Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 6-7 (Text)
.
alBO dug er die Bchafe unterwe\5e, wle
aie rechte ChrIsten BOllen oem. sondem
auch daneben den Woelfen wehr., dea.
aie die Schafe nlcht angreifen und mit
falacher Lehre verfuehren und I rrtnm ein-
fuehren. - Luther.
Es ist kein Ding, daa die Leute mehr
bel der Klrche behaelt denn die gute
Predigt. - Apolo(Tie, Arl.!4.
If the t rumpet give an uncertain BOUDd,
wbo shall prepare himaelf to the hettie f
1 Cor. 4. s.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING H01J'SE, St. Louis, Mo.
Theological Observer. - .ffitd)lidj~3eitgefdjid)mdjes. 535
Theological Observer. - ~trdjHdj"geitgefdjidjtlidjeS.
I. .l.mtrilttt.
Let Us Get Together on the Doctrine of Verbal Inspiration.-
The Pastor'8 11£ onthly of May, 1935, carries an article on "Verbal Inspira-
tion" by John Ohlinger Lang, from which we quote the following: -
"In a review of Dr. John Theodore Mueller's recently published work
Oh1"i8tian Dogmatic8 the reviewer in the Lutheran Ohurch Quarterly had
the following to say: 'Naturally the material is shaped into thc form of
the traditional presentation of the Missouri Synod's well-known doctrinal
position. Underlying it is not only the generic Protestant doctrine of the
Holy Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practise, but the Missouri
doctrine of verbal inspiration.' (Luthe1'an Church Quu1'tel'ly, January,
1935, p. 83.) Toward the close of the review appears also the following:
'What lends particular interest to the uew book on Christian theology
is not so much restatements of the great tracts of fundamental Christian
teaching on which Christians are generally, and have for long been, agreed,
but its differentiae. The book under review largely derives its differen-
tiating features and conclusions from its underlying doctrine of the Scrip-
tures as requiring for their proper interpretation the theory of verbal
inspiration, a theory of which the author acknowledges: "In Germany
there is at the present time hardly an outstanding university professor
who upholds the doctrine of verbal inspiration.'" (Ibid., p. 84.) ·What is
this reviewer really saying here? He is setting forth as the unique feature
of Dr. Mueller's Dogmatio8 the fact that it upholds verbal inspiration, and
this verbal inspiration is called 'the ~IissoUl'i doctrine.' . .. What is this
'Missouri uoctrine' to which the reviewer evidently objects? He gives
a quotation from Dr. Mueller in which it is stated: 'The inspiration is
not simply inspiration of thoughts nor inspiration of persons, but verbal
inspiration, i. e., an inspiration by which the Holy Ghost inbreathed the
very words which the holy penmen wcre to write.' (L. c., p. 83.) Is this
idea of a verbal inspiration as stated by Dr, lYIueller only a 'Missouri doc-
trine'? Can Luther~"ns outside of the Missouri Synod really find any fault
with it? Is it not the clear statement of the generally accepted doctrine
among Lutherans of America, even though perhaps in Germany to-day there
is hardly a university professor of rank who adheres to it? Is it not in
full accord with the usual phrase found in practically every Lutheran
dogmatics book, namely, the suggestio 'rerum et ve1"bo1'um? The fact is
that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is not only Missourian; it is Lu-
theran, Christian, and Biblical. But such a statement demands proof, and
that is what this essay has set out to furnish ... , Not only the :Missouri
Synod, but likewise the American Lutheran Church accepts the doctrine
of verbal inspiration. Dr. R. C. H. Lenski emphatically upholds the doc-
trine in his Do.qrnatio Notes, which form the basis for his courses in dog-
matics at the Columbus Seminary. Dr. Lenski states that 'veTbal in-
spiration, then, is simply this, that the divine act, moving, enlightening,
controlling, and governing the holy writers, extended to the words which
they used, so that only those words were chosen which God wanted for the
536 Theological Observer. - mtd)nd)~,8eitgefd)td)md)e~.
conveyance of the thought.' (Dogmotio Notes, pp.15.16.) The Doctor
further argues: 'If the words are not inspired, then there is a vast element
uninspired; for no thought can be expressed in anything but words, and
the entire Bible consists of words.' 'Moreover, if the thought is said to
be inspired and not the words, we can never be certain even as to the
thoughts at any point; for it often turns on a single word a,nd comes
to us wholly in words.' (L. C., p.15.) . .. In his New Gospel Selections
Dr. Lenski says in connection with Matt. 10,20: 'Thought and word are
always combined. ~'here is no inspiration except verbal inspiration.'
(P. 643.) (See also the sermon on this text, p. 652.) ...
"Dr. Lenski's defense of verbal inspiration has also COlUe to the atten-
tion of the Lgtheron Gh111'oh Quo1"tm'ly j for in a reyiew of his recently
publisl1ed lnterpreto.tion of St. John's Gospd, which appeared in the
October, 1932, issue of that publication, he is taken to task for it in a man,
ner much similar to the fashion in which Dr. Mueller is taken to task in
the January, 1935, issue. The reviewer says: 'While the author would
count his verbal-inspiration theory the bulwark of llis treatment, as a mat-
ter of fact it is its straitjacket. He sometimes misses the woods while
counting the trees.' (Oct., 1932, p.441.) . .. A paper entitled 'The Bible
as the Inerrant Word of God' was presented by Rev. J. W. Schillinger at
the 1928 convention of the Northern District of the Joint Synod of Ohio,
and this paper was printcd in the official niinutes. In this paper Rey.
-Schillinger says: 'Inspiration means that the Holy Ghost impelled the
prophets and apostles to write, showed them the truths which they should
write, gave them the exact words in which they should clothe these truths,
and guided them in writing, so that they recorded these words with in-
fallible ftccuracy.' (JlTim(tes of N01'thern District, 1928, pp. 34. 35.) ...
"In the Dogma,tic8 Notes of Dr. M. Reu of Wartburg Seminary we read
the following: 'Moreover, the Spirit supplied the writer with the word
that exactly corresponcled to the subject-matter amI precisely conveyed its
meaning. This is required by the formulae of citation, "Thus saith the
Lord," "The Holy Spirit saith"; also by the fact that we would have no
assurance that the divine me.ssage has heen correctly and completely set
forth; likewise Paul's habit of drawing important deductions from the
literal wording of the Old Testament quotations (e. g., Gal. 3,16) and espe-
cially by I Cor. 2, 13.' (Reu, Dogmatics Notes,' translated by J. Boden-
sieck, p, 295.) ...
"The best and most complete work on verbal inspiration in the
English language is the one by Jacob Aall Ottesen Stub of the Norwegians,
Ver/mllnspimtion . ... Dr, Stub stfttes (p.27) that 'to-day almost the
entire Lutheran Church of America ,holds to this belief. The Synodical
Conference in particular (German and English) and the Norwegian Lu-
therans are here in accord. The Norwegian Synod has stood as an UIl-
wavering ehampion of this doctrine.' ]j'rom this it is quite evident that
verbal inspiration is not simply a 'Missouri doctrine,' but that on this
point the Norwegians are in full accord with the Missourians. In the
conclusion of his book Dr. Stub says: 'We maintain that the Bible be-
comes dearer, the more we become convinced that it is from God. It is
the epistle from the Beloved One, and the more we realize that its con-
".tents, words as well as thoughts, are from Him who so loved the world
Theological Observer. - ~ird)lid)'.8eitgtfd)id)tnd)e~. 537
that He gave His only-begotten Son and spared Him not, the more precious.
it becomes.' (L. c., p. 107.) ...
