QLnurnr~tu
(Uqrnlngtrul ilnutlJly
CODtiDuiDIL
LEHRB UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN PUEa EV.-LUTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLy-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. X December, 1939 No. 12
CONTENTS
PBlre
The Doctrine of Justification According to Gabriel Biel and
Johann von Palz. Theo. Dierks __ __________________________ . ___________ 881
Teaching the Postconfirmation Bible Class. P. E. Kretzmann . ___________ 889
Antichristian Teaching of Rosicrucianism. J. Theodore MaeDer __ 900
Entwuerfe fuer die von der Synodalkonferenz angenommene
Epistelreihe __________________ ___________________ 913
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ________ _______ 928
Book Review. - Literatur .. ----- ---- -- -- -- ---- --_______________ _____________ 953
BIn Predlger mUll rueht aUeln 1De1-
dim, al80 daM er die Schate Wlter-
weille. wie de recbte CbrtsteD IODen
.em. IOndem BUch daneben den Woel-
fen 1Deht'etl, daM de die Schate Dleht
anarelfen UDd mit fal8cher Lehre ver-
fuebrea UDd Irrtum elnfuehren.
Luthft-.
Ell 1st keln DIna. daB dJe LNtI
roehr bel der 1tlrche bebaelt deaD
die lUte Predlgt. - AJIOIocrte. ~rL JL
If the trumpet live an UDCertIJD
soWld who IIhall prepare hlmalf to
the battle' -1 Cor. Iii, ••
Published for the
BY. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING BOUSE, St. LoWs, Mo.
928 Theological Observer- ~itd)lid)~3eitgefcf)id)md)e~
Theological Observer - Si'irdjndj~ Seligef djidjtHdjeS
The Present Status of the Discussions of the Missouri Synod with
the American Lutheran Church. - Preconvention Events. The conven-
tion of the Missouri Synod assembled at Cleveland in 1935 resolved to
declare its willingness to confer with other Lutheran bodies on problems
of Lutheran union with a view to effecting true unity on the basis of the
Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. The convention instructed
the President of Synod to appoint a committee of five to be known as
the Committee on Lutheran Union.
This committee met in conference with the Fellowship Committee
of the American Lutheran Church for an analysis and a comparison of
the doctrinal position of the American Lutheran Church and the Missouri
Synod. The BTief Statement of the Missouri Synod and the Minneapolis
Theses of the American Lutheran Church provided unquestionably reli-
able presentations of the doctrinal positions of the two church-bodies
and made comparisons possible. In connection with these two documents
also the Intersynodical (Chicago) Theses were discussed. It was fortu-
nate for the commissioners of the Missouri Synod that there was no
need on their part of drafting articles of agreement which might be
suspected of containing compromises concurred in behind the closed
doors of the conference-room. The result of these discussions was that
the American Lutheran Church commissioners found themselves in
agreement with the Brief Statement except in several minor points.
The Brief Statement had been tacitly approved by the Wisconsin
Synod. At the drafting of the Intersynodical (Chicago) Theses the Wis-
consin Synod had participated by sending several delegates. Participa-
tion of the Wisconsin Synod in the discussions with the A. L. C. would
have been desirable, and in fact at the first meeting of our Missouri
Synod Committee we spoke of asking members of the Wisconsin Synod
to take part in the work that was to be done. However, we as a Com-
mittee did not feel authorized to approach members of the Wisconsin
Synod in this undertaking. We hoped that, as the discussions progressed
and the results so far obtained were communicated by our Synod to
the Wisconsin Synod, the latter would find it possible to join us. Need-
less to say, we should have been happy to have members of the .other
Synodical Conference synods present also.
In the sixth conference of the two committees, each conference ex-
tending over two days, the commissioners of the American Lutheran
Church presented a set of statements which is known as the Declaration
of the American Lutheran Church. In this Declaration the American
Lutheran Church declares its agreement with the doctrines presented
in the Brief Statement, with the exception of five points, - those dealing
with the visible side of the Church, Antichrist, the conversion .of Israel,
the thousand years, and the resurrection of the martyrs, concerning
which five points the Missouri Synod officially declared that the position
taken in the DeclaTation need not be divisive of church-fellowship.
Besides these chiefly eschatological matters the Declaration also contains
Theological Observer - ~itd)lid)<8cit\lefd)id)Uid)e~ 929
paragraphs on Scripture and inspiration, universal plan of salvation,
predestination and conversion, the office of the public administration of
the means of grace, and the doctrine of Sunday. Regarding these doc-
trines the Declaration expressly acknowledges the correctness of the
Brief Statement. The commissioners of the American Lutheran Church,
however, were of the opinion that it would be well in part to supplement
the Brief Statement and in part to emphasize those points that seemed
essential. The supplementation consisted in stating that saving grace
is not irresistible, to which we all agree, and in stressing the human
element in the doctrine of inspiration, a matter which is not in con-
troversy.
This Declaration declares that, with the exception of the five points
noted, its authors are in full agreement with the Brief Statement. This
Declaration has been attacked because to some it seemed superfluous
if it really agreed with the Brief Statement. But, after all, is it not more
satisfactory to have explicit statements on doctrines that have been in
controversy than merely to have a signature to the Brief Statement?
Others would have considered a mere signature without any explanatory
words quite insufficient. Corroborating the acceptance of the Brief
Statement by amplifying statements which supplement and emphasize
certain points in doctrines that once were controversial or are of special
importance is certainly not without merit. And the course of the A. L. C.
comluissioners in informing the Church that divergent views concerning
the five points are held by some of their members was the only honor-
able one to pursue. The complete text of the Declaration may be found
in the Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Regular Convention of the
Missouri Synod and in the January, 1939, number of the CONCORDIA
THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.
The Conventions of 1938. To the convention of the Missouri Synod
which met at St. Louis in June, 1938, the Committee on Lutheran Union
presented its report embodying the Declaration of the American Lutheran
Church. This report had been printed in the book of overtures and
thus made accessible to the whole membership of Synod. Synod's Con-
vention Committee No. 16 took the report under advisement, studied it
thoroughly, announced several public hearings, and then presented
a set of resolutions for discussion on the floor of Synod. Adopting the
resolutions, Synod expressed gratitude to God for the guidance of the
Holy Spirit by which the points of agreement had been reached and also
implored God's further guidance toward the consummation of the efforts
to bring about church-fellowship between the two bodies. Synod de-
clared that the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod together with
the Declaration of the representatives of the American Lutheran Church
and the provisions of the entire Report of Committee No. 16 be regarded
as the doctrinal basis for future fellowship between the Missouri Synod
and the American Lutheran Church. Synod instructed its Committee
on Lutheran Union to endeavor to establish full agreement also in the
five points in which agreement had not yet been reached. Synod also
insisted on agreement in practice as necessary for the establishment of
true unity.
