Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 8-2 (Text)

in jillafjt~ei± nadjfolgen, anau±t:effen finb. jillenn llniffouri itgenbeine Ee~re mit aUet Shaft bente±en ~a±, bann ift e~ Mefe, baf3 iibetaU, bJo nodj (E~tiftus ge~ 138 Theological Observer - ~itc9nc9~8eitgefcfJic9tlicgeg l'rebigt mirb, feThft im l'al'ifHfdjen unb caIbinifHfdjen Eager, e~ ~adjfolget ~®fu gilit. ®~ ift aUerbing~ ma~t, baB Milfouri jebe Wbmeidjung bon ber Ee~re ~®fu bermitft. Z5ft P. &,;Jeicf eima liereit au erWiren, bai3 i~m ein Wlige~en bon ~®fu m50rt etma~ ®reidjgill±ige~ ifH \Sein \lIrtHeI ~1Hte wenig \sinn, menn et fordj eine .l;,)altung ben m50rten be~ ®rri:ifet~ gegen~ ilber berieibigen mollie. nber miII er fagen: met ber ~adjfolge ~'®fu fomm± e~ nur aUf hen guten m5iITen an? m± er mirflidj aUf ben \stanb~ l'unU gerommen, baf3 er be~au~tet: \lIUe m5ege fil~ren aum &,;Jhnme1, fo~ lange e£; bem m5anberet mit feinem ~i1gern nur ein redjter ®rnf± ifn ®ine~ fo rraffen lTnaIauben£; ntiidjten mir i~n nidjt liefdjuibigen. \lI1fo ma£; moUen bie m5orie: ,,'Lie ~adjforge :0®fu fann liei einem Menfdjen ernf± fein, nur bic SDeutung falfdj" unb: Miffouri berurteiIt "audj bie Ieifef±e anbere SDeutung ber ~adjfoIge ~®fu"? Miffouri fjiiH bafilr, bai3, mer an ~®ium ar£; feinen .l;,)eUanb grauOt unD fidj unter fein m5or± lieug±, feflif± menn er nodj in biefem ober jenem \s±ilcf ober audj in bie1en \stilcfen irren follie, fein ~ilnget unb ~adjforger iff. ~ermirft nidjt audj P .. 'Odcf jebe Ieifef±e anbere SDeutung ber ~adjforge ~®fu? m5a~ if± ber 6inn feiner ~oIemif? fragen 11Jir nodj einmaL ~ofittb bcrl1Jirrenb mirft e~, luenn 6. 579 bom ~etfalfet gel(tg± mirb: ,,~ein, bie \Sdjrif± aliein genilg± ag: mefennmi£; nidj±, meil fie 11Jeber ein Eefjrliudj ber SDogmatif (17. ~a~rfjunbcr±) nodj ein ®efe~budj ift, mie !Rom unb ®enf meinen, fonbern in erf±er Einie ®efdjidj±e unb t~re 'Leu±ung liiete±, llon ber roir alier butdj ~aljrljunberte ge±renn± finb, fO bai3 mir einer ~orm liebilrfen,. nadj meldjer bie 6dj·rift gebeutet merben mui3. SDa~ em~fanb man mtdj fdjon in ber lTrgemeinbe, fonberIidj aIS ber ~am~f mit ber ®nofi£; lirennenb murbe. :itauf6efenntnii3, regula fidei unb ba~ mifdjof£;~ ami, ba~ maren bie \0til~en ber st:irc!je in ber \lIu~einanberietung mit ber ®nofi~, bie fidj' gerabefogu± mie bie llirdje aUf bie 6djrift lierief. SDe£;~ !jarli !jat fidj audj folgeridjtig in bet !Reformation£;aeit bie Iu±~erifdje SHrdje nidjt mit bem g:ormaI~rinai~, sola Scriptura, liegnilg±; benn ba~ !ja±±en bie \Sdjmarmgeif±er audj. ~a feUif± ba£; :itribentinum aittett gern unb bid bie \Sdjrift. \Sonbern iJU bem ,bie 6djdft aUein' ±ra± bai3 sola fide ~in3lt. ~ur menn bie ®djrift bon biefem ®efidjgl'unft au~ ge1efen mirb, baf3 fie mir ~[n±mort gelien foU auf Eu±~er~ g:rage: ,m5ie friege idj einen gniibigen (M ott? , bann aUein !jalie idj bie \Sdjrift berftanben. \Sie iff niemaI£; ein Ee~rlilldj ber \1larurtuiffenfcljaften nodj ein ®efe~e£;fobe!: filr ba£; foaiare llnb nationale Eelien nodj ein m5a~rfagebudj, um bai3 ®e~eimni£; ber 2u~ funft au en±~iiUen; alf 0 meber ba~, tua~ ±eU£; bie aIten 'Logmatifer unb ~eute nodj mandje Eut!jeranet in. Wmerifa noclj ma£; !Rom unb @enf noclj ma£; bie @?djmiirmer au~ i!jr gemadjt ~alien." ;Buniidjf± ift bodj ber au Wnfang biefes ~aragrap~en aUf hie 'Logmatifet be£; 17. ~a!jt!junberg gemadj±e \lIngtiff nidj± geredjtferiigt. SDiefe ±euren ®oite£;miinner !jatien aUerbmg£; ifjrc. @?cljm'iidjen unb ®eliredjen, mie mit bie unfrigen !jalien, aber man fann i~nen nidjt aUt Eaft legen, baf3 fie au~ ber milieI ein Ee~tbuclj ber SDogmatif gemadjt fjiitten. 11m nur ein~ aU erl1Ji:i~nen, in bem g:arr ~ii±±en fie raum feTher fo bieIe SDogma±ifen gefdjrie~ ven, mie e~ ±a±fiidjIidj ber g:aU mar. g:teiIidj ein~ ~a:6en fie getan: fie ~alien i~te memeife inuner aui3 ber 6djrift genommen. m5enn fie bamit au~ ber mibeI ein Ee~rliudj ber SDogma±if gemacljt ~a:6en, bann moUen mit ben Wu~brucf nidjt oeanf±anben. Woer miU bet ~erfaffer i~nen ba~ Bum Theological Observer - .Ritd)lid)~Seitgefd)id)t1td)es 139 )8orl11urf mad)en? ~enn er gegen @inbe De§ ljSaragraj:lljen fid) nod) einmaI iioer bie aHen SDogmatifer unb audj iiber "mandje 2utljeraner in Illmerifa" oefd)l11eri, fo miid)ten l11ir l11iinfd)en, baB er etl11a§ genauer gefagt ljutie, 1110rin iljm Diefe ben eigentlid)en @:ljarafter be§ ~i6er&udje§ an±af±en. Unfer§ ~iffen§ ljaben l11eber bie aUen SDogmatifer nodj ljat irgenbein 2utljeraner in Wmerifa je bireft ober inbireft erHart, bie SjeiIige @?d)rift fei "ein 2eljroudj ber 9(aiurl11iifenfd)aften" ober "ein ®efete§fobet; filr ba§ foaiale unb nationale 2eben" ober "ein ~aljrfageoud), um ba§ ®eljeimni§ ber ,8ufunft au entljiWen". SDaB IlJir alle ~ei§fagungen bet @?d)rift ag gottridje ~aljrljeit anjeljen, l11iII ber merfaffer ljoffentrid) nidjt fritifieren. mt bie§ ni# aud) einer .ocr nid)t gerabe feltenen 1rulIe, 1110 mit SjUfe ber @iinbifbung§fraft ein @?troljmann errid)tet l11irb, bern man bann mit 2eid)~ tigfett ben @arau§ mad)en fann? lYerner fd)eini e§ un§, baB ber merfaffer in biefem \lllifd)nitt aIIerIei burd)einanberl1:rirft. SDie @?djrift aIIein geniigt ag ~efenntni§ nid)±, fagt er. SDa§ ift rid)±ig. Woer ber ®runb, ber angegeoen l11irb, ift nid)t sutreffenb. SDie @?d)rift genilgt nicfJt ag ~denntni§, l11eU fid) aIIe d)riftrid)en ljSarteien barauf oerufen unb barum Die ljSarole ,,~ir fteljeu aUf ber @?d)riftl" aiemHd) nid)t§fagenb gel110rben ift. ~a§ et aI§ ~egriinbung anfilljrt, ift bielmeljr cine Illnil110rt aUf Die 1rrage, l11ie e§ {ommt, baB fo bieIe 2eute, bie fid) angeoIid) aUf bie ®d)rift f±eIlen, biefe nid)t berfteljen. lYerner ift e§ bod) nid)t fo, baB l11ir, I11cn l11ir "burd) ~aljrljunberte bon ber ®efdjid)±e ber @?d)rift unb iljrer SDeutung" ge±rennt finb, einer 9(orm, bie @?djrift aU erfIiiren, 'bebiirfen, IDuljrenb biefe§ ~ebilrfng in ben Wnfang§jaljren ber Sfirdje niclji borljanben gel11efen l11ure. ~enn man ba§ sola fide eine ilCorm ber @?clj:riftau§feguug nennen 111m (unb um bie ;;terminologie 1110IIen IlJir un§ nicljt ftreiien), f 0 barf man nicljt aui3 bem Wuge berrieren, baB Dief e ilCorm im ~aljre 70 gerabefogut au med)t befianb l11ie 1670. SDer merfaffer fiiljrt iiberljauj:lt eine merfl11iirbige @?praclje. "SDie rutlje~ tifclje SHrclje ljat ficlj nicljt mit bem 1rormafj:lrinaij:l, sola Scriptura, begnilgt, benn ba§ ljatien bie @?cljl11armgeifter auclj ... , fonbern aU bem ,bie ®cljrift allein' frat bai3 sola fide ljinau. II ~arum berfuljri ber @?cljreioer nicfJt dlDai3 meljr fuuoerIiclj? ~enn er oeljauj:liet, bie lutljerifclje SHrd)e lja6e ficlj nid)t mit Dem 1rormalj:lrinaij:l, sola Scriptura, oegniigt, l11eiI ba§ bie @egner auclj lja±ien, fo fragi man unl11iIIffirIiclj: ~e[cljei3 anbere lYormalj:lrinaij:l ljaben bie 2u±ljeraner noclj ljinaugenommen? ~iII er fagen, boi3 sola fide fei ein IDeiterei3 1rormalj:lrinaij:l? ~ir feljen, bei iljm geljt ei3 burcljeinanber. Illnftatt bataulegen, baf3 bie 2utljeraner ficlj aIIerbingi3 mit bem lYormar~ j:lrinsij:l sola Scriptura oegniig±en, l11aljrenD im Unterfcljieb bon iljnen bie ljSaj:liften bie ;;trabition unh bie !3eljrentfcljeibungen ber SHrclje unb bie @?cljlDUtmer bie mernunft unh bie "innere ®timme" ljinaunaljmen, fj:lringt er mit einem IDea! aUf ein gana anberei3 CMebiet ilber, aUf ba§ bei3 2eljrinljarti3 fefoft, roie iljn bie mater aU§ ber ®d)rift fcljoj:Jf±en. ~ir bermuten faf±, baB, tua§ ber merfaffer fagen 111m, biefei3 ifi: SDie @?cljrift l11ar ben 2utlje~ ranern bie einaige 9(orm; a6er lDoljI gemerft I hie recljfberftanbene @?cljrif±, bie @?cljrift, infofern fie ,,@:ljriftum ±rdo±", info fern fie bai3 sola fide Ieljri. SDamit l11ute bann nicljt ein ill1leitei3 1rormalj:lrinilij:l genanni, fonbern biel~ meljr bai3 dne genann±e eingefcljriinft ober bieIIdcljt auclj oefcljrieoen. ~ar~ iiber HeBe ficlj bann bier fagen. @?oIclj einen lllui3fj:lruclj fOnn±en l11ir oljne 140 Theological Observer - .Ri1:cf}nd)~8eitgefcf}icf}mcf}e~ llleitere£l unierfdjreioen; e£l ronnie fidj aber audj ilaljinier bie! ~rrtum beroergen. ~n @iumma, ber ~erfaffer ift auf bem strieg£lPfab gegcn bie alten ~og~ matHer unb miffDur!, ba£l ift fIar. \Jroer nidjt fD fIar ift, 111a£l er an i~nen au£l3ufe~en ~at unb 00 er lllirffidj ilie @iteIIung ber \Jrngegriffenen berfte~t. \Jr. Auburn Affirmation. - In the Presbyte1'ian of July 16, 1936, the in- terested reader will find the complete text of the often-mentioned Auburn Affirmation. It was "released for use in the religious weeklies beginning January 6, 1924." The Affirmation constitutes the reaction of the liberal element of the .ipresbyterian Church in the United States of America against what the signers call "persistent attempts to divide the Church and abridge its freedom." The signers say: "At the outset we affirm and declare our acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as we did at our ordinations, 'as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.''' From the body of the document we quote a few of the more important statements: "By its law and its history the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America safeguards the liberty of thought and teaching of its ministers. At their ordinations they 'receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as con- taining the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.' This the Church has always esteemed as sufficient doctrinal subscription for its ministers. Manifestly it does not require their assent to the very words of the Confession or to all of its teachings or to interpretations of the Confession by individuals or church courts. . .. Of the two parts into which our Church was separated from 1837 to 1870 one held that only one interpretation of certain parts of the Confession of Faith was legiti- mate, while the other maintained its right to dissent from this interpre- tation. In the Reunion of 1870 they came together on equal terms,. 