"Are there still any voices in the United Lutheran Church which rise
to the defense of verbal inspiration? Indeed there are. A very distinct
voice comes from the theological seminary of the 'Cnited Lutheran Church
in IVaterloo, Ont., Can. In 1933 Dr. C. H. Little, professor of Systema.tic
Theology at that seminary, published a book entitled Disput-ed Dooiyines,.
and in this book he devotes about a dozen pages to the subject of inspira-
tion. Dr. Little has the following to say (p. 19): 'Inspiration is the activity
of the Holy Spirit by which He put into the hearts and minds of chosen
men the impulse to write and so controlled and directed them that they
produced in a real and verbal sense a correct and inerrant record of
God's revelation to men.' A little farther on appears the following: 'If the
inspiration of the writers was of such a nature that the Holy Spirit meTely
suggested to them vague thoughts, which they put into words as best they
could. we would always be in doubt whether they were successful in find-
ing Lhe right words with which to clothe their inspired thought.' Such
clear testimony from a theologian of the United Lutheran Church is in-
deed refreshing." ('rhe next sections quote "conservative Reformed theo-
logians" and "theologians of GeTmallY." Then follows a section on "The
Lutheran Dogmaticians" and one on "Luther and the Confessions," from
which we quote the following: )
"If we go back to the Lutheran dogmaticians, we find that they are
unanimous in upholding verbal inspiration. Baier says: 'Divine inspira-
tion was that agency by which Goel supcrna,tumlly communicated to the
intellect of those who wrote not only the correct conception of all that
was to be written, but also the conception of the words themselves and
of everything by whieh they were to be expressed and by which He also
instigated their will to the act of writing.' (Schmi(l, Doctyinal Theology,
p.39.) . .. Professor Rohnert, in 1890, prepared a monograph, to which
he gave the title TVas lehrt Luther von der InspiYat'ion dey Heilige'Y/;
Schn:jt? in whieh he shows that Luther must have believed in verbal in-
sp~"~~~,m. . .. With ~';;~;;Tel1Ce :;; the Cc~i:::;siollS w:; ol1ght to note that
[in them] the Scriptures are spoken of as being 'of the Holy Ghost,' and the
treatment of these Scriptures shows that they are Tegarded as in a verbal
sense the prodnct of 'the Holy Ghost.' In the Augsburg Confession,
Article XXVllI, paragraph 49, we read: 'If bishops have the right to
burden churches with infinite traditions and to ensnare consciences, why
does Scripture so often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions?
vVhy does it call them "doctrines of devils"? 1 Tim. 4, 1. Did the Holy
Ghost in vain forewarn of these things l' (Jacobs, Book of Concoyd,
pp. 64. 65.) In the Apology we read in the introduction: 'You have now
therefore, reader, our apology; frol11' which you will undeTstand not enly
what the adversaries have judged (for we have Teportod this ill good faith),
but also that they have condemned several articles contrary to the manifest
Scripture of the Holy Ghost.' (Ibid., p. 74.) In Article XXIV of the'
Apology, for instance, an argument is based on a certain word which
St. Paul used faT 'sin.' In whu.t other sense,. then, could the Confessions
understand 'the Scriptures of the Holy Ghost' except in a verbal sense?'
(Klotsche, OtttZine of the Hist01'Y of Doctrines, p. 32.)" (Section VIII
538 Theological Observer. - .lhtd)1id)~8eitgefd)id)t1id)e5.
gives the teaching of "the Fathers" and Section IX the teaching of "the
Scriptures." The last section deals with the objections raised against the
Scripture doctrine of verbal inspiration. We quote only the following:)
cr ••• "Ve have now reserved our most important antithetical considera-
tion for last. It deals with the 'theory' of verbal inspiration, aud we boldly
assert that we accept no 'theory' of verbal inspiration, but rather the 'fact'
of verbal inspiration. When we speak of a theory of verbal inspiration,
we speak of something which may not be true, and we are endeavoring to
explain just how it took place, and the 'how' the Church has never at-
tempted to describe becau~e thc Bible does not describe it. Inspiration
belongs to the sphere of the miraculous, and there is no counterpart to it
anywhere. However, when we state our doctrine of verbal inspiration, we
are stating the fact which the Scriptures present, namely, that God so
directed and controlled the holy writers that they wrote what He wanted
them to write and in the form in which He wanted it written. This is
no 'theory.'" ...
(The concluding paragraph of this fine article reads:)
"There is no doctrine of inspil'ation except tlle verbal. "Ve agree with
Dr. Mueller that 'all those who deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible
and substitute for it "personal illspiration" or "thought inspiration" deny
the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration altogether and are compelled to teach
in its place a mere "illumination," which is common to all believcrs.'
(Mueller, op. cit., pp. 101. 102.) If there are any misgivings concerning
the doctrine of verbal inspiration in certain qUArters of the United I~u
theran Church or if the opinion prevails that it is a mere 'Missouri doc-
trine,' surely this is a serious matter and a great hindrance toward closer
fellowship. This point surely must be included in the things to be 'ironed
out' before we of the American Lutheran Church or the American Lu-
theran Conference can with a clear conscience declare pulpit- and altar-
fellowship, because the Lutheran, Christian, and Biblical doctrine of the
Scriptures is the doctrine of verbal inspiration."
(The editor of the PUSt01"S Monthly, Prof. J. A. Dell, agrees with Pas-
tor Lang. He writes:)
"Our main article this month brings to the attention of the Lutherans
of America something which should be looked into. Do we hflli.W8 in the
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, or do we not? Apparently we do, by
a very large majority. But if there are any who do not, it is a kindness
on our part to point out that this is a hindrance to the closer relations
we are aiming to achieve."
In its April issue the Lutheran OhunJoh Ql1urterly launches a violent
attack against the doctrine of verbal inspiration. The first section of an
article by John Aberly, Gettysburg, on "The Bible the 'Vord of God" is
headed "Weakness of the Theory of Verhal Inspiration." We quote a few
sentences: "'Vhat is meant when we call the Bible the Word of God?
In times past and for not a few now the answer is a very simple one. The
very words of Scripture are the Word of God. The Bible and the Word
of God are one and the same. Should one question that they may thus
be equated, he may be sharply rebuked or be pronounced guilty of equivo-
cation; for they are eitller that or are not, and there is no middle
ground. . .. May I here throw off reserve and state how I, in the calling
Theological Observer. - stitc!)!id):,8eUgefc!)id)t1id)es. 539
to which the greater part of my life has been given, have been compelled
to revise my own approach to the Bible? It was both my duty and an
exalted privilege to try to procIa,im and bear witness to the truths taught
in the Bible before men who professed loyalty to other sacred writings ....
I found I could not meet these by falling back on my claim that this Bible
was the literal Word of God by quoting passages of Scripture that are
supposed to support this view. I found that other faiths make even
stronger elaims for their own sacred writings. The Hindu Vedas, for
instance, claim that that portion of their scriptures which they call Sruti
(that which is heard, or revelation par exceUence) was the very utterance
of God Himself. . .. It compels one to do what Dr. E. Stanley Jones found
himself compelled to do, to silOrten his lines of defense. He states that,
when he went to India, he felt called on to defend the Bible from Genesis
to Revelation; but he soon found it necessary to retire into the citadel
and limit himself to Jesus Ohrist and Him crucified. . .. One wonders
whether we are not compelled to shorten our defenses by the needs at
home as well as abroad. When one reads articles by a distinguished teacher
of history, - I refer to Harry Elmer Barnes, - in which he gives as the
obstacles in his way of believing in the God of the Bible the fact that he
cannot believe in a God who would sanction the cruelties recorded in some
of the Old Testament histories, one may well ask the question whether
men have not been repelled at times by a mishandling of the Scriptures,
and that, too, by those who have been most zealous in their defense." E.
