and Religious Research, entitled "Church Union in Theological Observer. - ~itd)nd)~8eitgefd)id)tltd)e§. 699 Canada," one of the objects of which was to give those interested in Church unity a picture of what happened in Canada when in 1925 the Methodist and Congregational churches and a large section of the Presbyterian Church formed the United Church of Canada, says: "It is thus [the basis of union prohibiting "any test of membership other than those laid down"] inevitable that the United Church should not only be liberal in its outlook at the present moment, but must by its very nature remain so. It possesses the strength that liberal churches of to-clay possess, namely, an attractiveness for those who, while deeply religious, resent most creedal formulations as antiquated shackles on the intelligence and who insist on the spirit as opposed to the letter." - The report also says: The movement "had a bad start when it carried less than 70 per cent. of the former Presbyterian Church into the union and left in the wake of its triumphant consummation a legacy of bitterness which separated and broke churches, communities, and the nation at large into fighting factions. The bitterness is gradually dying, but its fires are far from dead in many hearts."- The report further states: "The return to ritualism is of course not the product of church union alone, but simply an expression in Canada of the prevg.iling tendency throughout Protestantir'lll, hut it has been accentuated and underscored in the United Church because of church union," E. Verbal Inspiration. - "The same contributor in a book review ta,kes a 'fall-out' on the Lutheran position on verbal inspiration of the Bible." (The reference is perhaps to the statement: "If you l'c'Llly wish to learn about the sublime unity of the Word of God and get a glimpse of the marvels of inspiration (HOt verbal), but, after all, infallible, see how all God's \~Tord reaches its clilnax and finds its completion in the final book of the Bible." (The LuBwran, June 15, 1933.) "He does not seem to be satisfied with the clear statements of the Holy Spirit. Jesus says: 'He that heareth you heareth M.e.' How this can be true unless we have the very words of Jesus cannot well be comprehended. 'Teaching them to ob- serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you' requires His very words, His every word. How the Bible can be called the Word of God when it is not His Word verbally is on a parity with the 'yom' question, even more preposterous. Let us, then, be honest and not say: The Bible is God's Word, but that it only contains God's Word-where and when? Let the reader suit himself." (See statement by C. M. Jacobs in the Lu- themn, Jan. 12, 1933, p. 20: "In Lutheran theology the two - 'the Word of God' and 'the Scriptures' - are not equated.") "'Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' Speaking. as we know it, is done in words, single words, one following the other. The Holy Ghost moved the holy men of God to speak what they spoke; why becloud this with so-called human wisdom that is worthless? The serpent in Eden first questioned verbal inspiration: 'Yea, hath God said 7' 'rhe serpent knew the importance of verbal illspiTation in God's plan and knows it better to-day than a good many ministers in the Church. The first discussion about God's Word thus was about verbal inspiration. There are very many passages besides the well-known ones that contend for verbal inspira- tion. . .. H. W. Saeger." (In "Open Letters," The Lutheran, July 20,1933.) E. \./ 700 Theological Observer. - Sfitd)lid)=.seitgefd)id)tlid)e~. [5ereinigultg ber