'each recognizing the other as a sound and orthodox body.' The meaning of this, as understood then and ever since, is that office-bearers in the Church who maintain their liberty in the interpretation of the Confession are exercising their rights guaranteed by the terms of the Reunion. A more recent Reunion also is significant, that of the Cumberland Pres- byterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in 1906. This Reunion was opposed by certain members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America on the ground that the two churches were not at one in doctrine; yet it was con- summated. Thus did our Church once more exemplify its historic policy of accepting theological differences within its bounds and subordinating them to recognized loyalty to Jesus Christ and united work for the kingdom of God." Under the heading "Concerning the Interpretation of the Scriptures" the authors say, for instance: "There is no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept 'from error.' The Con- fession of Faith does not make this assertion; and it is significant that this assertion is not to be found in the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed or in any of the great Reformation confessions. The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scrip- tures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life and Theological Observer - .!Htd)1id)~.8eitgefd)id)tlid)e~ 141 weakens the testimony of the Church and the power of God unto sal- vation through Jesus Christ. We hold that the General Assembly of 1923, in asserting that 'the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide, and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error,' spoke without warrant of the Scriptures or the Confession of Faith." The Affirmation furthermore declares that the General Asssembly, without concurrent action of the presbyteries, has no authority to declare what the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America believes and teaches and that for the General Assembly to say that any doctrine is an essential doctrine is an unconstitutional procedure. It objects to the judgment of the General Assembly which stated that "doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" had been preached in the First Presbyterian Church of New York City (the refer- ence being to the preaching of Dr. Fosdick). It furthermore states that the signers are unwilling to let the five doctrinal statements of the General Assembly of 1923 (having to do with the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of our Lord, the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and His performance of real miracles) be used as tests "for ordination or for good standing" in the Church. How Modernism expresses itself on these doctrinal points can be seen from these words of the authors: "We all hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines: we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the Bible were inspired of God; that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh; that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, and through Him we have our redemption; that, having died for our sins, He rose from the dead and is our ever-living Savior; that in His earthly ministry He wrought many mighty works and by His vicarious death and unfailing presence He is able to save to the uttermost. Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theorizing they may have employed to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship." When one has read these statements, one is not surprised to learn that they caused a great storm of indignation in those circles of the Presbyterian Church where the Scriptures are still regarded as the infallible Word of God. A. Lutheranism Appraised by an Outsider. - What the non-Lutheran religious press, especially those papers which espouse a liberal theology, gave especial attention to in the proceedings of the convention of the United Lutheran Church in Columbus was the debate which featured the convention's discussion on the attitude of the U. L. C. toward social issues. The Christian Century not only published a lengthy report on the meeting, written by one of the members of its staff who was in attendance, but it submitted to its readers a long editorial having the heading "New Stirrings within Lutheranism," in which the U. L. C. and its policy as well as Lutheranism in general is examined. It is inter- 142 Theological Observer - Stird)1id)~3eitgefd)icf)Uid)e~ esting to see what view Charles Clayton Morrison, who presumably wrote the editorial, takes of Lutheranism and the various Lutheran church-bodies in America. We quote from the editorial: "The attitude which has been characteristic of the Lutheran Church toward other churches and toward their common social responsibilities is well known. In a word, Lutheranism has been the most denominational of denomina- tions. The inheritors of a rich historic tradition, Lutherans have for the most part looked upon it as a prize to be guarded rather than a good to be shared. No other Protestant Church has been more concerned to keep intact and clearly marked every item which differentiates it from other groups, just as no other has gone farther in claiming divine sanction for its form of government, its doctrines, and its liturgy. Non- Lutherans have usually been excluded from Lutheran Sacraments and non-Lutheran ministers from Lutheran pulpits. The Lutheran Church has been perhaps the least cooperative of all the larger Protestant churches in the various interdenominational endeavors. But Lu- theranism is by no means a unit in America. There are seventeen denominations of Lutherans, of which the United Lutheran Church, whose delegates met at Columbus, is the largest and most aggressive. For some time there have been signs in this Church of revolt