Let Us Get Together on the Lodge Question. - The Lutheran
synods of America are not of one mind on this burning question. The fol-
lowing is taken from the Luthera,n Oompa,nion of April 27, 1935:-
"Question: 'Does our Lutheran Ohurch sanction participation in burial
services with the Masonic Lodge?' - O. P. P.
"Answer: No, it does not. There may be Lutheran pastors who do it
and get by with it because church discipline is at low ebb in the Ohristian
Church both as to pastors and people. The Church is silent on many things
while souls are being ensnared ~nd destToyed. Yet as far as I know, no
Augustana pastor has gone so far as to have fellowship with the Masonic
lodge at funeral services. I am sorry to say that I know of other Lu-
theran pastors who have had such fellowship." E.
Let Us Get Together on the Doctrines of Conversion and Elec-
tion. - We are far apart on this highly important matter. IVe must not
tell the world and ourselves that the Lutherans of America are in doctrinal
agreement. Dr. Joseph Stump of the united Lutheran Ohurch insists they
are not. He refuses to a ccept the doctrine of the election of grace as
taught by other I,utherans. He quotes and repudiates the following state-
ment from Dr. J. T. Mueller's Ohristian DOgl1Wtics (p. 587): "God's elec-
tion of grace did not take place in view of man's foreseen faith, but rather
embraced this faith together with the whole way of salvation, such as
conversion, justification, sanctification, and final preservation. Hence the
believer is not elected on account of his foreseen faith; on the contrary,
he has become a believer in time because of his eternal election to sal-
vation. In other words, a person is brought to saving faith in time just
because God from eternity has graciously elected him to salvation." And
'540 Theological Observer. ~ ~ird)licf)~2eitgefcf)icf)tlid)efl.
'''this,'' says Dr. Stump, "sounds very much like the Calvinistic doctrine
of election to faith." (Luthcmn, Dec. 13, 1934.) He refuses to teach "the
election to faith." He abhors such a doctrine as Calvinism. He adds
indeed the fine words: "Yet the author repudiates and condemns Cal-
vinism. And we believe that he is not a Calvinist. The trouble with many
persons outside of Missoul'i, however, is that they cannot see how any-
body can hold the Missouri doctrine of election without falling into Cal-
vinism. Yet evidently it can be done." ,\Ve certainly appreciate this spirit
of fair-mindedness. Dr. Stump is willing to give us the benefit of the
doubt, - and we can assure him that he is not making a mistake. The fact,
however, remains that he is constrained to abhor our doctrine of election.
He cannot at present agree with it - "the Calvinistic doctrine of election
to faith." He stands squarely on the intuitu-fidei doctrine of election. We
are certainly not in agreement with him. Neither is Dr. M. Reu. He
writes: "Wir sind tler Uebm'zeugung, dass auch in d·iesem St?'eit [dem
Praedestinationsst?'eit] Gott Positiv·es im Auge hatte 'lInd auoh erreioht
hat j denn auoh uns ist die pmedestinatio intuitu fidei cin sohriftloses
Theologumenon, die pmcdestinatio ad fidem dagegen klare Le7we der
Schrift." (Kirahliche Zeitschrift, 1933, p. 502.) Dr. Reu indeed adds:
"Wi?' setzen d'ie A1.tSsagen Pauli ueber die letztere bloss nicht in die Ewig-
keit, wie ,Missouri tut, sondern lass,en sic dn stehen, WQ sie Pa1ilus macht:
in der Zeit, nach erfolgter BeTutmtg oder Bekehr·ung." That is another
point of disagreement of a most important natuTe, which calls for serious
consideration.
Dr. Stump sees Calvinism in "the election to faith." The Lutheran
Oompanion (Augustana Synod) takes the same view. Answering the ques-
tion: "How do you Clxplain predestination?" Pastor J. P. Milton, whose
column usually provides interesting and profitable information, says in the
issue of December 16, 1933: "There are especially three differing inter-
pretations. The one says in effect that Gael has sovereignly chosen and
·elected some unto salvation and some unto damnation. Since mcn are
saved through faith in Jesus Christ, it follows that God has predestined
SOllie to believe and others not to believe in Jesus. To me this seems im-
possible if God (as the Scriptures declare) 'would have aU men to be
saved and to come to the knowledgp. of the truth,' 1 Tim. 2, 4. It seems to
me to deny some a Teal chance to be saveu. . .. The second interpretation
says that God has elected some unto faith and salvation. It stresses just
as strongly as the first that God sovereignly determines those who shall
believe. It tries (as it seems to me, unsuccessfully) to ignore the negative
side of the question, or the election unto unbelief and damnation. If God
determines who shall believe, it follows that He thereby also determines
those who shall not believe. Predestination unto unbelief is the natural
corollary and consequence of preclestination tmta faith." Pastor Milton is
convinced that our cloetrine of election is essentiaIly the Calvinistic doc-
trine. He woulcl not permit it to be preached in his church. He views
it as a horrible doctrine. And we agree with him, as we agree with
Calvin, that the teaching of an "election unto unbelief and damnation"
is a horrible teaching (Calvin: "The decree, I admit, is dreadful"; In-
stitutio, Book III, chap, 23, § 7). But we rIo not agree with him nor with
Calvin that "predestination unto unbelief is the natural corollar? and con-
Theological Observer. - Si:itcl)licl)~Seitgefcl)tcl)md)es. 541
sequence of predestination unto faith." Let us get together on this fun-
damental principle of Lutheran theology. You must not construct doc-
trines by means of logical deductions. You must get your doctrine of
election, for instance, from the express teaching of Scripture, and you
have no right to add to that teaching what your reason says is a natural
corollary and conseqnellce of such teaching. When Scripture speaks of
election, it never says that some are elected unto unbelief and damnation.
It nowhere says that. But, says Pastor Milton, one cannot "ignore the
negative side of the question." We assure him that we cheerfully ignore it.
Scripture ignores it. There is no negative side to it. It is not Scripture,
but hlind reason which says that predestination unto unbelief is a natural
corollary of the election to faith. If we can get together on this principle,
one great cause of our disagreement will be removed. :Men will no longer
stigmatize the doctrine of election to faith as Calvinism.
What does Pastor Milton, on his side, teach on election and con-
version? "The third interpretation says that God predestines unto sal-
vation those whom He foreknows will believe in Jesus. Jesus died for all.