59
930 Theological Observer - .ltitd]lid]~3eit\Jefd]id]tHd]ell
Several other necessary prerequisites were included in Synod's
resolutions, such as the establishment of doctrinal agreement between
the other church-bodies belonging to the American Lutheran Conference
and our Synod and the approval of this whole matter by the synods
constituting the Synodical Conference. Synod encouraged conferences
between pastors of the two church-bodies. The exact and complete
wording of Synod's resolutions may be found in Proceedings of the
Thirty-seventh Regular Convention of our Synod and in the January,
1939, issue of the CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY. For the convenience
of the reader this summary has been inserted here.
Four months later, in the month of October, the convention of the
American Lutheran Church was held in Sandusky, O. At this conven-
tion the commissioners who had conferred with the representatives of
the Missouri Synod presented their report. The convention adopted the
following resolutions as reported by the C. T. M. in the January issue
of 1939, page 59. For the sake of new readers we once more reprint them.
"Resolved:
"1. That we raise our grateful hearts and voices to the Triune God,
thanking His mercy for the guidance of the Holy Spirit by which the
points of agreement have been reached.
"2. That we declare the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod
together with the Declaration of our commission a sufficient doctrinal
basis for church-fellowship between the Missouri Synod and the Amer-
ican Lutheran Church.
"3. That, according to our conviction and the resolution of the Synod
of Missouri passed at its convention in St. Louis, the aforementioned doc-
trinal agreement is the sufficient doctrinal basis for church-fellowship,
and that we are firmly convinced that it is neither necessary nor possible
to agree in all non-fundamental doctrines. Nevertheless we are willing
to continue the negotiations concerning the points termed in our Decla-
ration as 'not divisive of church-fellowship' and recognized as such by
the Missouri Synod's resolutions, and instruct our Commission on Fellow-
ship accordingly.
"4. That we understand why the Missouri Synod is for the time
being not yet ready to draw the logical conclusion and immediately
establish church-fellowship with our Church. We, however, expect that
henceforth by both sides the erection of opposition altars shall be care-
fully avoided and that just coordination of mission-work shall earnestly
be sought.
"5. That we believe that the Brief Statement viewed in the light
of our Declaration is not in contradiction to the Minneapolis Theses,
which are the basis of our membership in the American Lutheran Con-
ference. We are not willing to give up this membership. However, we
are ready to submit the aforementioned doctrinal agreement to the other
members of the American Lutheran Conference for their official approval
and acceptance.
"6. That, until church-fellowship has been officially established, we
encourage the pastors of both church-bodies to meet in smaller groups
Theological Observer - Ritctlict~8eitgefctictmcf)e§ 931
in order to discuss both the doctrinal basis for union and the question
of church practice.
"7. That we humbly pray to the Lord of the Church that He might
guide the course of both church-bodies so that we may be led to the
establishment of full fellowship as an important contribution to the
unity of our dear Lutheran Church in America.
"8. That we commend our commission for its painstaking and
thorough work and hereby accept and ratify the report with sincere
appreciation and thanks."
The Developments since the Conventions. When there resolutions
of the American Lutheran Church were published, three clauses arrested
general attention in the Missouri Synod and in the synods in fellow-
ship with Missouri. They not only arrested attention, but also aroused
much apprehension. These three clauses are: "It is neither necessary
nor possible to agree in all non-fundamental doctrines" - "The Brief
Statement viewed in the light of the Declaration is not," etc. - "Weare
not willing to give up this membership," i.e ., in the American Lutheran
Conference.
When the Committee on Lutheran Union and the Fellowship Com-
mission of the American Lutheran Church met in January, 1939, to face
the situation that had been created by the adoption of the resolutions
mentioned, the representatives of the American Lutheran Church were
at once confronted with inquiries about the implications of these three
clauses. Answers were frankly given, but it was deemed proper to
formulate the replies carefully in writing in order to make them avail-
able for quotation.
In the mean time another question had been added by some members
of the Synodical Conference as to the meaning of a phrase in this sentence
of the Declaration: "To this end He also purposes to justify those who
have come to faith." Some feared that these words implied or per-
mitted the teaching of justification post fidem and excluded objective,
or ur...iversal, justification. It was agreed that all questions be submitted
in writing and a reply be formulated by the American Lutheran Church
commissioners.
This reply was received in the course of time and was thoroughly
discussed in a meeting of both committees held at Chicago, September 29
and 30. While it is regrettable that this reply could not be published
much sooner, it must be remembered that the members of both com-
mittees, on account of their regular work, find it difficult to arrange
meetings. We hope that the publication of the reply will allay at least
some of the apprehensions of the brethren.
We now present the "Reply of the Commissioners of the American
Lutheran Church" together with the reaction of the Committee on Lu-
theran Union of the Missouri Synod.
The A. L. C. commissioners made this statement:
"With reference to the meaning of the Declaration of the American
Lutheran Church commissioners as well as of the 'Sandusky Resolutions'
of the American Lutheran Church, several questions had been raised
932 Theological Observer - .reitd)IidH3eitgefd)id)tlid)e~
within the Missouri Synod. These questions were submitted to the
commissioners of the American Lutheran Church by the representatives
of the Missouri Synod.
"1. The first question referred to the statement in our Declaration
(II, A) : 'To this end He also purposes to justify those who have come
to faith.' It was asked just when this justification takes place, whether
immediately after man has come to faith or later. The answer was, of
course, in the same moment in which man comes to faith."
The Committee on Lutheran Union approved of this reply. The
members of the Committee are convinced from oral and printed state-
ments that the A. L. C. COITL'llissioners teach objective, or universal,
justification, the doctrine that God has already in Christ absolved all the
world of its sins. While discussing this paragraph the A. L. C. com-
missioners once more declared formally "that we adhere to the doctrine
of objective, or universal, justification."
2. The "Reply" states further:
"The second question pertained to the statement in the 'Sandusky
Resolutions' (cf. Minutes, p.255) in Section 3: 'We are firmly convinced
that it is neither necessary nor possible to agree in all non-fundamental
doctrines.' It was asked whether it was not true that all Scripture doc-
trines are binding, whether they are fundamental or non-fundamental.
The answer was, to be sure, everything that the Scripture teaches is
God's Word and therefore binding.