from the traditional position of denominational aloofness and exclusiveness, although its official pronouncements continue to reaffirm the ancient divisive dogmas and although a majority of its members still hold to them; nevertheless a growing minority of ministers and laymen have been disregarding them in practise or, as they would probably prefer to say, have been reinterpreting them in more generous terms. Thus there has come about in the United Lutheran Church a measure of pulpit- and altar-fellowship with other Protestants which the official declarations of the Church forbid. And by tolerating such practises, the United Lutheran Church as a whole has departed somewhat from its announced position. These tendencies in this particular branch of Lutheranism toward doctrinal tolerance and toward fellowship with other churches, may be unimpressive to one altogether outside the Lu- theran camp. But inside they are seen to have considerable importance. This appears in the fact that it is these tendencies which more than anything else stand in the way of a unified Lutheranism in this country. The report to the recent convention by the special commission on rela- tionships with other American Lutheran church-bodies shows that it is because the more conservative Lutheran groups are not convinced (in spite of the pronouncements, which they find satisfactory) of the doc- trinal fidelity and denominational exclusiveness of the United Lutheran Church that they are still unwilling to consider organic union with it. This same report reveals how far such union is from realization and how wide are the divergences among the Lutheran groups when it tells of the meeting of the unification commission of the United Lutheran Church with that of the American Lutheran Church, the next largest Lutheran body. It seems that the two commissions met with different understandings of what they were to accomplish. The United Lutherans, instructed to find a basis for organic union, were surprised to discover that the only question the representatives of the American Lutheran Theological Observer - Stitcl)IidH3ettgefcl)icl)tHd)cs 143 Church were authorized to discuss was whether they might not under certain conditions be willing to maintain altar- and pulpit-fellowship with their fellow-Lutherans. For them union was not in the picture at all. "Under these circumstances it is natural that a strong temptation to go some distance in meeting the demands of the more reactionary Lutheran bodies should be felt within the United Church. Nation-wide Lutheranism is a step toward world-wide Lutheranism, which is obvi- ously the ideal of the official leaders of the denomination. But this step will be a costly one if it involves the surrender of the small, but significant progress the United Lutheran Church has made toward a cooperative relationship within American church-life. What is vitally important is a united Christendom; but a united Lutheranism, if it is also to be an isolated Lutheranism, would represent not progress, but reaction. There is every indication that the forward-looking leadership within the United Lutheran Church is quite aware of this fact and will not permit the sacrifice of the gains their denomination has made." The editor of the Christian Century thinks it a hopeful sign with respect to Lutheran participation in the solving of economic and social difficulties that at the Columbus convention there was at least a strong debate on the question to what extent the Lutheran Church might cooperate in the endeavors which are so dear to the Christian Century and that a vigorous minority opposed the negative course which was approved by the convention. We feel that the last paragraph of the editorial should be quoted also: "When the president of the convention said, 'The need of the present moment ... is that in all nations Chris- tians unitedly insist that the Government must not interfere with the property and full freedom of the Church,' he was evidently thinking of the German Church; but he defined the need in terms which the contemporary experiences of that Church prove utterly inadequate. The Church cannot be content merely to be let alone. If the tragic and heroic experiences of thousands of German Christians during recent years teach anything, it is that the attempt to maintain the Church in isolation from the social order is doomed to failure and that for the Church to refuse to invade the order of the 'secular' is to invite an invasion of its own sacred precincts. America needs a Lutheran Church which, without surrendering any of the values which belong to its tradi- tion, will commit itself to building here and now the kind of social order in which alone those values will have some chance of survival. To be free, the Church must do more than insist upon its own freedom - it must demand, and help create, the kind of society in which all men shall be free." Our readers, we are sure, will rather agree with President Knubel than with the editor of the Christian Century in the clash of opinions which we view in the last paragraph quoted. To the careful considera- tion of all U. L. C. A. ministers and officials we commend the state- ment of the editorial that "there has come about in the United Lutheran Church a measure of pulpit- and altar-fellowship with other Protestants which the official declarations of the Church forbid" and that "by tolerating such practises the United Lutheran Church as a whole has 144 Theological Observer - ~ird)liC!)