The Holy Spirit, through the means of grace, gives to all the power to
believe. In this sense faith is the gift of God; for it comes only through
thc hearing of the Word. But not all who hear believe; some will not
use the power given. The responsibility for this lies wholly with man,
hidden in that mysterious personality of man which is free (as Adam
was free) to resist the God of grace. God foreknows who will and who
will not believe when the Word of Grace is preached unto them. Fore-
knowing, He predestines those who believe unto salvation. In Rom. 8, 29
we find this order: 'Whom He foreknew He also foreordained [predes-
tined].' This third interpretation seems to me to be the only one that cor-
rectly safeguards both the grace of God as the sole ground and means of
man's salvation and also the inuividual responsibility of man. The Bible
teaches both of these truths." This teaching operates with the synergistic
stat1is medius ("The Holy Spirit gives to all the power to believe") and
the synergistic "responsibility of man" as to his non-conversion and his
conversion. Therefore we abhor it. We think that Pastor Milton also
abhors synergism. Then let him banish all thoughts of a status medius,
in which the unconverterl man decides, by exercising his "individual re-
sponsibility," for conversion. Thc synergistic background of this view of
election and conversion becomes more distinct in The Doctrines at Ohris-
tianity, by P. L. Mellenbruch of the U. L. C. We read there: "Election is
in 'foreview' of faith (electio inhtitu fidei). Predestination, like justifica-
tion, is in view of faith accepting the merits of Jesus Christ. Holy Scrip-
ture throws the responsibility not on God, but on man. God has done,
and is doing, all that He consistently can, without interfering with man's
'freedom of will.' Election or predestination, therefore, as far as man is
concerned, is not absolute, but l'elative, being dependent upon man's ful-
filment of certain conditions - personal faith in Jesus Chri st. . .. Free
will in man would be inopera,tive'. . .. When the apostle' says that 'faith
is the gift of God,' he does not mean or teach that God does man's be-
lieving for him, but that the Holy Spirit, through vocation and regenera-
tion, imparts the Ikbility for believing; then the individual must freely
US'6 that divinely begotten ability. . .. The Holy Spirit does not convert
542 Theological Observer. - ~ircl)ncf)',{3eit\lefcl)icl)mcl)es.
all men because some resist cOllversion. He is active. how8yer, gently
turning men about in proportion as they are willing. . .. Conversion is
an act not necessarily complete or perfect at a given moment. Man a.llows
God to turn him from unbelief to faith and from sin to righteousnees-
from less belief to greater faith and from lesser sins to greater righteous-
ness." (Pp. 125. 138 ff.) There are Lutherans who will not consent to have
this teaching preached in their pulpits; it employs the standard phraseology
of the later, the subtle, synergism. Dr. M. Reu protests against it. "Only
with regret we state that the doctrine of conversion as it is presented
here" (in Mellenbruch's book) "is hardly Biblical, nor is the predestina-
tion intuitn fidei tenable, especially not since the doctrine of faith is not
kept free from synergistic elements." (Kil-chliohe Zeitsohrift, 1931, p. 423.)
If we are to agree on the doctrines of conversion and election, we shall
have to agree to let the mystery why, grace being universal and all men
equally guilty and corrupt, not all are saved, remain unsolved. On that
point we are not yet agreed. ~"'. E. Deitz of the U. L. C. \Vl'ites in his book
Exploring the Deeps, p. 44: "One way out of the dilemma is to say, as
some theologians no, that there is an unsolvable mystery in both predestina-
tion and conversion and that it is quite impossible for us to determine
either why God elects some men to salvation and passes others by"
("passes others by" is an inadmissible concept; it is deduced and formed
by reason, but repudiated by Scripture) "or why some men actually be-
lieve and are sayed while others are not. This postulation of a double
mystery relieves the theologian of the effort to reconcile the apparently
irreconcilable elements in the problem. Still the inquiring mind wistfully
seeks for some other answer and wonders if it is a fact that this is the
end of the investigation, if it is actually impossible to go further."
Dr_ Deitz proceeds to solve the question, and he gives the synergistic solu-
tion: "The difference in result in the case of two men one of whom :finally
believes while the other does not is due to the difference in the choice or
decision wllich they make" (p. 47). There are other Lutherans who refuse
to take up the discussion of this mystery for the purpose of solving it.
They refuse to do so because the attempt to answer it can result only in
either Calvinistic or synergistic ratiocinations. The Formula of Concord,
for one, refuses to answer. "When we see that God gives His "Word at
one place, bnt not at another; removes it from OlJe place and allows it
to remain at another; also, that one is hardened, blinded, given over to
a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed ill the same guilt, is con-
verted again, etc., - in these and similar questions Paul (Rom. 11, 22 ff.)
fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go," etc. (XI, Sol. Deol., § 57;
cpo § 60.) Dr. C. O. Hein, president of the American Lutheran Church,
warns against the attempt to solye the mystery. In his address at the
Lutheran 'VorId COllvention (Copenhagen, Hl2fJ) he declared: "Wie es (lem
Luthert1Lm auf der einen Seite gewiss ist, dass Unglaube, Nichtbe7cehTung
und endliche Verdammun,q in jedem Sinn cinzig und aUein des M enschen
Schtlld ist, so at/f der o,ndern, do,ss Be7cehr1Lng, a/aube llnd Ficiigk'eit in
jedem Sinn Gnndenwe1-k und Gnndengabe Gottes ist. Hier stehen wir 'lior
einem Geheimnis. 'Der SeZige,' sagt H. E. F. Guericlce in seine?' 'Symbolik'"
(3 . .t1uflo,ge, S. 425), 'wird, selig allein dUI-ch Gottes Gnade in Ohristo, ohne
aUes eigene 17 e1'dienst, der Unseli,qe llnseUg dllrch eigene Schuld, weil e1' der
Theological Observer. - .Ritcljficlj~8eitgefd)icf)Hi~s. 543
goettliehen Gnade fortwaehrend widersteht. War'um der Widerstand des
erstm'en gegen die goetUiehe Gnade endlich gebroahen wi1'd, der des letzte-
ren aber nicht, ist nieht des ersteren Verdicnst, wahl aber des letzteren
Schuld. Dcr Mensch jedoeh' ((Lueh der Theolog) 'mit seinem bloeden, d'urch
die Suende getrue,bten Verstande vermag diese tiefste Tiete der goettlichen
Werlcstatt nicht z'u e1'forsohen, 1tnd es ist qroessere Weisheit, das goett-
liahe Geheimnis anzuerlcennen, als 6S gotteslaesterlioh Z'U loesen,' naemlioh
naoh (ber Weise Galvins, der Gatt lOur Ursache der Bekehrung und Nicht-
belcehrung 'macht, oder naeh der Weise des Synergismus, de1' Be7cehrung wie
N'iehtbelcehrung gan.z oder zum 'l'eil von der Selbstentseheidung des Men-
schen 'abhaengig sein lfLeSst." (Luthe1"isehc Ki1'ehenzeitung, June 29, 1929.
Cpo CONC. THEOL. MTHLY., 1930, p. 343.) Thus also Dr. R. C. H. Lenski
(American Lutheran Church): "Why the Word melts some hearts while
others deliberately and permanently harden themsdves against it no man
knows. The former is due wholly to God's grace; the latter is due wholly
to man's guilt. No unit cause for the two exists. 'When synergism or
determinism is taken to be such a cause, the mistake made is that both
are fictitious." (The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 294.) -
The further statement: "The obduracy remains ct mystery because of this
yery sufficiency of grace" does not cover the question. Well, we shall have
to get together on that, too.
Shall we sidestep these doctrinal differences? Shall we declare that
there are "no doctrinal reasons against complete and organic union" of the
Lutheran synods of America? (Washington Declaration, 1920; Savannah
Resolutions, 1934; United Lutheran Church.) The LutheTan warns us
against following such a policy. It concludes an editorial discussing the
Machen trial with these words: "vVe have in the past inclined toward ad-
miring the way in which the Presbyterian General Assembly, U. S. A., has
kept its b'undamcntalist aml :ModeTnist sections from bringing their lloc-
trinal differences to an issue. It looks now as if sidestepping controversy
was a mistaken policy. Doctrines were not properly valued by the Church.