"This statement was included in our 'Sandusky Resolutions' because
Point 3 of the St. Louis 'Resolutions' could be understood as meaning
that for the time being the Declaration given was sufficient and disagree-
ment in these well-known points (the visible side of the Church, Pope,
thousand years, conversion of Jews, resurrection of the martyrs) was to
be tolerated, but that actual establishment of church-fellowship could
not take place until agreement even in these points was reached. While
we are ready to continue the discussions on these points, certainly the
erection of church-fellowship should not be made contingent on the
result of these deliberations; church-fellowship is justifiable and can be
practiced even if no agreement is reached in these points."
The Committee on Lutheran Union received with approval the state-
ment: "Everything that' Scripture teaches is God's Word and therefore
binding." It was frankly stated that the assertion of the "Sandusky
Resolutions" quoted above is ambiguous. Non-fundamental doctrines
are just as binding as fundamental doctrines. God absolutely wants com-
plete agreement on everything He says in His holy Word, and it ever
remains our bounden duty to strive for complete agreement. To our
great sorrow it is not always possible to attain such complete agree-
ment because of human weakness. To this position the commissioners
of the A. L. C. agreed, as appears from the above.
3. The "Reply" continues:
"The third question referred to the fifth statement in the 'Sandusky
Resolutions' (p. 255): 'That we believe that the Brief Statement viewed
in the light of our Declaration is not in contradiction to the Minneapolis
Theological Observer - .Ritcf)licfH3ettgefcf)icf)tHcf)ell 933
Theses.' An explanation of the phrase 'viewed in the light of our Decla-
ration' was asked for. The answer was: This phrase says three things:
1. In regard to the question concerning the essence of the Church, the
Antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, the physical resurrection of the
martyrs, and the reign of a thousand years mentioned in Rev.20, we
accept the Brief Statement of the doctrinal position of the Missouri
Synod only with the limitations set forth in our Declaration. 2. In
regard to the other points mentioned in our Declaration we accept the
corresponding points of doctrine in the Brief Statement as they are either
'supplemented' in our Decla1'ation or 'emphasized as to those points
which seemed essential to us.' Thus the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures
has been supplemented in our Declaration with reference to the human
factor, and in the doctrine of Election and Conversion those points have
been emphasized which seemed essential to us. 3. In regard to the
Brief Statement in general this phrase intends to say that we are con-
scious of our agreement with the 'points of doctrine' contained therein,
without, however, on our part, sharing the exegetical or other lines of
argumentation in every individual case and without being obligated in
every case to employ the same terminology."
The comment of the commissioners of the Missouri Synod on this
part of the "Reply" was as follows:
"This means, of course, that the A. L. C. has accepted the Brief
Statement, excepting what they have already excepted in the Declaration.
Some may later abuse this statement so as to eliminate the Brief State-
ment as a part of the basis for doctrinal agreement. We are not respon-
sible for such abuse."
4, a. The "Reply" continues:
"Perhaps the above can be further illustrated in addition to what has
been said.
"With the Brief Statement we hold that before the Fall, Adam had
a knowledge that enabled him to designate the animals with names that
corresponded to their being; but we do not believe it to be a Biblical
point of doctrine 'that he was endowed with a truly scientific knowl-
edge of nature'; much less do we hold that the rejection of this sen-
tence as an overstatement is divisive of fellowship."
The statement of the commissioners of the Missouri Synod with
regard to this section of the "Reply":
"We hold that the Brief Statement is not in error when it says that
Adam was endowed with a truly scientific knowledge of nature because
the phrase means that he was endowed with a true and thorough under-
standing of nature. However, we agree that the non-acceptance of
the word 'scientific' is not divisive of church-fellowship."
4, b. The "Reply" continues:
"We understand the sentence in Section 21 "These means of grace
are the Word of the Gospel ... and the Sacraments," etc.; and we grant
of course that grace is communicated through the Gospel and not through
the Law, but on our part we are accustomed to use the terminology
"the Vvord and the Sacraments are the means of grace," while we
934 Theological Observer - ~itd)lid)'3eitgefd)ld)m£L)eS
understand of course that the Law is merely preparatory and only the
Gospel communicates grace."
This part of the "Reply" is still under discussion.
4, c. The "Reply" continues:
"With the Brief Statement (Section 21) we, of course, confess that
the effect of the Lord's Supper is 'none other than the communication
and sealing of the forgiveness of sins'; but we do not take the words
'none other than' in a sense so exclusive as to deem it disruptive of
fellowship if some one felt justified on the basis of Holy Scripture to
assume an additional effect beyond this primary one."
The Committee on Lutheran Union asked the A. L. C. commissioners
this question:
"If the additional effect referred to is sanctification in the narrow
sense, etc., it expresses a self-evident truth; if some other effect is
meant, what can that be?"
In reply to this question it was stated by the A. L. C. commissioners
that other effects of Holy Communion are that the Sacrament nurtures
our spiritual life, unites us more intimately with Christ, confirms the
oneness of the body of Christ, which is the Church, and demonstrates
this oneness before the world. The question whether it is heretical to
think of an indirect effect of the Sacrament on the body was also
touched upon.
The discussions on this section have not been concluded.
4, d. The "Reply" contLTlues:
"With Section 28 of the Brief Statement we, of course, confess our
adherence to the Galesburg Rule, although we find ourselves unable to
see that all of the Scripture-passages referred to here or otherwise
quoted are applicable as proofs for this rule. Likewise with the same
section we reject all unionism but call attention to the fact that we
consider prayer-fellowship wider than church-fellowship and that there-
fore in certain cases we may occasionally pray privately with some one
with whom we are not in church-fellowship."
Comment of the Committee on Lutheran Union:
"Generally speaking, prayer-fellowship involves church-fellowship.
There may be cases, however, where the question whether common
prayer involves fellowship belongs to the field of casuistry." -It ought
to be stated that the two committees realized there is disagreement on
this point.
4, e. The "Reply" continues:
"We have our doubts as to whether all the Scripture-passages cited
in Section 35-40 of the Brief Statement actually prove what they are
intended to prove; but the fact of the individual's eternal predestina-
tion to sonship (Kindschaft) is our firm conviction, and in our Decla-
ration we have stated the points which are of primary concern to us in
this doctrine. Weare not so sure that Scripture actually and expressly
speaks of a definite 'number' of those elected from eternity, neither is this
essential to us. It is more important and in fact essential to hold
Theological Observer - .!titd)ltd),~eitgefd)id)md)es 935
firmly to this truth, that every one who comes to faith and remains in
faith and is eternally saved has been predestinated for this by God
from eternity."
Comment of the Committee on Lutheran Union:
"We cannot understand how a person who believes that each in-
dividual believer is elected can doubt that the whole number is elected.
The implication of arbitrariness which some people find in the term
'definite number' we reject."