<'leitgefc!)ic!)mc!)es departed somewhat from its announced position." The Christian Century is right when it holds that these tendencies, more than anything else, "stand in the way of a united Lutheranism in this country." That Dr. Morrison, a non-Lutheran, is ignorant of the earnestness with which confessional Lutherans have always insisted that their particular form of government and their liturgy are not claimed to rest on divine sanction, we can understand. He is a very busy man, edits two religious journals, lectures a great deal, and his chief interest is not doctrinal theology, but, if we mistake not, philosophy and sociology. What sur- prises one is that he does not see that, where the Church has very actively participated in politics and largely dominated the social life of the nation, for instance, in Russia, Spain, and Mexico, the ultimate results, as we view them now, have been most unsatisfactory. A. The Challenge of the New Atheism. - Writing editorially in Chris- tianity Today (November 16, 1936), Miss Maude Howe has this to say of the New Atheism which is being spread in America: "The New Atheism invites into its membership every cult and ism that will deny Calvary. We can therefore realize the menace of this planned propa- ganda to build up world revolution on a foundation of atheism. The New Atheism is not the classical freethought of the seventeenth century in any sense of the word, but it is a far more subtle and dangerous thing and already claims a membership of over seventeen million members in sixty-four countries, working, as so many atheists have told me personally, night and day to bring about world revolution. The Amer- ican Association for the Advancement of Atheism received a charter in 1925, and five times a similar charter has been tried in Canada. We pray that it may never be granted and are watching to cut across the application every time. We praise God for authorities in many cases sympathetic to the Christian faith. Members of the New Atheist cult visit hospitals and even in some cases help pedlers to propagate atheism as they go from door to door. In almost every well-known school and college in the world there is an atheist member. They even have atheist workers in Christian organizations. They have atheist members attending churches to offset appeals from a Christian pulpit. Everyone of these statements can be proved up to the hilt. To dis- prove the New Atheism and check its pernicious work, the Inter- national Christian Crusade was organized in Canada in 1928. By now it has spread to several other countries. In one year the International Christian Crusade received over five thousand letters from those losing faith or such as were concerned about the lack of faith in their loved ones." Today pastors must watch especially young people attending colleges and universities where atheism in the form of evolutionistic materialism is being spread throughout the country. Unofficial reports which we have seen have reported the number of faculty members and students at American universities voting the Socialist and even Communist tickets as alarmingly high. As Pastor Voronaef, a Russian refugee, recently said in a lecture, delivered here in St. Louis: "Poor people! They do not know what they are voting in." J. T. M. Theological Observer - stird)lid)~Settgefd)icl)md)es 145 A Good Article. - While Christendom, the new quarterly issued by Willett Clark & Co. and edited by Charles Clayton Morrison, who likewise is the editor of the Christian Century, usually brings articles that have a modernistic tendency and are read with grief by one who in all simplicity adheres to the Gospel preached in the Holy Scriptures, the autumn, 1936, issue contains a surprise for conservatives, an article of a different type, by Nathaniel Micklem, professor of Dogmatic The- ology at Mansfield College, Oxford, on the subject "On the Aversion of Men of Taste to Evangelical Religion." The article is so well written, so sprightly and fresh in its presentation, so full of interesting historical and other pertinent allusions, that we read it with real gratitude. There are some erroneous statements in it, but its main thesis is right and hits the nail on the head. He finds the reason for the aversion of men of taste to evangelical religion in the unwillingness of natural man, especially when his ego has become puffed up by a sense of his own wisdom and achievements, to say humbly: "Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling." Having quoted the words of the poet concluding with these lines, "Of all that Wisdom dictates this the drift, That man is dead in sin and life a gift," he ends his essay thus: "That is what the Master said: 'The! publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom before you'; that is the reason for the aversion of men of taste to evangelical religion." A. The Convention of the Disciples. - Last October the Disciples of Christ, the followers of Alexander