Concordia Theological Monthly 32 (1961): 403-428, 466-482, 526-542.

The Historical Background of “A Brief Statement” By CARL S. MEYER

Brief Statement of the Doctrilzal Posi- years 1887 to 1932, dividing the history A tion of the livangelical Lutheran of the Synod into ‘three periods, 1847 to Synod of Missowi, Ohio, and Other States, 1887, 1887 to 1932, 1932 to the present. adopted in 1932, is a product of the Mid- It is this writer’s opinion that the Missouri die Period in the history of that church. Synod is approaching the end of the third It reflects the theological c0ncerns of that epoch and that her history can best be un- church body at that time and is condi- derstood and evaluated by seeing her 115 tioned by the relationships between the years divided into three eras, each approx- Missouri Synod and other Lutheran bodies imately the span of a generation. The year during that period. Only to a lesser degree 1887, according to this periodization, does it deal with general contemporary the- would be the terminus d qz~o of the Mid- ological issues. Sociological and ecclcsi- dle Period; the year 1932, the terminzls ad ologicai movements were not major factors yl4C?72. which governed its formulation and adop- The year 1887, then, saw the end of one tion. However, without some undersrand- epoch in the history of the Missouri Synod ing of the sociological, ccclcsiological as and the beginning of another. Forty years well as the ccciesiastical and theological had elapsed since its organization in Chi- factors of this Middle Period of Missouri’s cago, with the election of C. F. W. Walther History, A Brief Strrtemmt seems incotn- as President.] Now this leader had passed plete, unbalanced, warped. on to his reward, his death occurring while What were the forces from within and the 20th convention of the Synod was in from the outside which impinged on the session.” Missouri Synod during this time? What in his presidential address to this trien- was the Missourian reaction to them? Par- nial convention of Synod Schwan recog- ticularly, what were the deveiopments nized : “Approximately with this year’s within Lurheranism, and how did they in- meeting we are beginning a new period in fluence Missouri? What factors in the in- the history of our Synod.” 3 ternal history of the Missouri Synod ought -- to be considered to understand the histor- 1 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1847, p. 16. [Full bibliographical information of oficial records is ical background of A Brief Statement? not given in this essay. All such records cited are in the Concordia Historical Institute.] I 2 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1887, pp. 3 f.; TIE MIDDLE PERIOD Der Ltilhewner, XL111 (May 15, 1887)) 76 ff. On Jan. :6, 1887, Walther’s golden jubilee The “Middle Period in the History of as pastor was observed. De? Lutheruner, XL111 (Feb. 1, 1857), 17. The Lutheran Church - k?issouri Synod” 3 I-I. C. Schwan, “Synodalrede,” Proceedings, is the designation we have given to the MO. Synod, 1887, p. 18. 403 404 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF il UKleP JTATfiNENT

This convention resolved, in agreement India.” In 1887, too, two new Districts with the recommendation of the Electoral were created, the Kansas District and the College, that Francis Pieper be the succcs- California-Oregon District,“o nothing new sor of the departed C. F. W. Walther, that in practice but symbolic of the continued he be offered the presidency of rhc Scm- growth of the Synod. inary, and that G. Scoeckhardt be elecred By 1887 the Missouri Synod had reached as professor at Concordia Seminary.4 Sub- its mexure of growrh in relationship to sequently in the same year A. L. Graebner the total population of the country, for was elected to the Sr. Louis faculty.5 there would be no increase percentagewise This change in personnel at the theofog- between 18H7 and 1932 when compared ical seminary, involving the theological with the over-all growth of the country.ll leadership of the Synod, is not the only Ry 1887 the Gnadenwahlnreit had sim- factor, however, which points to a transi- mered down, although echoes of this con- tion from one period to another. troversy reverberated, for instance, on the In the year 1887 the Progymnasizlm at pages of Lehre zlnd Wehrs long after that