5. The "Reply" states finally:
"Finally, the question was raised how the statement in our fifth
'Sandusky Resolution' is to be understood: 'We are not willing to give
up this membership' (p.256). The answer was: 'This is no absolute
statement but one conditioned by the future development of the Amer-
ican Lutheran Conference.'''
Naturally the Committee on Lutheran Union approved this part of
the "Reply." * * I *
To present a more complete picture also of the postconvention events,
we refer to the Racine Convention and to the Pittsburgh Agreement.
In November of 1938 the American Lutheran Conference, of which
the American Lutheran Church is an integral part, met in convention
at Racine, Wis. Whatever may have been the spirit of the Racine Con-
vention and whatever may have been said on the floor of the convention
regarding the proposed fellowship of one of its members with the Mis-
souri Synod is of first concern to the American Lutheran Church,
because the Missouri Synod has made the establishing of doctrinal
agreement on the part of the other synods of the American Lutheran
Conference with the 11~crican Lutheran Church a condition of future
fellowship. To meet this condition, rests with the American Lutheran
Church. Until this condition is met, there can be no fellowship with
Missouri.
In February, 1939, representatives of the American Lutheran Church
met with a committee of the United Lutheran Church in Pittsburgh
and jointly accepted a document which purported to establish agree-
ment between the two church-bodies on the doctrine of Inspiration.
The nucleus of the document is found in the sentence, "The separate
books of the Bible are related to one another and, taken together, con-
stitute a complete, errorless, unbreakable whole, of which Christ is the
center, John 10:35." By the Committee on Lutheran Union this state-
ment was found to be "ambiguous" and to "lack the explicit, unequivocal
declaration of the verbal inspiration and of the inerrancy of the Holy
Scripture in all its parts which the situation demands." Other phrases
in this document were censured as being open to misunderstanding.
In a conference hastily summoned, two members of the American Lu-
theran Commission gave assurance that by accepting the Pittsburgh
Agreement they did not intend to recede from the position on the doc-
trine of Inspiration as set forth in the Brief Statement of the Missouri
Synod and the Declaration of the American Lutheran Church. The
opinion of the Committee on Lutheran Union, printed in the Lutheran
936 The.ol.ogical Observer - .Ritd)1id}~8eit\lefcf}icf}mdje~
Witness .on page 139 [1939], c.oncludes with the remark that ".official
declarati.ons fr.om the A. L. C. auth.orities must n.ow be awaited."
While as yet n.o such .official declarati.ons have been made nor pub-
lished, Dr. Reu, a member of the c.ommittee far the American Lutheran
Church, has written rather p.ointedly in the Kirchliche Zeitschrijt far
September: "Wie kann man h.offen, dass unsere Pittsburgh-Erklaerung
in unserm Sinn von der Vereinigten Lutherischen Kirche angen.ommen
wird, wenn Lehrer dieser Kirche schon die Baltim.ore-Deklaration be-
handeln, wie es hier geschieht?"
Conclusion. One purpase .of this article is to acquaint our people
with the develapments up to date. Far this reason also some details
which may seem insignificant to the reader have been presented.
Another purpose of this article is ta throw these matters with full
detail int.o the lap .of the readers .of the C. T. M. and all interested per-
sons far their th.orough investigatian and far their careful, prayerful,
and unbiased deliberatian. After all, it is the membership .of Syn.od
that must pass judgment. Our hearts are filled With e;latituo" ;,.ud jay
at the great measure of agreement which has been attained, and it is our
sincere and devout prayer that als.o the remaining differences may be
camposed according to God's haly Word and to the h.onor of His name.
F.H.BRUNN
Secretary of the Committee on Lutheran Union
How Do We Become Certain that the Bible Is God's Word?-
In the second part of his paper on "What Is Scripture and How Can
We Become Certain .of Its Divine Origin?" (Kirchliche Zeitschrijt,
August, 1939) Dr. Reu presents these excellent, helpful paragraphs:
"It is Scripture itself by means of which this certainty is given,
.or it is Christ and His Spirit working through the written or oral Word
who creates it in man. We don't have to wait until our awn investiga-
ti.ons or th.ose .of .others c.oncerning the genuineness of this or that part
.of Scripture or concerning the histary of the canan or the efforts at
solving this or that exegetical problem have come to a successful end.
All that is necessary is t.o hear and read the Ward and ta abide by it.
We d.o nat kn.ow when the Spirit begins His wark .on the individual
saul (Augsburg C.onfessian, Art. 5), but we knaw that He warks by
means .of the Ward, and we have the pr.omise that He is all willingness
t.o w.ork faith in all wh.o hear the Ward. In His .own time and place
He works thr.ough the Word in such a manner that we know and expe-
rience naw we are confranted with Gad, the Most High. T.o withstand
the Ward is to withstand God and His Spirit. As Jac.ob after that wan-
derful dream c.ould say: 'Surely the Lard is in this place, and I knew
it nat. How dreadful is this place! This is nane ather than the house
.of Gad, and this is the gate of heaven,' sa the saul knows in that haur:
It is God with whom I am dealing, and the conscience confirms it in
an unmistakable way. This cansonance of the vaice .of conscience and
the voice of Gad speaking thr.ough the Ward makes it still mare im-
possible not to recagnize the divine v.oice. The soul, of course, can
resist the voice .of God and the voice of conscience, but it cannot deny
that it was dealing with God. The v.oice .of God was the voice .of the
937
Law and possibly also of the Gospel. In case it was the spoken Word
of God, as is usual, which man heard, he then finds the same Word in
Scripture; and when he reads it, the message has the same effect upon
him. That makes him sure, inwardly certain: It is God's Word that
here speaks to me. At first, this is only a certainty of the divine char-
acter of the words which he heard and read. But now he begins to
perceive that other parts of Scripture have, in spite of all differences,
the same message, Law and Gospel, and exercise the same power and
influence; he begins to see and experience the fact that Scripture is
a living organism, in which all parts are closely connected and share in
this divine life from their center out into their farthest periphery. Fur-
thermore, as a believer, he is a member in the great communion, the
Christian Church of all ages; his fellow-believers all have made this
experience; and the individual does not wonder that the extent of their
experience is wider than his own. His partial experience is proof to
him for the authenticity of their wider experience, and so in growing
measure he becomes inwardly certain here is truth, divine truth, the
Bible as a whole is the Word of God.
"But our question was not, How do we become subjectively certain
of the divine truth of Scripture? but, How do we become subjectively
certain of the origin, the divine origin, of the Scriptures? And yet, the
result at which we arrived is by no means without value for finding the
answer to the question about the origin of Scripture. If the whole of
Scripture is full of divine life, should it, then, have come into existence
without the exercise of this life? But more than that. Tf we have
become certain of the fact that Scripture is the book of divine truth,
why should it not be true in that which it testifies about its own origin?
