(ttnurnr~iu
aJqtnlngirul ilnutlJly
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. V October, ,1.934 No. 10
CONTENTS
Page
Rede zur Eroe:lfnung der Synodalkonferenz. L. Fuerbringer • 737
The Primitive Christians, E. G. Sihler •••••••••••••••••••• 741
Die Gnadenwahl nach Zeit und Ewigkeit. J. T. Mueller •••• 748
Externalism and Sacramentalism. P. E. Kretzmann. • • • • • • • •• 757
Von dem Beruf der Lehrerinnen an christlichen Gemeinde-
schulen. G. Stoeckhardt t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 764
Sermon Study on 1 Tim. 4, 4-11. T. Laetsch ••••••••••••• 774
Sepnons and Outlines ............................... 782
Miscellanea ......................................... 789
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ..•.. 791
Book Review. - Literatur ............................ 807
Em Prediger muss nicbt a11em weiden,
also dass er die Schafe unterwelse, wle
sie recbte Ohrtsten BOllen &em, BOndern
aucb daneben den Woelfen tDehr.m, dass
sle die Schafe nl~ht lIJ\grel1en und mit
fol!:ch~r Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum e1n.
fuehren. - LuIAef'.
Es 1st kem Ding, daa die Leute mehr
bel der Kircbe bebaelt denn die lUte
Predlgt. - Apologie, An.~.
If the trumpet give an uncertain BOund,
who shall prepare himself to the hattie f
1 Cor.~, B.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of l!rtissouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
Theological Observer. - .reitc9nc9.3eit(!efc9ic9tli~~. 791
Theological Observer. - ~ifdjlidj".seitgefdjidjtlidje~.
I. ).meriktt.
Did the Lutheran Church Ever Teach This? - The Luthe1'an
Standard of late has been publishing various articles on the question
whether it is right for Christians to take part in warfare. In the issue
of August 18 the Rev. H. Boening, writing under the caption "Conscience
and War," upholds two views: 1. If a foreign army invades the conti-
nental United States, one ought to sanction a war of 'defense and par-
ticipate as an armed combatant if possible. 2. Participation in any other
kind of war is wrong. In enlarging on this position, he says: "If these
statements reflected only my personal opinions, there would be no reason
for publishing them here. I would live by them and hope that my sons
will some day live by them, but I would not attempt to propagandize for
them. They are opinions, however, which to me seem inevitably, unes-
capably, implied in all Christian thinking. I am willing to go so far as
to say that I cannot see how anyone can refuse to share them and still
call himself a. follower of the Prince of Peace. To my way of thinking
our Church remains woefully remiss in an essential duty till it begins to
embody them in its teachings. Consider what is involved in any other
position: blind obedience to a government which may err, nothing less,-
and till recently our Church taught just that. It is not four years since
a young pastor asked one of our Districts, in convention assembled, to
discuss the moral issues raised by pacifism. The District decided that
it had no time for such a discussion, Mention of the subject was dis-
missed when the ranking official simply laid down the dictum: 'When
war comes, we Christians obey and ask no questions. The responsibility
is not ours.' "
We cannot help asking, When did the Lutheran Church ever teach
blind obedience to a government which may err? That certa.in officials
have blundered now and then in discussions of the questions involved we
do not doubt; but to say that the Lutheran Church as such in past years
placed in its ethical code a principle calling for blind obedience to the
government is certainly an egregious misstatement. What our Church
has always insisted on is that "we ought to obey God rather than men,"
Acts 5, 29. In the Augsbu1'g Oonfession our fathers draw attention to this
very passage, saying in Art. XVI: "Therefore Christia.ns are necessarily
bound to obey their own magistrates and laws, save only when commanded
to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men, Acts 5, 29,"
This position certainly implies that, if any citizen is able to prove that
a certain war in which his goverment engages is one of sheer aggression
and hence sinful, he is in duty bound to refrain from participation in it.