Milwaukee was taken .over by the Synod? date.” the first educational institution of higher The membership of the Synodical Con- education added to its system since 1857, ference in 1887 consisted of the synods of when the Lehrer-Seminar was made a syn- Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisc0nsin.l” By - odical institution and transferred from Mil- waukee to Fort Wayne.7 0 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1896, p. 79. MO. Synod, 1887, p. 81. In 1887 the resolution was passed to 10 Proceedings, l1 Znfra, p. 408. authorize the Foreign Mission Board to in- 12 Fltancis] P[ieper], ” ‘Widerstehliche’ augurate a foreign mission, perhaps on the und unwiderstehliche Gnade,” Lehre und island of Ceylon,* although it was not until Wehre, XXX111 (April and May 1887), 117 1894 that Theodor Naether and Franz to 125; ibid., XXX111 (June 1887), 160-167. F{rancis] P[ieper], “Zum Thatsachenbestand Mohn were commissioned for service in des letzten Lehrstreits,” ibid., XXX111 (Septem- ber 1887), 251-254. F[rancis] P{ieper] in “Kirchlich-Zeitge- F{rancis] P[ieper), “Das lutherische und das schichtliches,” Lehre und We&e, XXX111 Ohio’sche Gcheimnisz in der Lehre von der (June 1887 ) , 176. In italics in this report. Bekehrung und Gnadenwahl,” ibid., XXXIV Similarly in 1901 Theo. Buenger, “Etliche (February 1888), 33-42. Ziige aus der Geschichte der Missouri-Synode,” Flrancis] P[ieper], “1st es wirklich luthe- Pmceedings, MO. Synod, Iowa District, 1901, rische Lehre, dasz des Menschen Bekehrung und p. 90. wrote: “Mit dem Tode des seligen Dr. Seligkeit nicht allein von Gottes Gnade, sondern Walther am 7. Mai 1887 ist der erste Abschnirt in gewisser Hinsicht such von dem Verhalten der Geschichte unserer Synode zum Abschluss des Menschen abhangig sei?” ibid., XXXVII gekommen.” (October 1891) , 289-294; ibid., XXXVII 4 Proceedhgs, MO. Synod, 1887, p. 30. (November 1891), 321-328; ibid., XXXVII (December 1891), 361-365; ibid., XXXVIII 5 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1890, P. 30. (March 1892), 65-70; ibid., XXXVIII (April 6 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1887, pp. 42, 43. 18921, 104-106; ibid., XXXVIII (May 1892), 7 Carl S. Meyer, “Teacher Training in the 129-132. Missouri Synod to 1864,” Concordia Historical This list could be amplified by listing articles Znstzhte Quarterly, XXX (Fall 1957), 97 to from subsequent years. 110; ibid., XXX (Winter 1957)) 157-166. 13 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1888, 8 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1887, p. 66. PP. 3,4* Tf IB IIISTC)RlCAL BACKGROUND OI: A BRIEF STATEMENT 405

1932 two small synods had been added, became the English District of the Mis- and the Minnesota Synod had merged with souri Synod.’20 These organizational aspecrs the Wisccmsin Synod,“’ )‘?t there had been do not describe the language transition; no radic;4 tr;instorrnation in the character they merely illustrate a few specific de- of that ieder;ltion during the 45 years. velopments. The publication of A Brief These arc fiiciors that point co the year Statement in a bilingual edition is another 18ti7 as the beginning of a11 C?pUCh in the illustration of the language transition. history of the Missouri Synod, an epoch In 1837 Pieper, commenting on the wIlich ~ndcd in the year 1932. ‘I’his is said future of the Missouri Synod after its first in the realization that the pcriodization of 50 years, acknowledged the necessity of history is hazardous. Ir might be urged, working in the English language. Three for instance, that the dates 1903 and 1935 fourths of the candidates were prepared, or 1887 and 193s u~ould be better tcrmini. he said, to work in the English language, The year 1332 saw not only the adop- if necessary. Among the 180 students at tion of /l Brie/ Staterrzc~t,‘~ it also marked St.Louis preparing for the ministry only the second time that the Proceedings of the 26 were foreign-born. The internal growth Missouri Synod wetc published in contra- of the Synod pointed to the need of con- distinction to the Vcrhnndl~~en.‘~ The tinued German as Kirchensprache; the change in title already in 1929 is indicative main task of the Missouri Synod for the that bjr and large the language transition next decades would be in German, even had been almost completed, a transition in though immigration had virtually ceased.