If it is true and trustworthy when it says: 'Thou art the sinner and
must face God's wrath and condemnation,' or: 'Here is Christ, the Risen
One; in Him alone is salvation,' - and as Christians we have experienced
that it is true, - why should it not be true when it says: 'The prophets
were driven by the Holy Ghost and spoke MO {}EOU,' or: 'Paul and his
coworkers have spoken in words taught by the Spirit,' or: 'All Scripture
is {}E61t'VE1J(n;O~,' or: 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? The question
after the truth of the Bible is not identical with the question about its
divine origin, but by proving the first we immediately prove the second;
our subjective certainty about the divine origin of Scripture is based
upon, and given with, our subjective certainty about the truth of the
Bible. One follows the other of inner necessity." A.
Civic Control of Religion Natural Result of So-Called Reforma-
tion. - Under this heading Our Sunday Visitor tells its readers:
"'Believe what the civil ruler believes,' such has been from the
beginning the fate, shall I say, the flexible and very accommodating
policy of Protestantism in most countries where it spread; that is
the subservience, or even selling out, of religion to the State. The
passing over of religious authority to civil rulers started in Germany
with the revolt of Luther against the Church, and it is in Germany
again that, after four hundred years, the transfer of that authority
reaches a sad, dramatic, but nevertheless logical climax, with which,
938 Theological Observer - ~itd)Hd)~8eitgefd)id)tHd)es
true to form, Protestantism must reconcile itself: 'Cuius regia, huius
religio.' So even the neopaganism of Hitler, the absolute German ruler
of today, must be accepted. 'Shocking! Monstrous!' cries out the con-
science of the Christian people and of some of their leaders whose faith
is put to a most crucial and soul-torturing test. The test truly demands
an unprecedented religious heroism; it calls for no less than martyrdom.
Alas, between Christ and Hitler, between Christianity and neopaganism,
many among the leaders of the flock have made their choice! Let us
have Hitler; let us have his neopaganism!"
Thus and more Our Sunday Visitor, "popular national Catholic Action
weekly," adept in misstating historical truths, laments. But its lamenta-
tion is not well taken. Even the much-maligned Hitler, though we hold
for him no brief, has time and again stated that even the Roman
Catholic Church, in which he still claims membership, may say and
do anything within its proper sphere as a Church, as which it is to be
recognized as the "voice of God." The fight between Church and State
in Germany began not with Hitler nor with Luther's Reformation nor
even with the ante-Luther reformers, who denounced all papal claims
to temporal power; but it began when Gregory I took over earthly
rule, thus clearing the way for the intolerable claims of Gregory VII
(Hildebrand; d.1085) that the papal authority is superior even to that
of temporal regents. When Luther began his work of Reformation,
Hildebrand's principle was recognized practically throughout Europe, so
that, when Monk Martin enunciated the basic principle of separation
of Church and State, this was regarded in papistic circles as an
unbearable heresy. The "cuius regio, eius religio" principle was first
sanctioned in the well-known peace treaty at Augsburg, 1555, where
Romanists accepted this principle because on the other hand it was stipu-
lated in the treaty that territories ruled by bishops must remain Catholic
even though the ruler should turn Protestant. (Cf. Historical Intro-
ductions to the Symbolical Books, Triglot, p. 102.) Luther's teaching
on this score was far different. He said: "Civil government enacts
laws which should not extend any farther than over body and pos-
sessions and whatever happens to be temporal on earth." (St. L. ed., X,
395.) Or: "Wherever civil government i'! so presumptuous as to enact
spiritual laws, it trenches on God's own rule and perverts and corrupts
the souls." (Ibid.) Expressions like these could be multiplied a hundred-
fold from the great Reformer's writings, proving that the claim of Our
Sunday Visitor that "civil control of religion is the natural result
of the so-called Reformation" is absolutely untrue. J. T. M.
Faith Seminary Starts Third Year. - The Christian Beacon (Oct.12,
1939) reports: "Faith Theological Seminary held its third annual autumn
opening exercises in the First Independent Church, Wilmington, Del.,
on Wednesday evening, September 27, at which time the Rev. Carl
McIntire, pastor of the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collingswood, N. J.,
delivered the opening address on the subject 'The Greatest Cause.'
He cited the deepening apostasy of our day and declared that Christian
ministers need more than ever to realize that they are taking part in
a great warfare between God and Satan. The divine weapon in this
warfare, Dr. McIntire said, is the 'sword of the spirit,' the Word of God.
Emphasizing the necessity of thorough preparation for the Gospel
ministry, he called upon the students of Faith Theological Seminary
to know this weapon and to be able to use it." The enrolment in the
junior class this year is ten, while the entire enrolment amounts to
thirty-four, besides two special students. These figures represent a sub-
stantial increase over last year's enrolment of twenty-nine. Since the
Seminary authorities feared that the enrolment this year might drop
considerably, the Bible Presbyterians as a Church took the matter before
God in prayer and, as the account says, now regard the ten new students
as God's gifts granted them in answer to their supplication. The Bible
Presbyterians have separated from the Machen group, centered in
Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia; but unlike the Orthodox Pres-
byterians, they both teach the millennium and are strong champions
of prohibition. J. T. M.
Pseudo-Christianity. - Under this heading, Christianity Today
(Vol.10, No.1) calls attention to the great dangers threatening present-
day Christians from antichristian prophets who use the name Christian
falsely and deceitfully to mislead the unwary. The editorial is written
in view of the fact that in the current number of the periodical four
books are reviewed which, while pretending to be Christian, deny the
entire Christian faith. (Cf. The Case jor Evangelical Modernism, by
Cecil John Cadouxj Revolutionary Christianity, by Sherwood Eddy;
A Guide to Understanding the Bible, by H. E. Fosdick; Essential Chris-
tianity, by Samuel Angus.) The editorial says: "Recently an article
by Will Durant entitled 'The Crisis in Christianity' was given wide pub-
licity through the Saturday Evening Post. Dr. Durant lays no claim to
be a Christian theologian, - is not, if we are rightly informed, even
a member of the Christian Church, - but while that may make his
mistake more excusable it does not alter the fact that what he commends
as the hope of the race is something other than Christianity to such
a degree that, if it were universally embraced, it would mean that
genuine Christianity had disappeared from the face of the earth. What
he calls Christianity is very much like what Dr. Angus calls Chris-
tianity. He defines it as the 'sincere acceptance of the moral ideals of
Christ' and pictures the Christian churches as inviting to their member-
ship 'any person, of whatever race or theology, who is willing to receive
those ideals as the test and goal of his conduct and development,' which
means that he would have men accept Christ as a moral teacher and
example, but not as Lord and Savior. Such a Christianity lacks all
that is most distinctive of what is rightly called Christianity. The men
mentioned above are not alone in advocating a pseudo-Christianity.