refl.lrlltierien Sftrdje in ben [5erciltigt~'1t 5taatctt mit ber G:vangcIifdJcn 5l.)nob'c von lRvrballtcrifa. SDa13 biefe )8eteinigung biefen .s)croft iluftanbe fommen foIC ljaoen roir fcljon ftuljer unfem Befem unter~ [mUet. :itreffIiclje )illode rebet ber "ButljerifdJe .s)erolb" uber bas ~roieft. (tr fcljreio±: ,,(ts ift nut na±urIiclj, ba13 ficlj in ber reformieden ,~rclje, bie ein fiate~ )8el'enntnis ljat, )illiberfpruclj lla[1egen erljeo±. )illie aoer fteljt es mit ber (tvangeHfcljen S\)nobc? 9lomineH biIbe± iie ja fcljon cine Union, bas ljeitt, cine )8ereinigung von BU±ljeranern lInb meformieden. ZSn )illidIicljfeit abet hutfte, eoenfo tuie in ~teu13en lIno anbem belltfdjen Eiinbem, je naclj feiner .s)errnnft bet cine :iteiI in Beljre lInb S1l1Itlls bet IlI±ljetifcljen, bet anbete bet reformierten ffiicljtllng angeljoren unb nm ein berljiiItnismii13ig Heiner meft alls ®egcnl:ien ftammen, in benen bie logenannie aOfOtptibe Union {Su13 gefa13t ljaite, baS ljei13t, bie Union, in ber bie )8efenntnisun±erfcljiebe ganil bettuif cljt finb. ZSn roeIcljem ®ro13enberljiil±nis bie einaeInen :iteile in bet (tiJangeIifcljen @5l.)nobe illleinanber fteljen, entaielj± ficlj naturIiclj 11nl'cret Sfenntnis. )illcnn roit beutfd)c jBetljiiItniffe aum Wlatiitao macljen burfen, milifcn tuir anne~men, ba13 bie l!utljeraner iueitaus bie ~.neljrljeit oirben. ,,)illenn alfo bie (tbangeIifclje @51)nobe Wnfcljluf3 fucljt, roare cs ba nidjt i)ag ®eratene, tuenn fie tate, roas ernfte (2:ljriften in ben unierten ~itcljcn SDeu±fcljIanbS erfeljnen unb erftreoen? ?miire e§ nicljt ricljiig, tuenn Die me~ formtcrlen mit ben 1Jteformierien, Die l!ut0ercmer mit DCt1 Euiljerancrn uub tie Zlel'enninisfofen mit ber bon .\'rongregationaIiften 1Inb UniberfaIif±en ge~ plan±en ,{Sreien stirclje' lneroinbllng fudJen tuurben? ,,)illir l!uiljeraner tuiltben uns au einer )8ereinigung grunbfiitlIicl} iignIicl} fo fieITcn tuie Die borljin ertualjn±en )illortfilljrer im reformierten £!aget. S:Xuc!j uns ift bel? ~3efenntniB, in bem tuit ben ~lIsbrucf unb bas :Beugnis ber reinen l!eljre bes )illorte? (i)oties feljen, ljeiIig. SDaraus madJen tuir fein .s)eljI. Wlit l!uiljer fpredJen tuir: ,&;;lier fteljen lInfere ljeITen, Uaren )illorte, oljne aITes SDunfefn unb IDeauyen.' jBerfal1l1ngsftagen unb ber~ gIeicljen aoer finb uns 9Cebenfadje. Unb roir gIauoen, ba13 bie WleY:jraalj! ber l{5aftoren 1mb ®emeinben in ber (tl.JangeHfdjen @5i)nODc um iljrcr rutlje~ rifd)en .s)errnnft unD iljres Iutljcrifcljen (SroeB MITen uns niiljer fteljt ag irgenbeine anbere ®ruppe au13er~aIb bet Iut~erifcljen .I1:ircf)e. )illir juurben es begtiiBen, tuenn bie, bie e i n e s ®raubens mit nns finb, in niiljere lnet~ lJinbung mit uns ±reten l1Jiil:ben. ZSebenfa@ fonte man, elje man aur (tnt~ f djeibung rommt, auclj bief eWliigIicljfeit ins l2iuge faff en. (ts ifi cin itJicl}~ tiger Scljritt, ben bie beiben StirdJenforl-1er all ±Un gebenfen, tualjrfcljeinHclj ber foLgenfcljtuerftc in iljrer ®efcljidjte; cr fi.innte auclj fur beibe :iteile bet~ Y:jiingniStJoH tuerben. Wlit ffiecljt ftagt Wmos, bet ~ropljei (,\J'ap. 3, 3): ,Wlogen audj iltueen miteinanber tuanbeIn, fie feien benn eins lInierein~ ember?'" W. Church-Me stings in May. - The Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. (Northern) held its annual convention in Columbus, 0., 838 delegates being present. The new Moderator, Dr. John MacDowell, was not the candidate of the Fundamentalists, led by Prof. J. G. Machen, but is described as a "middle-of-the-road" man. The assembly voted to continue its connection with the Y. M. C. A. and with the Federal Council of Churches. In his criticism of the Board of Foreign Missions Dr. Machen was not upheld by the assembly. Dr. Speer, secretary of the board, was given a great ovation. Theological Observer. - ~itd)Iid)<8eit\Jeid)id)tlidjell. 