*l process since I91 1. The organization of In 1929 he spoke of the need of a zwei- the English Evangelical Lutheran Confer- spriichiges 1Clirzisterium, a topic which had ence of Missouri had taken place already occupied the convention of the Synod.22 in 1872; I7 in 1887 the Missouri Synod de- Not the perpetuation of German culture clined the petition of a number of English but the propagation of the Lutheran herit- Lutheran congregations to form a separate age was the task of the church, whether in English Mission of the Missouri Synod; I8 German or in English.23 in IS88 the Constitution of the General The “English” question was trouble- English Evangelical Lutheran Conference some. If a minority in a congregation did of Missouri and Other States was not understand English, a majority did not adopted; it) in 1011 the English Synod have the right to deprive them of German services. English missions were needed. I4 Proceedings, Synodicnl Conference, 1932, PP. 3,4. 15 Pi-oceedings, No. Synod, 1932, p, 154. 20 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1911, pp. 31 to 40; Reports arrd Memorials, 1911, pp. 98---100. 16 The 1930 reports of the Synodical Con- ference were published as Verhandlungen; the 21 F[rancis] P [ ieper), “Kirchlich-Zeitge- 19.32, as l’roceedi7~g.~. schichtliches,” Lehre und Wehre, XL111 (May 17 [C. F. W.) W[alther], Tine freie Con- lt397), 156, 157. ferenz englischer und deutscher Lutheraner in 22 P[rancis] Pliepet), “Unsere diesjahrige Missouri,” Der Lulheraner, XSVIII (Sept. I, Delegatensynode in River Forest,” ibid., LXXV 1872), 18O---183. (December 19291, 355, 3%. 18 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1887, p. 69. 2:s F [rancis) P { ieperf , “Vorwort,” ibid., ln The conference became a synod in 1891. XXXVLI (January 1891)) 4, 3. 406 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF JTATEMENT

“Wenn ich nur meine deutsche Kirche rated,2” as was the summer school for Lu- behalte, dann will ich gerne Opfer fiir theran teachers at Concordia Teachers Col- die englischen Glaubensbriider btingen.” 24 lege in River Forest;“o the old &flee- Similar sentiments were voiced throughout mtiehle in Springfield had been torn Synod, although there were many congre- down;“l and less than 4 per cent of Synod’s gations in which the language question pastors still preached against dancing as caused much bitterness and hard feelings. a sinful amusement.“” The first report of The transition had been made or was well the Survey Committee - forerunner of the advanced in all except isolated culture Board for Higher Education - was acted islands by 1932. on in this year.:U The first report of the In 1932 recognition was taken of the Board of Christian Education (established labors of the late F. Pieper, F. Bente, and in l925>), too, came to the 1932 conven- George Mezger.“5 Another generation had tion.zi,4 The offIce of District School Super- passed; another epoch in the history of intendent was sanctioned.:{” None of these the Missouri Synod had come to a close. events is large enough in itself to mark an F. Pfotenhauer served one more term as end of an epoch. Taken together they are President of the church body; in 1935 he indicative that 6ne period of the Missouri became “Honorary President.“2G But L. Synod was giving way to another. Fuerbringer remained active for almost Brief reference must be made to the fact another decade, a fact that protests against that during this period the Missouri Synod little historians making too pat periodiza- experienced the first trend toward a cen- tions of history.27 tralization of ecclcsiological function. In The convention of 1932 was the “de- 190s the Allgermilze A.zlfsicbtsbet%rde, pression Synod.” “Es mangelt an Geld” consisting of three men, was authorized.3u was the recurrent song of the convention Three years later the President was made and “the present economic conditions” a full-time official of the Synod.37 In 1917 was the reason given for declining requests the new constitution authorized the estab- for new buildings, professorships, curtail- lishmenr of the Board of Directors.“” Then ing mission work, both at home and abroad, and so on?* 20 Ibid., p. 32. 