The difficulty lies in obtaining sufficient information to decide whether
a certain war is just or unjust. When a citizen is in doubt as to the jus-
tice of a war which his government is carrying on, he ought to give his
government the benefit of the doubt. This is putting into a few brief
words just about everything that can be said on this subject. While
searching discussions of all angles of the question of war and peace in
792 Theological Observer. - aitd)Iid)~.8tit\lefd)id)tlt.!.
their relation to us Christians are perfectly legitimate, why must the Lu-
theran Church be misrepresented by her own sons while these discussions
are in progress? A.
An Ominous Questionnaire of the "Lutheran 'Standard." - As we
see from the number of July 1. the Lt~theran StaMm'd submitted five
questions to its readers. They ran thus: "1. Do you favor substantial
reductions in armaments even if the United States is compelled to take
the ini tia,tive and make a, proportiona,tely greater reduction than other
nations are yet willing to do? 2,. Do you believe that the churches of
America should now go on record as refusing to sanction or support any
future wa,r? 3. Are you prepared personally to state tha,t it is your
present purpose not to sanction any future wa,r or participa,te as an armed
comba,tant? 4. Do you fa,vor a drastic limitation through the income tax
and the removal of tax-exempt sources of the annual income that may be
legally retained by an individual? 5. Which economic system a,ppears to
you to be the less antagonistic and more consistent with the ideals and
methods of Jesus. capitalism or a coopera,tive commonwealth?"
Giving the history of this questionnaire" the editor of the Standa1-d,
Dr. Edwa,rd W. Schramm, writes: "I selected five of the fifteen questions
used by Kirby Page, editor of the World To-m01Tow, in a questionnaire
that was sent to the American clergy and to which about twenty-one
thousand clergymen, including no small number of Lutherans, responded.
The answers show tha,t of all denominations the Lutheran clergy was the
most conservative. When I studied the report of the Page qnestionnaire,
I thought it would be worth while to try to ascertain the convictions of
our Lutheran laymen on some of these issues. I was the more inclined
to do so beDause I am deeply convinced of the need of our Lutheran
Church studying the vital economic, social, and political issues of the day
and offering its constituency sane, Scriptural guidance in the face of all
the 'words without wisdom' tha,t are being bandied a,bout. Hence the
questionna,ire."
What a,re we to think of the course on which the Standard has
la.unched? If the editor were propounding the a,bove questions to a friend
with whom he happens to be chatting in the shade of some spreading
oak- or chestnut-tree, we should not object to it; since,. however, in this
matter he is not acting in the capacity of a, private individual, but as
the editor of a church-pa,per and the repl'esenta,tive of a large Lutheran
church-body, we cannot trea,t his questionna,ire, as a, private ma,tter in which
he merely exercises his prerogative a,s an American citizen of the Lutheran
Church. These questions very sharply bring before us the old issue whether
the Church is to concern itself with political and social matters or not,
whether it is to preach the present-day social gospel, whether it is to
become the advocate of special "politico-social" tendencies, or whether it
is simply to continue the old, time-honored work of preaching the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. The Standard evidently feels that in the past the
Lutheran Church has kept too much aloof from the discnssion of social,
economic, and political problems. In support of his courBe Dr. SchrallllIl
says: "I admit that it is most painful to lose sight of the distinction
between Church and Sta,te or for one to lord it over the other. But
I submit that Church and Sta,te cannot be kept in air-tight compartments
Theological Observer. - .Rtrd}lid} • .geitgefd}td}md}d. 793
and completely isolated. Rendering unto God the things tha,t are God's
has something to do with rendering unto Gaesar the things that a·re
Caesar's, and unless we study some of the things that Caesar is doing
and tha,t our newspapers ma,y be advocating and appraise these things in.
the light of God's ''lord and put to them the test question, '\'That would
Jesus ha,ve me do?' we may inadvertently be guilty of obeying men rather
than God. Now the question: In the late World War we followed the
principle of rendering unto Caesar the things tha,t are Caesa,r) and sanc-
tioned and espoused that war as a, just war. Since our Government had
declared wa,r, and since our Confessions teach tha,t Christians may engage
in a just war, we gave the war our blessing. In the light of what we
know a,bout the justice of that war, did we do the will of God in taking
pa,rt in that carnage, or was it only those we fought against who sinned?