Campbell, met in Kansas City for their international convention. About 2,500 persons attended. From the Christian Century we learn something about how these conventions are constituted. "It was not a delegate convention. Any member of a Disciples church could sit on the main floor and vote on all questions merely by registering his name and paying one dollar. For some reason there has always existed among the Disciples the strange idea that this is more 'democratic' than to have an assembly of deputies representing definite constituents. A few years ago a compromise was reached between the two ideas, and a small body of about 150 persons was created, called the Recommendations Committee. Its personnel is chosen by the State and provincial conventions on the basis of proportional representation. To this committee all resolutions are referred before the convention can take action. This plan works very well." Doctrinal questions, we are told, received but little notice. Even the matter of church unity was not much discussed. One of the chief resolutions passed refers to Army and Navy chaplaincies. The convention resolved "to renounce representation upon the chaplaincy commission of the Federal Council of Churches, which exercises the function of recom- mending Protestant candidates for chaplains commissions in the Army and Navy," and, secondly, to petition the Federal Council "to disband that commission and cease to exercise that function." These resolu- tions were passed over the head of the Recommendations Committee. The home of Alexander Campbell at Bethany, W. Va., where a few paces from the house is "his famous octagonal study, which has no windows excepting the glass roof," is to be preserved as a shrine. A. 10 146 Theological Observer - .Rlrd)HdH3eitgefcf)id)mcf)e~ The "Gospel" of the "Preaching Mission." - While there can be little doubt that some of the men who were active in the "Preaching Mission" brought their hearers genuine Gospel truths, it is clear that some of the promoters of the movement, at least in some cities, did not succeed in divorcing the movement from the social gospel. The editor of the Church at Wark, bulletin of the Metropolitan Church Federation of St. Louis, writes in a recent issue on "The Objectives of the Mission": "To strengthen the foundations of Christian faith on the part of every member of the local congregation and to stress anew what it means to be a Christian. To reawaken and reinterest the 'marginal' members of the local church and to enlist them in active Christian service. To make new disciples for Jesus Christ, our Lord, and to enlist them in the working fellowship of the church. The preacher will preach for conversion and seek to add new members to the church. To bring into active fellowship of local congregations all those who have been members of the congregation in other communities, but who have neglected to transfer their memberships by letter. To send forth Chris- tians into the world with a zeal for the redemption of every area of life that all human relationships may reflect the spirit of Jesus Christ and the redemptive purpose for which He came." That the last paragraph in particular reflects the attitude of the social gospel seems to appear from another paragraph, in which the editor reflects on the outcome of the services in St. Louis: "What will be the outcome? Has this spiritual elevation been high enough and real enough, so that it will eventually be instrumental in producing moral achievements? Can St. Louis abolish its slums, abandon its brothels, cast out its gambling, its graft, its political corruption? Can it really become a righteous city, a holy city, a city of God?" When will men learn to distinguish between main objectives and by-products? K. An OM Division Recalled. - In the Presbyterian an aged pastor speaks of a separation which occurred in the Presbyterian Church a hundred years ago. At that time Conservatives and Liberals clashed over the question whether Presbyterians should continue to cooperate with the Congregational Church in conducting and supporting missionary societies. There had been a so-called "plan of union," according to which these two church-bodies worked together. The conservative element felt that this course was not proper and was not serving the best interests of their Church, and so they declared the old relation ended. Four synods at that time refused to acquiesce in this action and separated. It was thus that the New School body arose. In 1869, how- ever, the two parties, Old School and New School, again united. What we cannot understand is that the writer in the Presbyterian, who himself belonged to the Old School and approves of the conservative course of the fathers in 1837, deplores the separation of Dr. Machen and his coworkers in 1936. A. Interesting Foreign-Tongue Periodicals in Our Circles. - The poly- glot character of the Lutheran Church is evident also from the various foreign-tongue periodicals published within the confines of our Synod. To two of these we wish to direct the attention of our readers at this Theological Observer -- Rircf)lic!y{)eUgefcf)icf)tficf)es 147 time, adding the wish that at least a few of our pastors would subscribe for them and thus