30 Ibid., p. 101. In 1932 the required vicarage for rhea- u Ibid., p. 32. Kaffeemuehle was the affec- logical students at St. Louis was inaugu- tionate name bestowed by students of Concordia Seminary, Springfield, Ill., on one of its original buildings. 24 C. Z. {Carl Zornf , “Zur Sprachenfrage,” Der Lutheraner, LXIX (May 10, 1892 ) , 78, 79. 32 Ibid., p. 106. 25 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1932, p. 244; 33 Ibid., pp. 80-85. cf. p. 31 and pp. 28 f. s4 Ibid., pp. 85-100. 26 Proceedings, MO: Synod, 1935, pp. 212, 35 Ibid., pp. 158-160. 213. 36 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1908, pp. 61 27 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1932, p, 29. to 63. 28 See, e.g., Proceedings, 1932, pp. 34, 49, 37 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1911, pp. 133, 55, 59, 61, 115, et al. “Under prevailing eco- 134, 192. nomic conditions” and “under present con&- 38 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1917, pp. 84 to tions” were other phrases used. 92 (English ed., pp. 43-52), ‘I-HE IIIS’IXIRICAL UACKGROUND OF A BXEF S-TATEMENT 407 in 1932 came a reaiignmcnt of boards and ker,u~&er~~ng of the 19th century 43 be-

COillil?iC!CCS, Zl consolidation and St!Xn~th- came a major factor in the history of the ciliilg of the structure.“! ‘I’he trend must Missouri Synod. SC xxcd, at ht, in this sketch of trends Immigration from Germany in 1839, 31~1 mo’~~c’min~s within t!le hfissouri Synod the year the Saxons reached Perry County, during the hIi:lcile Period. MO., had been only 21,028. A record num- Iinou;;h has been said to justify or ra- ber of immigrants from Germany was tionalize tft(: dates 1887 ad 1932 as the rc:.!ched in 1854, seven years after the or- tcrmini of the Midd!c Period of the history ganization of the Missouri Synod and the of i!lC hlissouri Synod. In doing that, We year in which the young Synod found it lxi~c lx)iiIr e(I or aiidd to some of the necessary for organizational purposes to movcm~n~s ;md trends during that period, subdivide into four Districts.44 In that such as the l:lngti:lg<: transition. The Ccr- year, 1854, 2 15,009 German immigrants man chzzctcr of the first period carried set foot on American soil, a, yearly total over to the hiiddlc Period. Some of the not reached again until 1882, with 250,630 iillrnigrailts n.!io c:unc in the 1880s and immigrants. Ten years later, in 1892, there 1890s were fiercely patriotic, imbued with were 119,168 German immigrants, another the spirit that- engendered the formation of high point. Between 1887 and 1932 there the firsr 1Zcic.h. ‘l’hcy brought with them were only four years in which ‘German im- a high rqprd for Ileut.rchtu~/z and thereby migrants exceeded 100,000 a year, and created probicms for the churchcs.4” these were between 1887 and 1892 (in- Howcv~r, during this Middle Period of clusive). A low point was reached in 1898 hlissouri’s hisrory the Xlissouri Synod was with only 17,111 German immigrants. Be- transformed from an immigrant church to tween 1887 and 1914 (inclusive) an aver- a native-born church. The maxirnum num- age (mean) of about 48,270 German im- ber of persons living in the United Stares migrants a year entered this country.45 who had been born in Germany was These were by no means all Lutherans, but renchcd in I S90.“1 By 1910, 20 years later, there were Lutherans among them in large rhc maximum for those of German parent- enough numbers to affect the Missouri age was reached.“’ Thus about 1887, or Synod also. About 1890 the character of ._-~ better between 1850 and 1914, the VSI- -- 43 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1874, p. 63; the phrase was used ‘in the report of the Commission 3o Prcceedings, MO. Synod, 1332, pp: 9% f., for Emigrant Missions in New York. In this 110 f., 160. report the question was asked: “Was wke 4” See Carl S. Meyer, “Lutheran Immigrant in:ondcrheit unsre rheure lutherische Kirche in Churches Face the Problems of the Frontier,” diesem Lande ohne die Einwanderung?” ch.urrh llirtorg, XXIX (December l@O), 44 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1854, pp. 17, 452-455. 19 f. 41 1:. P. Hutchiron.lmmi,~ran~s and Their 43 Historical Statistics of the United States, Children. 