701 This means that the Northern Presbyterians were not willing to condemn the attitude of the board in permitting Mrs. Pearl Buck, modernist mis- sionary, to serve in their mission till she resigned and in sponsoring the spread of modernistic books. It is a case of people loving peace rather than justified, necessary war. - The Northern Baptists met in Washing- ton, D. C. In spite of the efforts of conseTVative leaders like Dr. W. B. Riley of Minneapolis the convclltion did not vote to leave the Federal Council. What surprises one is that the vote to remain in the council is described as overwhelming. The condemnation of the Laymen's Report (Rethinking Missions) was not accomplished either. The importance of the rejection of errol' eviclently no longer is recognized. - Before the Northern Baptists opened their convention, the Southern Baptists held their annual meeting, the place likewise being Washington, D. C. The proposal to unite the three theological seminaries in the territory of the Southern Baptists, the Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, the South- western Seminary, Fort Worth, and the Southern Seminary, Louisville, was defeated. After the convention a joint meeting with the Northern Baptists was held, which, however, had no significance with respect to organiza- tion. - At Dayton, 0., the United Brethren were in session May 9-11. II \\'1).S resolved to bring about union with the IDvangelical Church (Albright Brethren) as soon a" possible. A. Two Bishops Debate. - When the Church Congress, a free conference within the Protestant Bpiscopal Church, met last spring at Evanston, Ill., one of the questions cliscussed was: "Should Intercommunion Precede Church Reunion 1" The affirmative was upheld by the Rt. Rev. William Scarlett, Bishop Coarljutor of :Ylissouri, residing in St. Louis, and the negative by Bishop Irving Johnson of Denver. It was not merely an academic debate, bcc:1Use Bishop Scarlett had to defend the course which he and his superior had taken when at a conference on "Christian unity" held in St. Louis they permitted the cathedral of their diocese to be used for an interdenominational Communion service and Episcopal clergymen to officiate in the administration of the Sacrament together with Methodist and Presbyterian ministers. Bishop Johnson's attack, justified as it was, nnfortunately was largely based on an erroneous conception of the apostolic succession and on the mistaken notion that the Episcopal Church by all Ineans has to be kept intact. Here is olle of his statements: "If the Epis- copal Chnl'ch is a household of faith, then like all households it must preserve the sanctity of the family meal; not because the public is not as good as the fn.mily, but beeause the house which would open its family table to the general public would at once lose the sanctity of the family life and be turned into a cafdcria_" Not at all convincing. How much more powerful his argumenLation would have proved if he hac1 placed himself on the many Scripture-passages which direct the Church to cling to the pure Word of God and to avoid all error! A. ;trennung bon SHrdj'c unb 6tnnt. ZSn @:nglanb liefcljaftigen ficlj bic ~reifitcljen immet mc£)t mit bem @ebanfen, bie 5ttennung bet angmani" fcljen Sfitclje bom ®taat oU erllJiden. ZSm "Qutlj. ~etorbU Iefen toir giet" iiliet; ,,~et mat bet englifcljen ~teifitcljen (Free Church Council) lie" icljafiigte ficlj aUf feinet foelien