Now it appears that they demand recognition. The 'teachings' of the Chris-
tian religion are vital to tIle Church. The confessions are more than
temporal agreements for the purposes of organizations." And now: "If we
LutheTans are serionsly considering union, we must not sacrifice integrity
of doctrine." (May 2, 1935.) K
Shall We Remain Lutheran!' - Under this heading the Lv,theran
He1'ald quotes approvingly an article in the Chioago Lutheran on the perils
of Liheralism and unionism, against which the latter voices the following
timely warning: "We hear many encouraging reports on the growth and
progress of the Lntheran Church. Paradoxical as it may seem, the elements
of danger are bound up with the very growth and progress of the Church.
There are two strong cnrrents the drift of which the Lutheran Church
cannot escape. They are the tendencies toward Liberalism and unionism.
Both tendencies arc as inevitable as the coming of the seasons. The manner
in which those impacts are met will determine the character of the Lu-
theran Church, whether we shall be Lutherans in faith or in name only.
In the matter of Liberalism the Reformed chnrches sound a definite
warning. Liberalism first captured the denominational schools, then the
seminaries; next to surrender were the official church organs. Then the
pulpits capitulated. Liberalism had swept the field. To think that the
Lutheran Church is immune to a tendency which is so characteristic of
the age is to live in a fool's paradise. So far as the Lutheran Church is
concerned, it is not now a matter of cure, but prevention. Eternal vigilance
is the price of safety. The vigilance must begin with the pastor in
thorough catechetical instruction in the Sunday-school, definite indoctrina-
tion of the confirmation class, and the preaching of Law and Gospel. The
absorption of membership must not exceed the capacity of proper assimi-
lation. There m1lst bC1lnbending ins·istC)1cc that IJastor8, professors, and
such as man the aff!kirs of the Ohuroh shall either adhere to the confession
of the L1lthcmn faith 01' step out. [Ita. lies 01£1' own.] - Unionism is a child
of Liberalism. When doctrinal differences have been obliterated, the field
is clear for unionism. The lion and the lamb lie down in peace, the lamb
inside the lion. Of course, the lamb has added substantially to size.
Even wheTe a ·union may be effected on the basis of faith and p1-actise, the
feasibility of such a projeot sh()uld be clcu,1'ly demonstmted. [Italics our
own.] We are obsessed with the idea of bulk, size, and statistics. God
has a smashing disregard for mere numbers. Witness the stories of Ahra-
ham and Gideon. The Lord is not mathematically minded; for He said:
'Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in
the midst of them.' Let us not think that He who trod the wine-press
alone and carried to completion single-handed the redemptioll of the world
is now counting heads. TIn.ve no fear; a living faith in the Lord J csus
Christ will keep orthodoxy supple and flexible. To submit ourselves, His
humble and surrendered servants, fait11ful to the confessions of fa,ith
handed down to us is to find ourselves in the full sweep of His advancing
kingdonl."
It is needless to say that these earnest words of warning deserve care-
ful consideration also in circles that are still positively aml perhaps also
aggressively mthodox. The writer correctly states that Liberalism is the
parent of unionism. But also the opposite is true - unionism promotes
and spreads Liberalism; and unionism is by far the more dangerous of
the two because its destructive tendency is more 8ub1,1", and thus harder
to discern. Both unionism amI Liberalism have their sourc(" in spiTitual
satiety, a most deadly snare in which Satan entraps both pastors and
he<'uers. We are glad that the article places emphasis on the preaching
of Law and Gospel; for that is the only cure for both Liberalism and
unionism. J. T. M.
A Heartening Word for the Christian Day-school. - In the Liv-
ing Oh'U1'ch of May 18 we find a letter by ilarold G. Holt of Oak Park, Ill.,
which properly evaluates the importance of Christian day-schools. Having
dwelt on the unsatisfactory character of a course of instruction in which
religion is not represented, he says: "Is not a possible answer to this
problem to be found in the private church-schools? It seems that too
few churchmen are wholly aware of the value of these schools in giving
final Christian meaningfulness to education. If into the consciousness of
more clmrchmen who have children would come a realization of the dangers
inherent in an educational system which is divorced from the teachings
of the Church, surely we should soon find diocesan schools in every diocese
and all church-sponsored schools enjoying such increased enrolment that
Theological Observer. - .Rircf)1iclH3eitgefcf)icf)tHcf)es. 545
the development of the whole personality could become more nearly a reality
for more children of churchmen than is now the case. Due to what may
be in part a spiritual lethargy our private church-schools, especially in
the Middle West, are floundering near or in the depths of financial despair.
If tuitions seem prohibitive, an awakening consciousness upon the part of
Episcopalian parents to the value of these schools as developers of the full
Christian personality would soon solve the tuition problem, and these
schools would be heed to do more thoroughly their work of giving to
more boys and_ girls a Christian meaningfulness to their educational ex-
periences and to their total outlook upon life. Much more might worthily
be written concerning this problem engendered by our dual educational
theory, a problem with which, as Bishop Anderson has said, 'many thought-
ful educators are deeply concerned.' May it be that soon many more of
our parents may become as deeply concerned!" Mr. Holt intimates that
he has had experience as an instructor in the public high school and as
a church-school supervisor, which has helped him "to see more clearly
the serious error in our educational theory whereby general and religious
education are separated." A.
lHuB bet: 6~nobe. ;sm Atlantio Bulletin trJh:b mitgeieilt, baB bie @.Ie~
felIfdjaft fur ;;Snnere lWiffion in NetrJ glod feit bem 20. ;;Sannar trJiebet
fonntiigIidj 300 fjeimatlofe \:(Serfonen flJeif±, unb atrJar nadj bem mormitiagB~
gotteBbienf±' m5iiI)renb bel' m50dJc iucrben ~unber±e bon S1:IeilmngBftiicren,
@Sdjllfjen uftrJ. lmtcr )5eburfiigc bericilt- SDie ,,@St. ;sofjanneBlJaffion" bon
~einridj @S,djut? (1585-1672) ram 0onntag, ben 7. ~rlJrif, in ber @St. IDca±~
±fjiillBfirdje in Bcelu g)od 3ur ~htffiifjrunn. - SDer N01-them Illinois Mes-
senge,- lleridj±e± gleid)fnUB uller bie \J[rbcit in bel' ;snneren lWiHion, belon~
berB uber Die IDCiHion an ben mnbern, bie in (Ifjicago ge±rieben trJirD. iiber
Die @Sdjulen beB SDifhiftB tuirb bericlj±e±, DaB bie ,BafjI bel' @SdjuHinller im
SDiftrift nafje3u 12,500 bciriint. ;;:In ben @Sdjulen unterridjten 8 \:(Saf±oren,
2 ~rofefforen, 224 2eljrcr, 38 2el)rcrinnen unD 33 @.Iefjiffen, im gal1ilen
306 52eljdriifie. - SDie BCadjt:iclj±en auB ben trJrftcanabifcljen SDiftrUten finD
redjt ermlltigenb. WuB Dem ~{lliet:ia~ unll )5ritiffj (Iorumbia~SDif±rift trJirb
beridj±e±, bat roiifjrenb beB ;safjreB 1934 bon ben lWiffionaren 3,91 0 ®otteB~
bienfte abgeljaHen tDllrben, in benen 163,326 ,Bullonr anluefenb trJaren,
ein anfefjnHdjer ,ButrJadj§ gegen baB morjafjr. SDie lWiHionBbefudje ber
lWiHionare beltefen fidj aUf 18,546. - ;;Sm "Stirdjenboten" bei3 \ifrgentini~
fdjen SDifhiftB 1efen roir uber bie 5tagnng ber @S~nobe im lJebruar: "SDie
~erauBgabe eineB befonberen tljeoIogifdjen lJadjbIatteB trJmbe beB Iiingeren
beflJrodjen. SDer @.Iebanfe trJmlle aUBgeflJrodjen, baB )5rafifien uub Wrgen~
±inien 3ufammen mit bet 1Srcifirdje an bel' ~erauBgabe beB )5IatteB arbei±en
forrten. lJefte )5efd)Iilffe fonnicn in bel' iSadje nidjt gefaf3t trJerben." "lWit
unferer ,Colegio'-)5illIiotljd ift C0 lcljledjt bef±errt. )5iBfjer ljane bel' SDifhift
jiifjrlidj 50 \:(SefoB fur bicfc @Sadjc 6etrJilIigt. SDamU fann aoer nidj± llieI
gefauft trJerben.;sn ciner @ingabe trJurbe um 200 \:(SefoB geoe±en; bodj
fonn±e ber SDif±rift nur 100 6 etrJiIlig en. @.IroBere ober fleinere @.Iaoen fUr
lJie ,Colegio'-)5ibIiotljef finb ftetB trJiIlfommen." \:(S. @. ~.