Everywhere there are those who in the name and under the title of
Christianity are teaching what is other than Christianity. As a result
there are many who embrace systems of thought and life that lack what
is most essential to New Testament Christianity, nay, more, that are
positively hostile to all that is most distinctive to such Christianity;
who despite this fact cherish the notion that they are among Chris-
tianity's purest confessors and exemplars. It is some twenty years since
940 Theological Observer- .RitdJIidJ4leit(ltfdJidJUidJell
Warneld asked the question 'Does the word "Christianity" any longer
bear a definite meaning?' 1£ he were living today, he might mention
other men, but we may be sure that his answer would be the same.
'Men are debating on all sides of us what Christianity really is. Auguste
Sabatier makes it out to be just altruism. Josiah Royce identifies it
with the sentiment of loyalty. D. C. Macintosh explains it as nothing
but morality. We hear of Christianity without dogma, Christianity
without miracle, Christianity without Christ. Since, however, Chris-
tianity is a historical religion, an undogmatic Christianity would be an
absurdity. Since it is through and through a supernatural religion,
a non-miraculous Christianity would be a contradiction. Since it is
Christianity, a Christ-less Christianity would be-well, let us say it
lamely ... a misnomer ... .' How may we distinguish between genuine
and counterfeit Christianity? There are not lacking touchstones by
which the plain man may do this. The most important of these touch-
stones is what is taught (1) about the deity of Christ and (2) about
His death as an atonement for sin. When Fosdick, in a previous book,
spoke of the peril of worshiping Jesus and when Cadoux, Eddy, and
Angus deny His true deity, we know without further ado that they
are advocates of a pseudo-Christianity. An equally, perhaps an even
more, reliable test is whether Christ is proclaimed as one who bore
our sins in His own body on the tree. The object of the Christian's
faith is not merely Christ; it is Christ as crucified. Hence, when Angus
writes: 'It is morally impossible any longer to believe in the ancient
conception of the wrath of God or to hold to a God who could not or
would not forgive sins apart from a blood sacrifice or a propitiation or
the action of a third party'; and when Eddy writes: 'The modern
conscience utterly repudiates the idea of the death of Christ as the
propitiation of an angry God through the punishment of an innocent
victim,' we may see in their language something of a caricature of
Christian teaching, but nevertheless we may be sure that they are
teachers of a pseudo-Christianity. Modernism, Liberalism, New
Thought, - call it what you will, - baptized with the name of Chris-
tianity, is not thereby made Christianity. It may be true that a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. It does not follow, however,
that whatever we may choose to call a rose will thereby exude a rose's
fragrance." Two facts in this report may be of interest to us, namely,
in the first place, that all modernistic pseudoprophets agree in defining
Christianity as morality or as definite good works which "Christians"
must do for their salvation in imitation of Christ and, secondly, that
all true Christians find it not very difficult to define Christianity in
a correct, Scriptural way. As one reads the editorial, one almost is led
to believe that the author studied the Prolegomena to Dr. Pieper's
Christliche Dogmatik. J. T. M.
The Breakdown of Evolution.-Douglas Dewar, Fellow of the
Zoological Society of Great Britain, has recently added a sequel to his
earlier book Difficulties of the Evolution Theory, entitling his new book
More Difficulties of the Evolution. The book may be secured from the
Theological Observer - .RirdjHC!)~8eitgeic!)id)tlid)es 941
Sunday-school Times Book Service, 1721 Spring Garden St., Phila-
delphia, Pa. ($2.85, postpaid.) It contains many important antievolution
statements, such as the one by the French paleontologist Prof. Paul
Lemoine, who is quoted as having said: "It is impossible! Really, in
spite of appearances no one believes in it any more. It is a kind of
dogma which the priests have abandoned, but which they uphold for the
sake of the populace." With regard to the great stability of the species,
another French professor, M. Caullery, is quoted: "The greatest diffi-
culty at the present time is to reconcile this stability with the mutability
that the very notion of evolution presupposes." Prof. J. B. S. Haldane
declares, as quoted in the volume: "The barrier of interspecies sterility
is the most serious argument against Darwin's organic evolution."
Prof.Max Westenhofer is quoted as saying: "I am more and more con-
vinced that the Darwin-Haeckel theory of the ascent of man from the
ape cannot be supported. Missing links exist neither in the history of
man nor in that of animals and plants. All the larger groups of
animals, as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, seem to have appeared
suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive
manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to
observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation
being possible only within the species themselves:' Westenhofer is then
quoted as saying that his view approaches "the old idea of Linnaeus,
namely, that there exist as many species as the Infinite Being has
created." To show that certain habits and instincts, as that of intricate
nest-building among birds, could not have been gradually evolved,
Mr. Dewar writes: "The shape and position of the organs of the butterfly
which is to be, are already stamped on the caterpillar pupa. These
marks are on the outside, though there is nothing yet formed inside
to correspond to them. Though within the pupa there is nothing but
a green watery pulp, all the places in its organism which are later to
be occupied by legs, wings, antennae, etc., are now definitely marked.
The newly formed portions seem to have no direct filiation with the
destroyed parts of the larval organism. The creature has, in fact, died
in so far as it has lost its form, organs, and habits, and is entering into
a new form of life." Again: "The transformation of mouth-parts of
the caterpillar type to those of the butterfly type involves a !period
during which the possessor of the mouth had either to go without food
or subsist on its own tissues. It is impossible that such transformation
was effected in the past by a gradual process, extending over a period
of thousands of years." From Dr. W. R. Thompson's Science and Com-
mon Sense the author finally quotes: "The fundamental difficulties about
the theory of evolution are not theological but rational and experimental.
For many it is an object of religious devotion, because they deem it
a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the
severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of
biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary specula-
tion. They are indications, however, that thi'S criticism will not now
be long delayed." J. T. M.
942 Theological Observer - .Ilitd)lid).3ettgefd)id)tIt~e!l
Religion in Russia. - Religion is not dying out in Soviet Russia
fast enough to suit the Communists, according to a recent statement in
Pravda, government-controlled newspaper. Although "tens of millions
have got rid of their superstitions," according to the editorial, "even in
cities and among workers there still exist people who have not broken
with religion." This is an interesting admission after more than twenty
years of persecution of the Christian Church. For it must not be for-
gotten, when the spot-light is turned on the troubles of the Church in
other countries, that Russia has the longest and bloodiest record of
persecution of all countries in modern times.