7F50--I950 (for the Social Science Colonial Times to 1957, prepared by the U. S. Research Council in co-operation wirh the U. S. Bureau of the Census with the co-operation of Dept. of Conxncrce, I3ureau of the Census; IC:ew the Social Science Research Council (Washing- York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 17>6), p. 4. ton. D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 42 Ibid., p, 6. I%%), C-94, pp, 56, 57. 408 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STAT&IIIENT the immigration changed; this change had made up only 2.2 per cent of this number. a partial effect on rhe Missouri Synod. In the increase of population the Missouri Table I makes it evident that the Mis- Synod was barely holding its own, if that; souri Synod membership fell slightly be- it was not increasing as rapidly as was the hind the increase in the population of the over-all church membership of the country. country as a whole in the Middle Period.4c It was not that the immigration was dis- regarded by the Missouri Synod. Far from Table I that. Already in 1869 Stephanus Key1 had MO.syn. membership become Emipnten Misrion~r, a position per cent Population Membership of USA he held almost up to his end on Dec. 15, Year of the USA of MO. Syn. population 1905.4o In 1890 there were immigrant 1890 - .- 62,947,714 531,357 .0084 agents in New York and Baltimore as well 1900 --“- 75,994,575 728,240 .00963 as in Hamburg and Bremen in Germany?” 1910 ---- 91,972,2GG 878,654 .00955 In 14 years the Iowa District, by way of 1920 ---- 105,710,620 1,009,982 .00955 illustration, had increased from 19,072 in 1930 ---- 122,775,046 1,163,666 .00946 1886 to 3S,426 in 1900, an 83 per cent in- It is true, but nevertheless, it can be crease.“l The constant need for Xeirepre- very deceptive to say that between 1890 diger remained with the Synod. In 1880 and 1926 the membership of the Missouri F. Pfotenhauer, later to serve the Synod Synod increased 133.24 per cent, and that as President (1911--1935), accepted a call its yearly increase was 3.7 per cent in this as candidate. In 1884 his parish consisted period.47 In this same period the popuia- of five congregations and five preaching tion of the country as a whoIe increased places.“’ Pleas were made in the church by 185 per ceIx4* Moreover, 22 per cent periodicals, in synodical conventions, and of the population of the country was in the conventions of the Districts for churched in 1890; of this number the Mis- young men to serve in the fields almost in- souri Synod made up 3.8 per cent. But in variably described as “white unto har- 1930, 43 per cent of the population of the vest.” 53 F. Pfotenhauer wrote of this ex- country was churched; the Missouri Synod pansion in the Northwest:

49 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1908, p. 84. 45 The figures for the U. S. A. were taken from Edwin 0. Goldfield, ed. Statistical Ab- 40 Amerikanischer Kalender f&r delctsche Lu- stracts of the United States, 1960 (81st ed.; theralzer auf das Jahr 1890 (St, Louis: Luthe- Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing rischer Concordia-Verlag, 1890)) pp. 28 f. Office, 1960), table 1, p. 5. 51 Theo. &renger, “Etliche Ziige aus der The figures for the Missouri Synod are from Geschichte der Missouri-Synode,” Proceedings, Erwin L. Lueker, ed. L&eras Cyclopedia (Saint MO. Synod, Iowa District, 1901, p. 90. Louis: Concotdia Publishing House, 1954)) 52 Statist&&es Juhrbuch, 1884, p. 48. Of p. 629. 14 men serving in Dakota in 1884, only one 47 The data are from 0. M. Norlie and G. L. served as few as three congregations. Kieffer, eds. The Lutheran World Almanac and 53 P. Pf [otenhauer}, “Vortrag iiber Innere Encyclopedia, 1931-1933 (New York: Na- Mission,” Lehre and Wehre, LI (August 1905)) tional Lutheran Council, 1932)) P. 393. 353-358; A. Glraebnerl, “Unsere ‘Innere Mis- 48 ~istortka2 Statistics, A-2, p. 7. The sion,’ ” Der Lgtherrmer, L (Jan. 30, 1894)) 22, estimated population on July I, 1890, WAS 23; Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1902, pp. 65-74; 63,056,oOO; on July 1, 19% 117,399,000. et al. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Ox: A BRIEF STATEMENT 409