The Ultimate of Union Tendencies. - There is no doubt a valuable
lesson for all genuinely Christian and confessional churches in the ex-
periences depicted in the following excerpts quoted from the Watahman-
Examine,. (May 2, 1935, p.500 f.). If professing believers are inclined to
35
:546 Theological Observer. - .I1'itd)1irl)~3eitgefd)id)tlid)es .
. become indifferent with respect to the perils lurking in cooperative enter-
,prises even of a purely secular or external nature between churches not
united in doctrine and practise, the words of the writer may serve them
as a timely and stirring warning. I'Ve are sorry that we can quote the
fine, illuminating article only in part. We read: "Northern Baptists
know that it has been the policy of our Foreign Mission Society to unite
with other religious denominations in division of territory, as for in-
.stance, in the Philippines and elsewhere. As is now also recognized, this
later became the policy of the American Baptist Home Mission Society,
as, for example, in Montana and elsewhere. The policy of the Foreign
Mission Society was also extended to union effort in educational institu-
tions and in hospitals, as in China, Japan, and India. vVhen publicity
of this unionizing effort with other denominations was given out more
than fifteen years ago, many in the Baptist denomination became alarmed
as to what might be the final consequences, and the writer of this article,
then working in the Kansas State Convention, joined with other leaders
in making a protest against this unionizing movement, giving warning
that it would inevitably lead later to organic church union. In making
the protest, the situation in the Philippines and elsewhere was cited ....
Let all our Baptist people note that thus long ago warning was given
that the t!ltimate Tesult u;ould be 01'ganic union and the viTt1fal loss of
OUT Baptist wOTk. As early as in 1900 the missions in the Pilip pines
fcrmed a federation called the Evangelical Union of Philippine Missions.
This agreed at first upon a division of territory, and gradually, as the
missionary leaders of the various evangelical groups 'drew together more
and more, denominational lines disappeared, and the missionaries and
nationals worked together in union effort, such as hospitals, schools, and
dormitories.' Later, in 1920, we are told, the constitution was changed,
making the organization a union, not of the missions, but of the churohes,
and admitting nationals to membership. Later the consitution was still
further changed, and this union body was called the National Christian
Council. By simple progression the concentration has grown. Following
this, the Presbyterian, the Congregational, and United Brethren bodies
joined forces to form the United Evangelical Church of the Philippines,
.and strong efforts were made to bring the other missions within the fold,
In these efforts, it is said, the Methodists declined to participate, but the
Baptists were more favorable, In view of this union movement in the
Philippines two important conferences were held; but it seems that noth-
ing has been done to stem the tide of these unionizing efforts in the
Philippines. As a direct result of this liberalizing work in the Philip-
pines and elsewhere we have doubt and hesitancy on the paTt of larg(J\
numbers of churches and individuals in the denomination, cutting the
neTve of enthusiasm, Teducing the g'iving of mw Baptist people fTom yeaT
to yea1', cutting down our missionary force and activity, pTeventing em-
tension into new fields, and causing inteTminable oontToveTsy among our
Baptist hosts throughout the countTY. [Italics everywhere our own.]
Another direct result is the disintegTation of OUT Baptist fOTces and
chuTches, creating a separatist body known as the Association of Regular
Baptists, who decline to make further contributions to our organized work.
Theologica.l Observer. - .!titdJ1idJie "S\'iifn.
3eitung" (inr. 51, W6enb6fatt) ifjren Eefern niifjeren meric'fjt il6er bie iilngfte
®ntbedung ber iifteften c'fjriftnc'fjen ®bangeIienfjanbfc'fjrif±. ~a13 fie iiUer ift
afs aIfe 6iBfjer 6efann±cn, fttnnnt. 2l6er cin "filnfics @bangeHum" bilrfie fie
llJofjf nid)t fein, 111ie uns ein beu±fc'fjer U:ac'fjgelefjrter fc'fjrei6±; bielmefjr ljanbfe
es fic'fj nac'fj ben mitgeteiften jj5r06en nur um eine @bangefienfjarmonie, bie
€ll)nop±ifer unb ~ofjannes oenutt (affo borauBfett) unb, aus eigener jj5fjan~
tafie ausmaH. ~et meric'fjt ber "S\'iiln. Beitung" Iautd:
,,@s 1ft ern eigenarttger 3ufaIf, DaB bas mritifc'fje Wlufeum im LJorigen
:~afjr nic'fjt nut ben Codex Sinaiticus, !>ie 6erilljmte mi6elfjanbfdJrift, filr
ben meirag bon 100,000 jj5funb €lterfing bon ber ruHifc'fjen ~egierung
laufie, fonbern auc'fj filr dnen geringen jj5reis ein milnbd griec'fjifc'fjer ~apt)ri
ertvar6, lDorin fic'fj atvei mmt±er oefanben, !>ie nic'fj±i:i tvcniger au fein fc'fjei~
nen afS IEruc'fjf±ilde cines neuen, fiinf±en @bangefiums. ~fjre@ntbedung
etfoIgte burc'fj ben S\'uftos ber WlanuffriptabteiIung bes IEritifc'fjen Wlufeums,
~. ~bris men, 6ei ber ~utdJfic'fjt biefer in ;ii:g\Jpten tvafjrfc'fjdnfic'fj bon U:el~
lac'fjen gefunbenen jj5ap\Jri, bie ein ~1inbler im borigen !Sommer nac'fj Eon~
bon 6rac'fjte nnb bem lWl1f cum mit @rfofg aum S1nuf anoo±. ::Dem @e~
lefjrten fieYm fofort bie 6eiben muc'fjfta6en III auf, cine oefannte U:orm ber
~ufiiraung filr ben inamen ~@fus in griec'fj~fc'fjer !Sc'fjreiotveife, llnb er oe~
fc'fjli:ftigte fic'fj barauffjin einge'!jenb mit bem ~q;±. ~ie jj5riifung crgnu,
bat es fic'fj um bas iiHef±e IEruc'fjf±ilcl' eines c'fjriftlic'fjen Wlanuffript£l fjanbelt,
bas 6is£)er uefann± gelDorben iff. ::Die .I~anbfc'fjrif± tueif± unatveiDclltig aUf
cine 3d± fjin, bie ntc'fj± flJliter afS bie Wlit±e bes Bireiten ~aljr'!junberts fein
fann, iriifjrenb oiSfjer rein c'fjriftIic'fjes Wlanuffript weiter aurildge'!j± als auf
ben Wnfang bes britten ~.aljrfjunbert§. m:6er nic'fj± anetn ba£l 2Uter, fonbern
auc'fj ber ~n'!ja1± berIeifj± bem u:unb cine oefonbere mebeutung. ®s giot 6e~
fanntfic'fj ,2rporr\Jpfje Q'ibangefien' unb ,~llsfpriic'fje ~Q'ifu', bie afS fpii±ere
BufammenfteHungen au gcHen fja6en. ~er neue \Sunb fiiUt nic'fjt in biefe
.Sl!a±egorie. ::Der ~e6±, ber aUf ben oeiben boppeffeitig oefdJtieoenen mfiif~
tern au finben ift, f±eUt nac'fj WUffaffung ber !SadJbetfiiinbigen mrudJf±ilde
ciner Eeoen£lgefc'fjic'fjte ~@fu bar, bie nic'fjt auf @runb ber borfjanbenen ~ban~
geIien allf ammengef±eUt iit. @s giIi fogar alS miiglic'fj, baf3 ba£l fo en±becl'±e
neue '@bangcIium, bon bem oisfjer nur bie odben IEIiit±er borfjanben finb,
bie QueUe obet eine bet ('meUen tvar, me ber ®c'fjreroer bes ~ofjannes~
.ebangeIium£l uenutte." (m:Ug. ~b.~Eut'!j. llirc'fjenaig.)