Sooner or later the time will come for Christianity to reenter Russia
in triumph. Over in Paris a reformed and reinvigorated Russian Ortho-
dox Church is keeping alight the torch of scholarship against that day
through the maintenance of the seminary of St. Sergius. Our own
Church through the gifts of thousands of loyal Churchmen has had,
and continues to have, a part in this hopeful work. It may be many
years, perhaps even centuries, before the glad tidings of Christ can
again be carried openly into what was once Holy Russia; but some day,
when the pagan philosophy of Marxism has broken on the rocks of its
own materialism, Christianity will rise again in that land, and the real
soul of the Russian people will be liberated. Then, and then only, will
the world know how large a remnant has been faithful to our Lord in
spite of every attempt to root religion out of an entire people.
Living Church (Prot. Episc.)
A Predicament of Unionism. -.A writer in the Christian Century
reports on the first world conference of Christian youth, which in the
last days of July met in Amsterdam, Holland. He informs us that
nearly 1,400 young men and women, their average age being about
twenty-five, attended the conference sessions. Naturally the venture
was entirely unionistic. We reprint here the description of the difficulty
with respect to joint Communion services.
"Another bone of contention was the observance of the Holy Com-
munion. The first meal the delegates took together buzzed with the
news that the conference members were to be divided for the observance
of the highest symbol of their community. Between Tuesday and Satur-
day night a few of the delegates devoted most of their efforts to opposing
the division and attempting to have the program changed. Some Angli-
cans and Lutherans joined with free-church delegates in regretting the
division.
"Saturday evening arrived, however, and with it a service of prepa-
ration for the Holy Communion on Sunday. It was announced that there
would be four administrations of the Sacrament: (1) a free-church rite
in the Dutch Reformed style for 'all who are in full communion with
the Church of our Lord Jesus in any of its branches'; (2) an Anglican
rite for 'all who are members of churches which are in communion with
the churches of the Anglican communion'; (3) a Lutheran rite for 'all
who are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, who are entitled to
receive the Holy Communion in their own churches, and who are
aware of what the Lutheran churches teach concerning the nature of the
943
Sacrament'; and (4) an Eastern Orthodox rite at the Monday morning
plenary session of the conference to be observed by all. All delegates
were invited to witness each of the ceremonies, but they were not all
invited to the tables.
"The official answer to the questioning of this four-way division at
the Lord's Table was somewhat difficult to understand. It recognized
the sin of separation, but it admitted no change in the program, even
with all the sentiment of the delegates on the side of that change.
"There was some indication that the effort to hold common Com-
munion service was checked not in the conference office but in the
high places of the churches involved." A.
New Leader of Buddhism in Tibet. - "A five-year search has finally
located in the horne of a Chinese peasant the new Dalai Lhama, spir-
itual head of Tibetan Buddhism. According to the belief of this great
branch of Buddhism, based on the dogma of transmigration, the new
head of the Church is to be found in the child of pious parents born
at the precise instant of the death of the former Dalai Lhama. The
new Dalai Lhama has been enthroned with great pomp at Lhasa." So
reports the Chrigtian Century. What a terrible superstition we are
dealing with here! A.
Two Judgments of Buchmanism. - Since Buchmanism is still given
much space in the daily press, the following two judgments of this
erratic movem may be of service to pastors in giving their parishioners
the necessary ,ormation with regard to it. The first, published in the
Lutheran Sentinel, is very moderate but nevertheless to the point.
We read: "There is in this movement no clear-cut statement of the
deity of Christ and His atonement on the Cross. It accepts on equal
terms into its fellowship those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God
and the Savior of the world and those who regard Him merely as the
matchless teacher and dauntless martyr. And while the Scriptures
certainly demand of us that we confess to the brother the sins we have
committed against him, it gives no such directions as are involved in
the practise of 'sharing.' This is nothing new. It was in vogue in
protracted meetings in the eighties and earlier in our country. The
practise of 'seeking guidance' or 'direct revelations' from the Holy
Ghost regarding matters of belief, attitude, or conduct sets aside the
cardinal principle of the sole authority and sufficiency of the written
Word of God. Hence 'avoid them,' Rom. 16: 17." The second judgment
is given in Time (Aug. 21, 1939) by a reader, who writes: "I cannot
but send a word of thanks for your courage in reporting the recent
goings on of the Buchrnanites ('Oxford Groupers') on the Pacific Coast
with such insight and accuracy (Time, July 31). I know I speak the
minds of many plain, ordinary church-members, who hesitate to sound
anything like a harsh note, when I say that the ballyhoo of these spiritual
high-pressurists fills them with something akin to nervous suspicion and
mistrust. During recent years I have talked to many ministers about
Buchrnanism, and without one exception they had reached the conclusion
that the worthy and helpful values in this manifestation were painfully
outweighed by its negative and unconstructive aspects. One minister,
a very eminent man, whose books are best sellers, told me that he had
to take two members of his congregation to an asylum; so grievously
had they 'gone off at the deep end' through jettisoning orderly processes
of judgment, mental discipline, and sound common sense and substituting
therefor the capricious thaumaturgical foibles of these doctrinaires.
Several friends of mine became 'Groupers' (they like to add the erudite
'Oxford' to the label) some time back; but beyond a lopsided fanaticism,
a persistent proclaiming how terrifically bad they were before and how
'absolutely honest, absolutely unselfish, absolutely pure, and absolutely
loving' they are now, one fails to detect any particular difference.
At any rate, not pragmatically, although I could not venture to appraise
the mystical transformation. There is nothing particularly new about
religious high-pressurism, and I think one of the most perfect rejoinders
to all that sort of thing was that made by St. Hilary of Poitiers many cen-
turies ago when he spoke of a contemporary Buchmanite, so to speak,
as having 'an irreligious solicitude for God.' St. Hilary went on to
explain that an observer of the cosmic processes soon learns that the
Almighty has His own spacious way of doing things, and that often
He plans to take many thousands of years to accomplish some far-
reaching purposes. Cannot one venture to conclude, accordingly, that
even Herr Buchman and his projected 100,000,000 adherents are not
likely to stampede Jehovah into a general upset of His vast cosmic
processes?" We doubted whether we should add the last, almost blas-
phemous, sentence of this, in many respects, very apt criticism of Buch-
manism. But we risked it, since the statement proves that Buchmanism
with its fanatic, unscriptural claims is doing its bit to make it all the
harder for Christian ministers to do their work as Gospel-preachers.
Buchmanism indeed belongs to the many skandala which God's Word
asks us to avoid, Rom. 16: 17. J. T. M.