The growth of our Synod in the North- of the seminaries. By the end of the period, west now (1880 J assumed unlooked for however, Reiseprediger had in general dimensions. By the providence of God given way to missionaries who were sta- several factors worked together to bring tioned in urban areas.“” about this growth. The newly organized [Minnesota and Dakota] District carried This means that by 1932 there was on its mission work in a systematic way. a notable trend toward urbanization also At ‘its conventions a detailed report was within the Missouri Synod. In 1932 out of given of the work done, and this was fol- 3,5 12 congregations, 376 Missouri Synod lowed by thorough deliberations. The churches were located in 20 of the largest Board of Missions was earnestly devoted cities within the U. S.A.5s The statistics to this worthy cause and provided the are not exact enough to determine how missionaries with the necessary means of many of the 1,424 congregations in 1887 support, though these could be supplied were in cities. Among German immigrants only moderately. The conferences of the in general, it may be noted, there was District tried to find ways and means for opening up new territories. . , . The num- a readiness to settle on homesteads in the ber of graduates from our seminaries that earlier years; in the later period Germans entered the work of this mission District tended toward nonrural occupationsso increased from year to year. These young These’ trends had important bearings on men took hold of the work filled with the Missouri Synod in the composition of enthusiasm and energy. They traversed the her congregations. That Missouri Synod prairies in all directions and extended congregations in another generation have the work done by the first pioneers.54 varied sociological backgrounds needs no But the demands for men constantly ex- documentation. The shift was evident al- ceeded the supply. In 1890 there were 105 ready in 1932. calls for 68 candidates (40 from St.Louis In 1932 the third generation wirhin the 2nd 28 from Springfield).55 In 1909 there Missouri Synod was coming to the fore. were only 96 men available (61 from Saint Marcus Lee Hansen had formulated what Louis, 35 from Springfield) for 180 calls.56 he calls “the principle of third generation In 1914 there were 122 calls for 116 candi- interest.” He says: “The theory is derived dates (93 from St. Louis and 23 from from the almost universal phenomenon Springfield). 57 The vast demands of the that what the son wishes to forget, the lnnere Mission - home missions - har- assed the officials and boards and faculties 5s See, e. g., Ow Home Mission, IX (Sep cembet .1933), 11. Thirty men served 105 64 F. Pfotenhauer, “The Opening Up of the places. Great Northwest,” Ebenezer: Reviews of ths 59 Statistical Yearbook, 1932, p. 142. Cf. Work of the Missouri Synod During Three also the parochial reports. The count was made Quarjers of a Centtlry, ed. W. H. T. Dau by me. (Augmented ed.; St. Louis: Concordia Publish- By 1926 the Missouri Synod was 54.6 per ing House, 1922), p. 338. cent urban. A report from the U.S. Census of 55 Der Lutheraner, XI.Vi (July 29, 1890), Religious Bodies, 1926, in Theological Monthly, 129. XX (May 1929)) 142. 66 Ibid., LXV (June 1, 1909), 167. aa Hutchison, Immigrants and Their Cbil- 57 Ibid., LXX (May 26, 1914), 174. dren, 1850-1950, pp. 107-l 11. 410 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF n f?f\‘If:‘P ST/Wf:‘!\ICNT grandson wishes to remember.” e1 The sec- By 191 I this committee reported: “Zwar ond generation of Missourians did not ist die deutsche Einwzndenrng, namentlich wish to forget their theology, whatever de- aus Dcutschiand, gcgcn friihcr schr zuriick- fections there may have been. However, gegqeri . . .” tiJ By 19 I 7 the report read: by the early 1930s there was another gen- “l&s Pilgcrhaus ist vcrkauft.” ‘Z Ic marked, eration which numbered many who wanted in a stnsc, tlx end of an epoch. to maintain the rheology of the founding This period, it must be rcmembcred, had fathers. Since the stream of immigration begun in IS.39 and was not quite at an end cominued until after 1900, there were in 1917. Other immigrants were to come second- and third-generation immigrants in the 1920s and again in the late 1940s simultaneously within the Synod, a factor and in the 1950s. Immigration had played which may account for some of the ten- an important part in the dcvclopment of sions of the 1930s within this church body. the Missouri Synod. During the Middle The phenomenon, at any rate, deserves Period it had absorbed most of the mission a much fuller investigation than that pre- efforts of the Spnod. By 1932 the transi- sented here. tion to a large extent had been made. The closing of the frontier in 1890, World 1Va.r I cut off immigration, and re- too,62. must be taken into consideration in strictions after the war curtailed it greatly. giving a detailed analysis of the history of In 1932 these restrictions on immigration the Missouri Synod. What this meant for by the United States Government in part the Middle Period of her history is difficult prompted a move to discontinue the Immi- to evaluate. The influence of the frontier, grant Mission entirely; the Synod, how- however, must not be overlooked.