You know in every war, a,s in every divorce, there is sin on at least oue
side-usually both. In the last war, which was the just side and which
the unjust? If we could repea,t the experiences of recent years and were
to-day to pass judgment on entering the World Wa,r, what would your
decision be? Are munitions-makers, selfish, materialistic interests of one
kind and another, to furnish aU the information a,bout war to our .Amer-
ican people - and a,bout the kind of economic system we should ha,ve?
Are we Lutherans to leave the spiritua.I aspect of these things to the
Modernists? Is it our God-given duty to keep so strictly to our last tha,t
we discuss, the socia.! order of Jesus' day, possibly of the time of the
Refonrut,tion, but leave the discussion of the injustices and sins of our
own day to our posterity two thousand years hence? Ha,s the Gospel
a message for the individual and absolutely nothing beyond that sphere?
I know we must staTt with the individual, but does Jesus authorize us
to stop there?"
There is much to say in reply. We are confident tha,t Dr. Schramm
is absolutely wrong when he intimates that the Lutheran Church gave
the war tha,t was waged in 19'17-18 its blessing. It ma,y be that some
Lutheran synod at the time decla,red that our entrance into. the war was
right and God-pleasing, but we know that the Missouri Synod did not
make any such decl:ua.tion, and we are persuaded the Ohio Synod did not
do it either. The last-named synods, it is true, did no.t brand the war as
wicked and urge their members not to participate as co.mbatants or in any
other role, but neither did they espouse it as a worthy undertaking. There
were ever so. lllany individua.Is in these church-bodies who endorsed Presi-
dent Wilso.n's declara.tio.n of war; but let us be ca,reful not to charge our
church-bodies with having made such an endo.rsement.
In the second place, the editor entirely overlooks what the Church is
able to do in the econo.mic and political sphere. It has one source of
wisdo.m on which it may and must draw - the Holy Scriptures. ''There
they speak, it also speaks; where they are silent, it must be silent, too..
The Scriptures nowhere declare that it is wrong fo.r Christians to
engage in warfare. If we wish to continue as the Bible Church, such
opposition to. war as the modernistic pulpit and press are now manifesting
cannot be participated in by our church-bodies. Does the Bible sa,y that
capitalism is an evil and must be supplanted by SOllle brand o.f Socialism?
Does it say which is the most equitable way of raising the mo.ney which
794 Theological Observer. - Ritd)l~~{leit\1efd)id)md)el!.
the Government requires for its work? Doe!> it pronounce in favor of
long or short working-hours? It lays down general principles which the
Church is to teach and which, if followed, will ameliorate harassing con-
ditions in this vale, of tears; but the individual questions mentioned it
does not decide. Could the Church conscientiously go on record as being
opposed to the participa,tion of its members in war? The Mennonites do
because they say the Bible teaches such an attitude; but the Lutheran
Church has always declared that such Bible-proof as the Mennonites
advance for their position is a figment of their own manufadure. The'
Modernists. can well say that a.s church-bodies they are opposed to aU wars
because they do not a,t all pretend to follow the Scriptures strictly and
loyally. The Reformed church-bodies may with a show of right enter the
political a,rena and decla,re aga,inst participation in wa,r because, while
they a,vow allegiance to the Scriptures, they definitely state that in their
religious pronouncements they a,re also guided by reason. But how the
Lutheran Church, with its profession of being a, Bible Church, can con-
sistently and conscientiously declare in favor of the attitude mentioned
and thus authoritatiYcly decide a, moot politico-social question we are
unable, to gra.sp.
In the third place, the questionnaire of the Standard is a step in the
direction of thisworlilliness. W1lat Jesus would ha,ve replied if a person
had asked Him whether He might become a, soldier we can easily see.
He would have told him and his a.ssociates: "Seek ye first the kingdom
of God and His righteousness. W1lether you take part in a war or
not is a comparatively small matter. W1lat really counts is that you
should be a, child of the Fa,ther in heaycn." W1lat Paul would ha.ve
replied to such a, question we may sec from 1 Cor. 7,29 ff. : "But this
I say" brethren, the time is, short. It remaineth tha,t both they that have
wives be as though they had none; they that weep as though they wept
not; and they that rejoice as though they rejoicecl not; ana they that
buy as though they possessed not; and they that use this world as not
a,busing it ,: for the fashion of this world paswth away."