550 Theological Observer. - Ritcgficg:,3eitgefcgid)tlic!)es.
6iidHifd)'e jf!nftoren in 6djuilIJnft. lioer foldJc unb a~nHdJe )Bodomm~
nifle barf bie firdJhdJe ~reffe nid)t~ oerid)ten. SNe ,,~rrg. (SbJEut~. Sf/S."
toeiB fid) aoer au ~erfen. :Die lnummer bom 3 . .mat IiiBt bie ~oIi3ei feIoft
oerid)ten: ,,~n ~ad)fen ift cine meifje bon @eiftIid)en in ~d)u~fjaft (Sfon"
3entrationslager) genommen !Dorben. jillir qaoen iD'egen be~ ljSreffeerlafleg
bes fl'leid)sminifters oisfjer babon gefd)!Diegen. lnun aoer nimmt bie lnad)"
rid)tenfteUe ber ~taagfanarei feIof± iiffen±rid) baB jillor± unb gibt in ber
:it'agespref]e folgenbes oefannt: ,:;sn Ie~ter 3d± ift in berfd)iebenen 5teiIen
~ad)fenB !DieberfjoIi oeooad)te± toorben, ba13 un±er bem :Ded'manteI reIigiiifer
@IauoenBauBerungen )Berfud)e un±ernommen !Dorben finb, ben @emein"
fd)af±i3!DiIIen bes beutfd)en )Bom~ au fd)!Diid)en. :Die ~uslaffungen, bie fogar
3um :iteH bon Den Sfanaeln !Diifjrenb be~ @otiesDienf±es gemad)t !Durben,
linb in ifjren ~uBtlJirfungen geeignct, bie 2[utoritii± bes ~iaa±eB unb bcr
!Betoegung 13u fd)iibigen; fie geoen jener feinbIid)gefinn±en ~uBlanbspreffe,
Die bon r(Smigranien unb, ~uben geleitet toirb, .material ftir Die tj'or±fii~rung
i~rer .\:>e~e gegen bas nationaIfoalaIifHfd)e :Deu±fd)Ianb unD frfjaffen im
~nnern bes fl'leid)s Unfrieben unb !Beunruqigung. . .. [0. T. M. ift nid)t
berpfHd)±et, ben boUen 5te;t;t ber ~danntmad)ung abaubrucfen, tem bannn
nut nod) bic ~d)Iu13i~e mit: J Ginige ljSaftoren ~aocn fldj in SfalW1erllii"
rung en toiffentIid) gegen ben ~iIIen ber fl'legierung gericl)±e±. @egenuoer
biefen pofitifd)en )Berfefjlungen orielJ rein anberer jilleg tiorig, als fie aur
mermeibung f±iirferer ~euttru~igung ineiter )BoIfB'freife in ~d)ut~aft au
nefjmen. :Die :Diener ber Sfirdje genie13en ben iqnen augefag±en ~d)u~ in
:Dingen ber fl'leIigion; tlJo fie alJer ben ~±aat unD Die !Be!Degung poIitifd)·
an±af±en, triffi fie bie ~d)iirfe beB @efe~eB in ber gIeid)en jilleife tlJie jeben
anDern ~±aaisotirger.'" - SDa~ iiqnert gar feqr ben )8erftigungen unb
!Befal1l1±mad)ungen Der qeiDnifd)en riimifd)en Sfaifer unb iqrer metd)s~
minif±er. .man Iie13 Me erf±en lrqrif±en ber~aften a10 f±aa±Bgefii~rIicljc Emie
unD Uttruqeftifter. (S.
iYtanfrcidj~ ~utIJethtm. )Bon ben 43 .miIIionen (SintlJoqnern !(Stant"
reidjs finb nad) bem "Eu±~erifd)en jillertalmanad)" etllJaS tioer 40 WCiIIionen
riimifd)~fatljolifd) (bie 2aqI burfte reid)Iid) ~od) fein) unb ettlJaB tiber eine
.million tJroteftantifd). @enaue 3a~ren faun man iilJerqaupt nid)t angelJen,
toeU bie franaiififd)e fl'legicrung feinen fl'leIigionBaenfus (tlJie ttJirlqn in un~
ferm Eanbe fennen) burd)fiiqren fii13t. ~o lJrwd)± es unB aud) ni# au tlJun"
bern, ba13 hie 3afjI ber Eutqeraner in tj'ranfreid) an einem !Otie auf 250,000,
an einem anbern aUf 300,000 unb an eincm britten aUf 400,000 gefd)iiJJ±
toirb. SDie Eefer toilfen, ba13 eB ben lJIuHgen )Berfolgungen burd) bie t1Te~'
gierung unb hie riimifd)e Sfird)e geIungen ift, ben ljSrotef±antismus faft giina"
lid) ausauro±±en, ber bodj im f ed)13e~n±en ~a~rqunbert bieIe .\:>eraen in tj'tanf~
reid) ergriffen fjaite.
jillenn ber "Eutfjerifdjc ~ertarmanadj" -red)± qat, fo gtlit es in tj'ranf,
reid) 398,000 Eu±qetaner, 268 ljSarod)ien, 321 @emeinben, 309 ~aftoren.
!Bei tlJeitem ber gtii13te 5teil ber Eutqeraner tj'ranfreid)s finbet fid) nattirIid)'
in bem frtifjer beutfd)en @elJie± (sIfa13,,'\!oifjringen, ni:i:mIid) 238,578 @5eeIen,
210 @emeinben unb 174 ~aftoren .
.man fann bier @rup,pen bon Eu±qcranern in tj'ranfreid) un±erfdJeiben.
~ls erfte Biiqlen !Db: bie "Eglise de la Confession d'Augsbonrg" aUf, bie lid)
in attJei SDifttifte (ljSaris unD .montlJeriarD, frtiqer .miimpeIgarb) aer1eg±.