“” ever, transferred this mission in New York The declining importance of immigra- City to the At!antic District.“” tion after 1892 or so can be seen in the The consolidation of various mission reports of the Immigrant Commission. boards and missions, too, was determined in 1932, and the office of Secretary of Mis- 61 M. L. Hansen, The Problem of the Thjr~J sions was created. Foreign language mis- GeBerution Immigra& (Augustana Historical sions were transferred to the Districrs in Society Publications; Rock Island, Ill.: Augus- which the work was being done.“? tana Historical Sofiety, 1938), p. 9. Mission work among the Indians be- ** Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holr and longs to the heritage of the Missouri Synod, CO., 1920), developed the frontier thesis in going back to the Lo&e colonists in the a paper to the American Historical &sociarion in 1893. Saginaw (Michigan) Valley. The last re- 63 The frontier thesis has been applied to port of the Board for Indian Missions to the churches in America by Peter G. Mode, the Synod was made in 1932; this board Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for was eliminated, and the work of this board Americalz Chrch History (Menasha, Wis. : -.-WI___ Banta Publishing CO., 1921)) and especially by William Warren Sweet, Religion in the De- 6* Proceedings, MO. Synod, ;9I 1, p, 88. uelopmeut of American Cuhre, 1765---1840 Bs Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1917, p. 56. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952), 66 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1932, pp. 148 and The Story of Religion in America (New to 150. York: Harper & Brothefs, 1939). 67 Ibid., pp. 110, 111.

Q THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STATEMENT 411 was transferred to the Districts “having had been granted by the Synod.75 In 1905 Indian communities in their midst,” with authorization was given for establishing the encouragemenr “to give them their a school in California.76 In 1708 St. John’s fostering care.” U8 Moves of this kind, with College in Winfield, Kans., was finally ac- their broader implications, show that the cepted as a gift from the English Missouri end of an epoch had been reached. Synod.77 The growth and development of the The general trend in the first decade of Missouri Synod during the Middle Vcriod the 20th century was for District owner- is reflected in the expansion of its school ship of schools, with subsidy from the system for training professional workers Synod. Concordia College in New Or- in the church. Here the period from 1887 leans, La., was founded by a College Asso- to 1926 is marked off clearly. ciation in 1904, which received a synodical In 1887 four institutions for profcs- subsidy, beginning in 1905,7* but was sional training were under the control of rakcn over by the Southern District in the Missouri Synod: Concordia Seminary, 1906, with continued subsidy from the St. Louis; Concordia Theological Seminary, Synoc~.7” In 1917 the institution was closed Springfield, Ill; Concordia Teachers Col- bccaase of decreased enrollment.80 In the lege, Addison, Ill.; and Concordia College, meanwhile the California school continued Fort Wayne, Ind. m In 1887 the Concordia- under District auspices until it was taken Vrogpznasiuw in Milwaukee was added to over by Synod in 1323.*’ In that same year the synodical schools. 