Finally, wIlen the editor of the Standard asks, "Are we Lutherans
to leave the spiritual aspect of these things to the Modcrnists?" we shaH
of course reply that wha,t the Bihle has. to say on the questions under
discussion must be taught by us, hut that a.s churches we should not
hesita,te to lea;ve to the Modernists the propaganda, for the extra,-Scriptural
and (when pa,rticipation in war is branded as sinful pm" se) a.nti-Scriptural
politico-social theories. "Let the dea,d bury their dead; but go thou and
prea.ch the kingdom of God." Burying the dead is an important temporal
service. It is one thing the spiritually dead are fit for; let them attend
to- it. Since the Modernists do not lead people to Christ and to eternal
salvation, let us not grudge them such little service as they can render
here on eaa:th. At any rate, if we see that they as a, quasi-political
organiza,tion are apparently doing some good, let us not think tha.t our
churches also must become politico-social bodies. The Lutheran Standard
in the pa.st adhered to the great historic principles of the Lutheran Church
in this realm. Let us hope tha,t the present defection will prove to be
momentary only. A.
Theological Observer. - .reird)1id)~8eitgefd)id)tlid)e~. 795
The Evangelical-Reformed Union Hailed by the "Luthell.'"an."
So spoke the Lutheran in an editorial published July 5, 1934: "The
Lutheran extends, the good wishes of the United Lutheran Church to tIle
newly formed Evangelical and Reformed C1mrch. The union bet,,'een
these two Christian bodies has followed sincere prayer and pa,tient study
of conditions,. The objective is more effective service to our Lord and the
firmer esta.blishment of His kingdom on earth. The advantages of union
in economy and thoroughness of combined administration justify coalition
where agreements have been reached. The fact of merging indicates that
agreements have been reached. Good results should, and no doubt will,
follow. We cordially greet Ollr new neJighbors." Are comments needed?
A.
The Character of the Evangelical Synod and the "Lutheran's"
Greetings. - In the Lutheran of August 9 a valuable letter is published,
which not only embodies important information on the character of the
Evangelical Synod, but likewise is evidence that there are people left in
the U. L. C. who are not willing to board the ship of unionism. The letter
is sufficiently self-explanatory to be reprinted by us without further
comments.
"In the issue of July 5, 1934, the Lutheran extends the good wishes
of the United Lutheran Church in America to the newly formed Evan-
gelical and Reformed Church. It is pointed out that this union has fol-
lowed sincere prayer.
"Also in the Lutheran of July 12, 1934, there is an article, 'A Sister's
Marriage,' emphasizing the fad that there are three hundred congrega-
tions which worship in the same church with the Reformed whose theology,
admitted in this a,rticle, is liberal and modemistic.
"As a pastor of the United Lutheran Church in America", I cannot
understand the attitude of the Lutheran regarding this merger. If it is
true of the Reformed Church, 'Ihr habt einen andern Geist l' then this
expression of Dr. Luther is even more fitting for the Evangelical and Re-
formed Church.
"Considering the fact that the Evangelical Synod in itsl majority
consists of pastors and members formerly Lutherans, whO' often were
enticed to leave the Lutheran Church, cla,iming that the Evangelical
Synod is just as Lutheran, I am at a, loss to understand how any Lu-
theran Church can extend good wishes to a body which consistently drew
her membership from Lutheran bodies.
"A member whom we took into our congrega,tion recently told me
that the Evangelical minister made the following statement to him when
he tried to get this family into his congregation: 'I am just as Lutheran
as the Lutheran pastor,' and this is not an exception. By this policy the
Evangelical Synod and her congregations grew, hurting always Lutheran
congrega,tions and depriving Lutheran people of the pure doctrine.
"In the IJ"rticle 'A Sister's Marriage' wrong statements are made re-
garding the Evangelical Synod. She does not represent the old State
Church of Prussia, though the Evangelical Synod always made this claim.
"In the State Church of Prussia a Lutheran pastor or congregation
retained the Lutheran doctrine only; in the Evangelical Synod both the
Lutheran and the Reformed have to be accepted.