Anglicanism No Longer Adheres to the Nicene Creed. - "The
revival of religion," writes the Australian Lutheran, "under Wesley,
which led also to a revival within the Established Church, the Church
of England, appears now to have lost its force both within the national
Church and without. Open denial of fundamental articles of faith is
not rare. There are, however, also those who still uphold the Christian
faith. The Bishop of Ely deplores the fact that, when the bishops were
asked to affirm 'that the Church of England holds and teaches the Nicene
Creed in that sense only in which it has been held throughout the
history of the Church and that her ministers cannot rightly claim
a liberty to set aside by private interpretation the historic meaning of
those clauses which state the events of the incarnate life of our Lord
Jesus Christ,' only three of them voted in favor. In plain words, the
bishops refused to declare that the clergy are required to teach that
Christ was born of a virgin and that He rose again on the third day
as stated in the Nicene Creed. Says the Bishop of Ely, Dr. Haywood:
'The upshot of all this is that the House of Bishops prefers not to
declare that the historical clauses of the creed mean what they say,
and it has no word of reproof for those clergy who lead their con-
gregations in these confessions of faith and then explicitly deny some
945
of these truths (e. g., the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ on
the third day), which with their lips they have affirmed. I do not deny
that the situation thus created seems to me to be very serious.' "
To this the Australian Lutheran remarks: "Yes, such a situation
indeed is very serious - serious for those who will allow themselves to
be misled by wolves in sheep's clothing, more serious for those who
shall finally have to give account of their ministry before the Great
Bishop of the Church, when the blood of those who lost their faith
through their rationalistic preaching shall be required of their hands."
This reproof of the modernistic element in the Anglican Church by
our brethren is well in place; for, while these self-sufficient rationalists
reject the basic teachings of the Christian Church, they insult their
hearers with such puerilities as: "I think the kingdom of God as our
Lord intended it for us is the condition of living in which love really
gets busy and wins through, as, for instance, it almost does for twenty-
four hours on Christmas Day in this gray old world of ours." Says
the Australian Lutheran: "Thus men try to establish the kingdom of
God by making people more humanitarian; but that would be simply
a kingdom of the world, while Christ says: 'My kingdom is not of this
world.''' Rightly the Australian Lutheran then adds: "The kingdom of
God is the whole number of all true believers, in other words, the holy
Christian Church, here the Kingdom of Grace, yonder the Kingdom
of Glory."
While Anglicans thus surrender fundamental Biblical doctrines, they
strangely insist upon such man-made anti-Scriptural teachings as "The
succession of the ministry is a continuing visible sign of the continuous
life of the Church, and the laying on of hands is the apostolic method
of continuing that succession." Both teachings betray their utter
ignorance of Biblical theology. J. T. M.
Antiunionism in the Interest of Greater Syncretism. - The pro-
posed plan to effect an organic union between the Episcopalian and the
Presbyterian churches received an additional setback, when Bishop
Manning in the Living Church, October 4, 1939, warned against the union.
He joins the many voices which have protested against the union on the
ground that the union committee's concordat compromises and under-
mines the Episcopalian doctrine of the apostolic succession, that it satisfies
neither the Episcopalians nor the Presbyterians on the doctrine of ordina-
tion, and that it will result in dissension within the Episcopalian Church
and thus instead of resulting in a large union the concordat will end
only in disunion. But we are unable to follow his line of argumentation
when he mentions as the chief reason for his opposition to the proposed
union the fear of forfeiting the possibility of a pan-Christian union.
Bishop Manning believes that the Episcopalian (and Anglican) Church
occupies the strategic position of middle ground between Rome and
Protestantism and that the only hope of a union embracing all Christian
churches lies in the Episcopalian Church. By uniting with only one
group of the Protestant world the Anglican Church would jeopardize
this advantageous position. This is only wishful thinking, for if two
communions, which have so much in common racially, culturally, his-
60
946 Theological Observer - .Rh:d)1id)~.8eitgefd)id)tlid)ell
torically, and theologically, lose themselves in hopeless bickering over the
theories of apostolic succession and episcopal ordination, how dare they
hope for a pan-Christian union on such ambiguous formulae as have
been adopted by the World Council of Faith and Order? The syncretist
closes his eyes to the truth and to - plain facts. Keen observers of the
forces behind the World Council are not ready to grant to the Anglican
Church the position which Manning claims. W. M. Horton states:
"It might fairly be claimed that the Church of Sweden, since Soederblom,
has begun to supersede the Church of England as the real bridge
church between Catholicism and Protestantism. The very success of
the Anglicans' drive for unity with the (Eastern) Orthodox churches
has tended to tie their hands in all negotiations with Protestants. If the
Protestant churches are to draw any closer to the England-Sweden-
Orient bloc, it will be on Swedish initiative, I believe, rather than upon
Anglican or Orthodox initiative." (Contemporary Continental Theology,
1938, p.153.) F.E.M.
~in (nt~erifdjc~ UricH iiller :tnmllnrtl1lt. iUier bie brHte jilleltmiHions~
ronfcrcnil, bie in ~amoaram, oel Wlabras, 0nMen, born 12. Dis aum 80. ::De~
aemoer 1988 ftattfanb, jett nodj bid fcljreiOen au !nollen, miiclj±e bem 2efer
faft ali:l unpaffenb erfcljeinen. ::Dodj finb ia bie fogenannten jilleItmiffions~
fonferenaen nidjt boriloerge~enbe @rfcljeinungen in ber WftibHiit~!neIt ber
iiul,eren ~~riften~eit, fonbern oIeiOenbe ~nftitu±e, beren mefcljHiffe bon !nei±~
tmgcnber meDeutung fur bie f,e±eHigten Stirdjenfreife finb. !.ffienigftens !ner-
Den ~ier bie ~)ciffionsprinaipicn feftgeIegt, unb bie oeeinjIuff en ja aum groBen
~eH bie ganae anbere firdjIidje :itiitigfeit. ::Die erf±e jilleftmiffionsronferen3
tagte, tDie f,efannt, im 0a~re 1912 in @bin6urg~, bie a!neite im 0a~re 1928
in 0crufalem. 5tamoaram ift be~!negen oeDeutenb, nidjt nur !neH Die
(Sfcqttena ~ier fe~r ~odj !nar (464 ::DeIegierie), fonD ern auclj !neH man ficlj
unter ber 2eiillng bes "biefge!nanllten amerifanifcljen WUerllleItsunioniften
Dr. 0o~n ~:nott" oeDcll±enb ficljerer oe!negte unD ficlj in oeilug aUf Me
WroeitsilieIe oe!nuttcr fil~rte. SDodj nun au bem [ut~erifcljen UricH uoer
5tamoaram.