support the noble cause which they represent. We refer to Le Lutherien Francais, published by Pastor F. Kreiss of Paris, France, and to Noticiero Luterano, the organ of our Mexican Lutherans. Both monthly periodicals are written in a style so clear and in diction so simple that they are easily understood, and both offer their readers rich and varied reading-matter. The leading article in Le Lutherien Francais, entitled "Nos Revendications" is a thorough and timely refuta- tion of present-day materialism, as this has perverted not only the masses, both rich and poor, but also, in the form of secularism, the Church, and is, at the same time, an ardent plea for penitent return to the Gospel of Christ. "Que Dieu ouvre les yeux a une generation avetLgle!" This closing prayer certainly applies also to our American people. A note- worthy series of instructive and interesting articles is appearing under the heading "Le Lutheranisme, son Histoire, sa Foi et sa Vie." The fifth article of the series treats the subject "Le Retour aux Traditions Litur- giques de L'Eglise Sauvera-t-il les EgLises Lutheriennes?" The article refers to the witness of the French Lutheran paper Le Ternoignage against the Reformed Semeur, which had attacked its opponent's "Romanizing tendencies." While Le Lutherien Francais rejects the Cal- vinistic paper's criticism, it at the same time points out against Le Temoignage that not any kind of aping of Rome by the adoption of papistical liturgical forms, teachings, or conventions will save the cause of Lutheranism against unbelief, but persistent loyalty to God's Word. The article is very fine and timely and sounds a clear, sharp trumpet- tone against the offensive unionism in modern Franco-Lutheran circles. The article "Le Devoir des Chretiens envers Ie Monde" presents to the readers the synodical essay discussed by our brethren in France at their last convention in February and points out the Christian's duty to fight boldly and faithfully against all enemies of the Gospel. The rest of the paper is devoted to church and other announcements. While Le L1dherien Francais is rather dogmatical and controversbl in contents, Noticiero Luterano is quite missionary and devotional, adapted to people who need the milk of Christian instruction. But its "newsy" columns give it a charm all its own. Its leading article (we quote from No.1, Vol. II, October, 1936), "La Explosion que Derrumbo al Poder del Papa," shows how the Lutheran Reformation shook the power of the Papacy just because it brought to light the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith. Other articles treat the following subjects: "The First Anniversary of Noticiero Luterano," "What Is Life?" ("A preparation for heaven"), "How to Judge Religions" ("What is their attitude toward the Biblical principles of sola gratia and sola SC1'iptura?") and "Anotaciones" (m,ws brevities). Still more interesting perhaps than "Anotaciones" are the "Brisc(s del Campo" ("field breezes," i. e., "field reports") from San Antonio, Vanderbilt, and Three Rivers, Tex.; from Los Angeles, Cal.; from San Luis, Mo., and vicinity; from Chicago and New York, cities in which our Mexican Missions are represented. May God bless these missions and also our little Spanish mission paper, Noticiero Luterano, which costs but 35 cents a year and gives the reader $35 worth of enjoyment and inspiration. J. T. M. Statistics Regarding the Jews. - In view of the continued hue and cry over the barbaric treatment which Jews receive in Germany, Chris- tianity Today points out the fact that on April 1, 1936, the number of Jews living in Germany was still estimated by the Reichsverb'etung at 409,000, while only about 93,000 Jews emigrated from Germany since June, 1933. These figures are fairly accurate since they were compiled by the German Emigration Department in cooperation with the Hilfs- verein der Juden in Deutschland and the Palestine Office in Berlin on the basis of the number of emigrants assisted by these organizations. Of the 93,000 Jews who left Germany about 31,000 went to Palestine and 22,000 to other overseas countries. Eighteen thousand Jews who were not German citizens returned to their native countries in Eastern Europe. The others settled in England, France, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, and other European countries. Of the overseas countries, besides Palestine, the United States received 9,500 Jews, Brazil 4,500, Argentina 2,000, and South Africa 3,000. While in Germany there are still 409,000 Jews, Great Britain has only 340,000. In 1935 there were about 395,000 Jews in Palestine. Figured by continents, there are about 9,736,000 Jews in Europe, 560,000 in Africa, 936,000 in Asia, 5,031,000 in North and South America, and 27,000 in Australia and New Zealand. Throughout the world the Jews today number about 16,291,000, as Dr. Erwin Rawicz states in the C.