796 Theological Observer. - RitdJlid):,8eUgefdJidJt1idJeil.
"In the State Church of Prussia the Reformed congregation could
be served only by a Reformed pastor and used the Heidelberg Catechism,
while the Lutheran congregation could be served only by a Lutheran pastor
and used Luther's Catechism, partaking in the Sacraments accordingly.
In the Evangelical Synod the pastor is compelled to use the makeshift of
the Evangelical Catechism. The Lutheran Catechism is forbidden!
"The Prus"ian State Church is a confederate union.
"The Evangelica,l Synod is an absorptive union.
"When this article claims that in the State Church of Prussia the
two confessions existed side by side, it is correct for the State Church of
Prussia, but absolutely wrong when applied to the Evangelical Synod.
"A hint is made that in the new Church a pastor may teach Luther's
Small Catechism. That will be impossible, as this Catechism is used only
in the creedal statement as a catch for Lutherans, but the Church is for-
bidden to teach it.
"The doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Synod as given in this article
is correct as far as the old constitution goes. In 1927 this unchangeable
creedal basis, in spite of constitutional fixation, was amended in order to
join a merger with the United Brethren and the Reformed.
"Not to get too lengthy, let me just make a few statements which show
why a Lutheran cannot extend good wishes to this new Church: -
"It is not sincere prayer that did it, but the Calvinistic-modernistic
elements, with the sentiment: 'It does not matter what you believe.' An
article in our daily newspaper, very likely inspired by Evangelical min-
isters, makes this statement: 'Without creed or constitution, except a
simple plan of union, the new Church was formed.
"A Lutheran should have nothing to do with churches which are in-
fested and ruled by Modernists, because they are enemies of the Triune God.
"If we believe that the Lutheran Church is the true Church, we can-
not extend good wishes to any so-called Church which works against us
and tears down what we build up.
"The attitude of the Lltthrwan- hurts the prevailing sentiment of Lu-
therans for a united Lutheran Church.
"The Lutheran should discourage the prevailing tendency among some
of the pastors of the United Lutheran Ohurch in America to make common
cause and express their sympathy with Oalvinistic and modernistic groups.
Either we are with our Lord, or we are against Him.
"The" Luthe1'isoher Herold brought a very short and a very fitting re-
mark about this union: 'A strange name and a strange doctrinal basis
for a union' (Ein seltsamC1' Name un-d ein seltsames Beken.ntnis fuer eine
Vereinigung) .
"The writer knows what he is talking about. For more than twenty
years he was pastor of the Evangelical Synod. Insisting on Luther's
Catechism, he was persecuted, and finally, when he and his congregation of
more than 750 souls unanimously did not accept the plan of union of
four years ago (which did not contain any of the Lutheran or Reformed
creeds, not even the Apostolic Creed), the congregation was split by
Evangelical ministers. They deceived some of the members, induced them
to go to court, and (by very questionable means) succeeded in taking
Theological Observer. - Ritd)1id)'.8eitaefd)~tlid)e!. 797
~ beautiful church property away from a two-thirds majority which stuck
to the Lutheran creeds as guaranteed by the constitution of the con-
gregation.
"In spite of adverse times, hatred and slander, we succeeded by the
.grace of God in building a Lutheran church." A.
A Compliment, Though Hardly Meant As Such. - Among recent
books which are discussed widely the work by H. Paul Douglass of the In-
iltitute of Social and Religious Research entitled The Ohurch Umty Move-
11tents in the United States occupies a conspicuous place. The Literary
Digest informs us that, according to this book, no one is so much opposed
to unionism as Missouri Synod Lutherans. The book is based on informa-
tion solicited from twenty thousand persons. Reviewing it, W. E. Garrison,
literary editor of the Ohristian Oentury, writes: "Two hindrances to im-
portant and radical steps toward union are statistically demonstrable.
One is that most denominations have so wide a spread between their pro-
and antiunionists that precipitate action would simply pull them in two.
Again, the 'sense of distance' between two denominations is often widely
-different, dependent on which way the measurement is taken. For example,
Disciples feel very little sense of distance from Baptists, while Baptists feel
.a considerable sense of distance from Disciples; Quakers feel closer to