~m SDifttift ~ari~ finben lid) 13,000 @Iieber in 20 ljSarod)ien, bie bott
Theological Observer. - ~it4Jli4J~8eitgef4Jtd)t1i4Jd. 551
22 ~aftoren liebient tnerben. ~riife~ ift @raf ~. be ~our±ale~; ~nfpeftor
ift P. 2. WlJlJia. SDa~ SHrcljenlilatt biefer @rulJlJe ift Le Temoignage (~a~
3eugni~). 3u biefem ~ifh:ift geljoren auclj bie feclj~ CIlemeinben in Wrgier~
in Wfrifa mit iljren 2,000 @liebetn. - SDer SDiftrift llRon±lieIiarb iliiljIt
37 ~arocljien mit 90 @emeinben, in benen ettna 35,000 @Iieber bon 45 ~a~
ftoren bebient lnerben. SDa~ mlatt biefe~ SDiftrift~ ljcif3± L'Ami Ohretien
des FamiLZes ([ljriftIicljer f\'amilienfreunb). meibe ;;Dif±rme lie±reilien lie~
fonber~ bie Iutljerifclje WCinion aUf ~nabagMfar, finb alier auclj aUf bern
®eliiet ber ~nneren llRiffion burcljau~ nicljt untiitig.
;;Die iltneite @rulJpe ift "S'i'irclj'e Wug~liurgifcljer Sfonfel1ion in @:lfaf3"
Qotljringcn". ~riiie~ be~ SDireftoriltm~ ift f\'r. ®rllJein in ®±ra~liourg. SDie
SHrclje umfaf3± tneit iiber bie S)iilfte aITer Qu±ljeraner in g:ranfreiclj. ®ine
eigene S)eibenntiffion ljat iie nicljt; jie unterf±iitt befonber~ S)erntann~liurg
fOl1Jie Weuenbettegau unb QeilJaig. ®eljr tiiljrig ifi fie in ber ~nneten WCif~
fion; liefonber~ ljerboriluljelien lniire ettna, baf3 fie brei SDiafoniffenanf±a1±en
ljat (®tra~liourg, Weuenberg unb ®arepta bei SDotli~ljeim).
Wg briHe CIlrulJpe Irctre aufauaiiljlen bie fiir3liclj gegriinbete ®l:)nobe
bon @:ffafyQotljringen, bie mit ber @Sl)nobalfonferena (llRiffourif\Jnobe) in
lBerliinbung ftelj±. ,BtDoff ~rebigtpfiite llJerben bon ben fUnf ~aftoten biefer
®1)nobe lieDien±.
mietien~ finb noclj bie beu±fclj~ht±ljerifcljen @emeinben au nennen unb
anbere lutI)erifclje @emeinben, bie in ~m~g:ranfreiclj bef±eljen unb cine frembe
®praclje 6enui)en. mor bem Sfrieg gali c£i cine ganae lJ'tcilje beutfcljfpredjen"
ber Iutljerifcljer CIlemeinben in f\'ranfreiclj; jet± gili± e~ nur noclj bie ei n e
([ljriftu£ifirclje in ~ari~, an ber feinerilei± maier mobeffcljtninglj einige ~aljre
fianb. ~iefe @emeinbe aaljIt 1,200 @Iieber, ljat iljr eigene~ @emeinbe"
blatt unb unterljiiIt ein g:rauen" unn llRiibcljenljeim. SDer ~af±or bcr @e"
meinlJe ljei\3t ®riclj ;;DaljIgriin. - '®benfarr~ in ~arg ift eine lJiinifclj"
hdljerifdje @emeinlJe unb in SDunferque (SDiinfircljen) cine fcljtnebifclje
®eemann~miffion. (Sfircljenbfatt. Wbgebrudt im "Qutljerifcljen S)eroIlJ".)
A Criticism of the Course of Anglicans in India. - Will the
Anglicans in South India malgan L with the ~1ethodists and the Prot-
estant bodies which constitute the South India United Church? The
present status of the union movement reflected in this question is described
in the Living OhU1'ch as follows: "It appears that the majority of the
Indian bishops are willing to concur in the virtual abandonment of con-
firmation, the recognition of all sacraments as equally valid, since all
ministries are equally invalid, and the participation of Protestant min-
isters in the consecration of bishops of the proposed United Church ....
It is further reported that certain of the Indian bishops have taken the
amazing position that they have the power to dispense congregations from
the rule that only a bishop or priest may celebrate the Holy Communion
for them." It is interesting to read the comment of the Living Ohurch
editor on the last item. "This is a startling claim indeed; for not even
the Pope of Rome has ever contended that such power is inherent in his'
office. By what authority do these Anglican bishops in India arrogate to
themselves power greater than that claimed by the Pope and hitherto.
unheard of in all of Catholic Christendom? . .. If the Anglican Church
of India persists in going through with the scheme of union with the
552 Theological Observer. - ~itcf)ncf)=8eit\Jefd)td)tnd)e§.
Protestant denominations on the terms now apparently contemplated, it
will thereby cut itself off from the fellowship of the Anglican union and
the body of Catholic Christendom. The other autonomous Anglican
churches will then be faced with the problem of officially severing the
union with the Church of India and will have to consider the sending of
new missionaries to that country to teach anew the Catholic faith 'as
this Church hath received the same.''' One cannot suppress the wish that
this zeal which is exerting itself in opposition to the spirit of unionism
and indifferentism might be better informed on what is essential and what
is unessential. A.
No· Bible-Re'ading in the Public Schools of Southern Australia.
In commenting ou this matter, the AustTalian Luthe-ran writes: "State·
school teachers did not approve of the amendment to the Education Act in
Southern Australia. The proposed amendment provided for Bible-reading
during schoo~-hours and also for the right of entry for ministers of religion
and their representa.tives.. The editor of the Southe·rn AU8tmlia Teaaher8'
Jo·u'I'nal comments a.S follows: 'Many of our members [of the Teachers'
Associa.tion] favor Bible-reading, and some advoca.te Scripture-lessonS',. but
so far we· ha,ve not heard of any member supporting the proposal that
ministers should have access to the schools.. Our members regret the a.ppar-
ent indifference· of many people to their religious duties; bnt their expe-
rience with children does not encourage them in the belief tha,t religious
instruction in the schGGls' would cure that ill.' WhHe admitting tha,t it is
in the interest of the child to have a, sound religious education, he asks
whether it is the duty of the Sotate to provide for more than a. 'sound moral,
physica.l,. and intellectual tra.ining for the pupils.' He believes that the
sponsors. o·f the bill ha.ve not yet justified the proposed amendment and that
there·foro the measure. should nGt be ca.rriecl. We Lutherans were not very
much impressed by the amendment, although as far as it provided only for
reading of the Scriptures, we did not protest against it. However, the bill
has· now been rejected, and, as it would appear, mainly on the arguments
of Mr. Craigie, whose denunciations of the Bible equal anything that the
Bolsheviks have produced in tha,t direction. From the· Hansa,rd repo,rt it
therefore looks as if the' Southem Australian Pa.rliament has decla.red that
the Bible is nGt worthy of R" place in the state schGol on account of its
untrue and immoral contents. Of course, there were also those Pa,rliamen-
tarians. who. dE)fended thE) honor of the B,ibI-e·."
While the contention of the editor of the S. A. TeaoheTs' JottTnal is well
founded and the. educational duty of the sta,te does not go fa,rther than. to
provide for more than R" "sound moral, physical, and intellectual training
for the pup-Hg," it wa.s wisdom on the part of our brethren Iwt to prGtes.t
the proposed amendment in its provision for Bible-reading in the public
schoo.lsi. J. T. M.
A New Translation of the New Testament. - The United Pre's-
byterian informs us of a translation of the New Testament into modern
Czech speech by Professor Zilka. The first translation into that language
since the sixteenth century, this book has become the best seller of the
year in that land. - N. B. N. L. O.