-V. Zeitung of Berlin. J. T. M. Mission-Work in Abyssinia. - Dr. Adolf Keller of Geneva, Switzer- land, writes on this topic as follows (we take the communication from the PresbyteTian):- "The executive committee of the European Central Office for Inter- church Aid, meeting at Geneva on August 28, heard a most interesting report from a missionary who has returned from Abyssinia. Two hundred evangelical missionaries were there in missionary work. Sweden, Switzerland, America, Great Britain, the Society for Propa- gating the Gospel, Germany, and other countries had missionary interests in the country. It is pioneer work. When the war began, many mission- aries were called to the capital. Those near the frontier had to leave the country. The evangelical missionaries are pessimistic in looking towards the future. The missionaries represent for the Italian govern- ment an element of peace and pacification. "The natives hate naturally the religion of the conqueror. 'Rather become Mohammedan than Catholic,' can often be heard. It is hoped that the government will allow evangelical missionaries to continue their work to a certain extent. Such a policy would be in harmony with Italian religious legislation, which has granted religious liberty to certain categories of Protestants, especially in the law of the Culti ammesse of 1929. "The plan exists therefore to found a Waldensian colony in Abys- sinia whose task would be to form a nucleus for evangelical colonization. "The missionary who reported to the committee brought good news from his former flock, which is keeping together as before. Theological Observer - .Ilitcf)ficf)'{leitgcfcl)icljt1icf)ell 149 "Of course, a great Roman propaganda is now starting. The Abys- sinians are of the Coptic or Monophysite religion, as one knows. Their chief, 'the Abuna,' is always elected from one of the Coptic monasteries in the Libyan Desert. The Roman Church goes very far in recognizing not the dogma, but the rites of other churches and has already formed among the Copts a Church united with Rome." A. :tlie "heutfcl)e ~cfenntnifJfnJJtt 1101t hen &t'unbfiitzen bet' !neforntntion lleltJidj,cn". ~ief e \l.[nUage gegen bie beutf dje Q3-efenntni§ftont ~at mit medjt \13rof. Dr. &). seoclj bor einiger 3eit im "J3ut~etaner" (",3ur J3age ber euro~ ,1Jiiifcljen ~rcifircljen") er~oben. \l.[l§ man i~n be§~aUi our mebe fe~te (,,~dj mllt bodj mit ganaCl11 (,fifer bdonen: bie Q3denntni§firdj'e in ~eutf cljlanb fiimlJft einaig llnb aUdn gegen ben fidj Iireitmacljenben UnglaulJen, ia hie Q3erenn±ni§±reuen in ~eutfcljlanh fiim1Jfen ben ~elben~aftef±en, aber audj ben ~ertIidjften Sfampf llm &o±±e§ lffiori llnb J3ut~er§ J3e~r'''), na~m bie ,,~teifirclje" ben seamlJf fUr Dr. Sfodj aUf (lffierner iScljlllinge, \13aftor ber freifirdjndj~Iut~erifdjen @emeinbe in unb um Q3te§Iau). ~~re furaen, aber fdjlagenben 3Uate ~aben audj lffieri fUr lln§ ~ieraulanbe, eben llld bie Q3efennini§ftontrer brilben, lllie fo mandje ~~corogen in ber mereinig~ ten J3u±~erifcljen Sfirdje, hie iSdjriftIe~re bon ber merbaIinflJiration fo fdjatf angreifen. inur einige Q3elege fUr bie Q3efenntni§ftontrer btilben. Q3e" fenntni§ftontrer ,I'! arI Q3ar±~: ,,~ie Q3ibel ift ern menf djIiclje§ ~oful11en± mitten in ber (lanaen meIigion§gefcljiclj±e. lffiir biirfen un§ nidjt lllunbern, in ber Q3ibel bauernb :ite6ten au begegnen, bie .oem lffi~r~eit§begriff ber &efdjidjt§llliffenfcljaft niclj± ftanbau~ar±en l1ermiigen, fonbern bie ber &)if±o" rifer eben nul' al§ ,is age' ober ,J3egenbc' lllirb beaeidjnen fiinnen." ~ilr ben Q3efenntni§frontrer snart~ gf6t e0 alfo in ber Q3ibel iSage unb 2egenbe. ~ilrllla~r, ein fe~r I)cIbcnTjaf±er SfamlJf um @otte§ lffiori unb 2llt~er§ J3e~r' I Q3efenn±ni§fron±rer D.3clnrer, fclj{clifdjer J3anbe§bifdjof (in einer \l.[nflJradje bor ber 2llt~erafabemie in iSonbct0Tjaufen, 1935), rebet bon bem ,,@eflJenf± ber merbaIinflJiration". inadj ,3iinfer ift e0 \l.[nfgabe bel' \13farrer, ber "mer" liaIinflJiration§t~eorie" ben "Q3oben all entaie~enu nnb bamit einen "@e,, ln1nn au eraielen". Q3efennmi§frontrer \13farrer Lie. Dr. mriclj Q3unaeI [djreibt (in feinem &)eftdjen ,,~a§ ~me :iteftament"): ,,~a§ \l.[Ue :itefta" ment ift e~tIidj gegen fidj feUift. (,f§ lllm fein bon @o±± feUif± biftierie§ irrium§Iofe§ Q3udj fein. ~a e§ IDlenfdjen gefcljrieben ~aben, ent~iirt e§ feIbftberftfu1bIidj iScljreilife~Ier, audj gefdjidjtIidje unb naturllliffenfdjaftridje ~rrtiimer." Q3efenntngftontrer D. lffiurm, lllilr±±embergifdjer J3anbe§liifdjof, fag±e aUf ciner groBen ,,®bangeHfdjen lffioclje" (abgebrucrt in bet ,,~. (,f. 2. Sf."): "mom @Iauben Icben ~eif3t aber filr bie ~eologie nidjt me!)r llliffen llloUen, al§ e§ @oti U110 burclj fein lffiori funbgetan ~at. (,fine mit ben IDli±±eIn ber J30gir geltJonnene iSicljerung lllar a. Q3. Die aItortlJobo6e merbaHnfpiration§Ie~re. @erabe an i~rer ber~iingngboUen lffiirfung, an bem ,3erftiirung0lJtoaet, ber mit burdj fie eingeIeitet lllrurbe, fie~t man, lllie wenig fidj' bie SHrcl)c aUf menfcljIiclje ~idjerungen, feien fie bogmaiifcljer, feien fie redjUicljer ).JCri, berlaffen fann." ~erner Q3efenntni0ftoniIer ~farrer moger, ber in Q3erlin im \l.[uftrag ber Q3efennenben Sfirclje ~og" matif Heft, alier im ffia!)men bet Q3efenntni§fton± in Q3re§Iau fetnen ~Iug illier @enf unb Q3afeI na~m unb mit Q:albin unt Q3ar±~ fUr bie futdjtliare, ogotteWif±erHdje ,3ornllla~I eintrat, beranfoIge geltJiffe IDlenfdjen "bon ®lllig" feit ~er nad} @lo±±e~ unumfcljriinftem IDlacljtMUen i3um 20m unb @lericljt in emiger -x;>iillenglut berfe~en finb". w~nriclj fcljreiot auclj ber [lefenntng~ frontler -x;>an~