in ®ljeffielb aligeljaItenen ZSaljte~betfammrung unter anbctm mit bem metljimni~ bet cngIifcljen ®taagfitclje unb ber ~rei~ 702 Theological Observer. - .Ritd)lid)~8eitl1efd)id)md)e~. firdjen. ~abei tnurbe erneut eine ~orbetung ausgefvrodjen, bie in ben {etten ~aljren fdjon berfdjiebentIidj bon freHirdjIidjer 6eite Iaut getnorben ift. ~ie ~rennung ber angIifanifdjen SHrdje bom 6taat mit allen iljren Ston. fequenden, audj in finanoieller Q3eaieljung, tourbe mit einbeuttgen )ffiorten geforbert. ~er Q3efdjluB bes mats, ber einftimmig angenommen tnurbe, lautete: ,~m ecften :Deutetojetemiu obey bet ~nt= fteljung bet .ideiligfeUsgefe~e 3ut 8eU bes ~6Hs, ber I5teUung :;SOMS am I5c91uli bet ~rolJi)eten ober ber ~etfiinlicf)feit Des sttitojefaja." Sl)ann fal)rt ~raufe fort: ,,150 erfreulidj biefe oelben ~infUljtungen finb, fn unetfreulilij Die brUte bon illliiIler. Illienn 3roei bas ®lcicf)e tun, ift es '0019 nic~t bas ®leid)e, meint ein nHe!! I5lJrid)roort. mOt 31uan3ig :;Sal)ten griff l5eUiu bie (\,inleitung bes .idaUenjer IUlt= teftamentlers ~orniU in entfcljeibenben lj.\unUen an, unb es entjlJann fid) ein roiffen" fcljaftliclj intetelfantet ®ebanfenaustaufd). .ideute roill ~J1i.iUer mit einem j}Uljrer ber altteftamentlid)en llliiffenfdJaft bie stlinge freu3en; unb bet ~rfolg 1 l5eUin antroDrtet tuq aUf cinet ~oftfatte: ,butd) biefe IUtbeit fcien ben IUltteftamenHetn einige Xliiufe bom lj.\e13 gefammelt'. :;Sft biefe (l'ntgegnung gmcljtfertigt? ~s foU nid)t bedannt tverben, baa in biejen 480 l5eiten 9JliiUers cin laienen~eifl fteM; roie et mit \Red)t fagt, bie j}rndjt cinet fed)sunbbrciaigjiiljrigen ernften IUtbeit Ubet ben lj.\entateud). IUbet tvas fie 3eigt, ift eine ettiitenbe j}iifle bon lUuscinanber= fe~ungen. (\;5 fd)cint ~ier cin Hengstenberg redivivus erftanben oU fein, bet im \Ringen um enblidje IUnerfennung bei ben j}adjinilfenfd)afHern, in 3um steil feljr fd)lecf)ter ftiIiftijdjer lUusbruc!sform, Ufietiprubelnb bon einem biS an ftberljebIidje feU gren3enben l5e1bftvcinubtfein, immer bon neuem beroeifen roill, inas C1:' l5eite 84 in hie Illiorte faat: ,\ffiad)t auf unb roelJtt eud) unb roaljrt wet ljeiligftes ®ut, bns inflJiriette ®ottestuort bet mibe1!' ,l5eeTenmorbenbe merbalinjlJiration', luie Wieinljolb fie nennt, rohb 9iet berfod)ten; unb \J 0 It b a au sift e s j (lIe i d) t I b i e illl 0 f a it ii t b eS lj.\ e n tnt e u d) s 3 u b e ro ei fen. :;:Sit's miiglid), bali man filij mit WiiifIer auseinanberje~en fann, bali er filij nicf)t au beUagen braudjt, roenn er Don bet j}ad)ruiffenjd)aft totgeflijroiegen roirb? Wiag WiiiUer aUd) in *) 6)Jerrfat burcljtueg bon nnil. 708 Theological Observer. - .RirdJHdJ. @So ttJeit ift alletbingi3 bie @ottlofenpropaganba nicljt befonbeti3 etfolgreiclj gettJefen, tna~ auclj bie alnette :i!agung t>et @6erutibe bet ~.~. iJ. (~ntet~ natioUtlle ~toletarifclje iJreibenferoettJegung) in ID'lo~fall im ~aljre 1931 ausbtiidIiclj 3ugeftanben ljat. ~n ~nbien, (I"ljina unb 2lftifa fonnte fie ficlj nod) eigencm Bugef±iinbni~ ,noclj nicljt tecljt cntfaHen'; boclj fJat fie in ~apan unb in bet mongolei oeteit~ ,miicljtige atljeiltifclje (lrganifationen ins !!Bed gefci,3t'. \l311rbcrflanb fei bie Q3ettJegung abet noclj reiclj!iclj ftad auf bie ,cljtift" Iicljen l2iinber' bc\cf)riinft gettJefen. ~mmerl)in !jat bie @ottIofenptopaganba ,tade ClicfJiIfen an bem @inf{uf3 be~ eutopiiifcljen d'reibenfertums unb bem )lliaclj§tu111 materialiftifcljer unb at!jeiftifcljer 5l:'enbenilcn unter ber ~ugenb GIljinai3, ;'inDicni3 unb fonftiget Eiinber. ~ie d)rjftIidJe ID'liHion ttJirb mit bet Umftiiraungi3arbeit ber ~. ~. iJ. iiberarI au rccl)ncn !jaoen." ~. ~. ID'l.