7’) In 1894 the second the institution at Portland, Oreg., was tea&x-training institution was opened taken (,ver.8z It had been under District under synod&l auspices in Seward, Nebr.rr auspices since 1905; since 1911 it had re- By resolution of Synod a ProLq~mna.ri~m ceived subsidy from the Synod.83 In that was also begun in 18% in the St. Paul- year, too, Concordia College of Conover, Minneapolis area.7‘L In 1896 the Prog)m- N C., became the property of the Missouri na.rium at Concordia, MO., was accepted by Synod.84 Not until 1920 was the school the Missouri Synod as a synodical school; ‘iz$ in Porto Alegre, Brazil, subsidized by so, too, the school at Ncphrran, N. Y.74 Synod since 1908 as an institution of the A resolution of Synod directed Districts to found new schools only after permission 75 Ibid., p. 74. x ProceedingJ, hfo. Synod, 1905, pp. 54 to 56; the school was opened in 1906. 68 Ibid., p. 139; see pp. 135-139, III. 77 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1908, pp. 60, 61. 6g Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1887, pp. 27, 41. 78 Ibid., pp. 53, 54. 70 Ibid., pp. 42, 43. 79 Ibid., pp. 53, 54; Pmceedi*ags, MO. Synod, MO. Synod, 189G, pp. 56 71 Proceedings, 1911, pp. 75, 76; ProceedBngJ, MO. Synod, 1914, to 59. pp. 62, 63. 72 Ibid., pp. 65-69. 80 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1917, pp. 40, 41. 73 Ibid., pp. 69-12. 81 I+oceedings, MO. Synod, 1923, pp. 71, 72. 74 Ibid., pp. 72, 73. 8’2 Ibid., pp. 73-75. The actual dares of organization of the schools are: Bronxville, 188 1; Milwaukee, I88 I; 83 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1911, pp. 79 Concordia, MO., 1883; Winfield, 1893; Seward, ro 82. 1894. 84 Ibid., p. 34. 412 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ri LiRILiF STATl2WNT

Brazilian District,s” taken over by the Wayne ( 1916)) Imrnanuci at Greensboro Synod.sa ( 1903)) Bethany College in Mankato In I920 Synod resolved to build a school ( 1911) and the Lutheran High School and in Western Canada, to be opened in Sep- Business College in Deshler, Nebr. (1913), tember 1921 with a Sexta classx7 Then in hnd their beginnings at this time.Q4 The 1923 a Gymnasizlm was vo:ed for Texas establishment of community Lutheran sec- by Synod.“” The Teachers College was ondary schoois in the firsr decade of the moved to River Forest in 1913.“i” With 20th century constitutes a trend, not to be the relocation and new housing of Con- duplicated for another generation. cordia Seminary in Clayton, MO., in 1926,aO Toward the close of this period, too, in one epoch in ministerial education of the 1925, Valparaiso University was acquired Missouri Synod came to an end. Missouri by an association within the Missouri had expanded her system of professional Synod.“s training schools during the Middle Period, The establishment of Lutheran second- a system which helped her maintain her ary schools was due in part to the urbaniza- stability. tion and prosperity of the Missouri Synod During this epoch attempts were made Lutherans. It was due in part to the system within the Missouri Synod to supply sec- of parish schools fostered by the Synod. ondary education for its laity. Walther It is true, between IS87 and 1932 the College, the successor of the Buergerschde parish schools of the Missouri Synod in St.Louis, flourished from 1888 to 1917. underwent a transformation.“* Begun as Its pioneering character is of significance agencies to transmit the teachings of the in the educational history of the Missouri church in the language of the old Father- Synod. a1 The high schools in Milwaukee land, they became for many simply agen- ( 1903 > Y Chicago (1909) ,83 and Fort cies to transmit their German heritage. This became evident from the large num- 85 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1908, p. 78. 86 Proceedkgt, MO. Synod, 1920, pp, 74 ucation in Chicago,” Concordid Historicat In& to 78. We Quarterly, XXX11 (October 1959), 79 87 Ibid., pp. 78-80. to 86. 88 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1923, pp. 84 94 John F. Stach, “The Period of Assimila- to 85. tion, 1894-1914,” One Hundred Years of Christian Education, ed. Arthur C. Repp 89 MO. Synod, 1914, p. 28. Proceedings, (Fourth Yearbook; River Forest, Ill.: Lutheran 90 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1926, pp. 29, 30; Education Association, 1947), pp. 164-166. also see ibld., pp. 25, 26. 9.5 John Strietelmeier, Vulparaiso’s First Cen- 91 Arthur 0. Leutheusser, “The Founding, tury ( Valparaiso: Valparaiso University Press, Rise, and Extinction of Walther College,” Con- 1959). cord& Historical Imtitute Quarterly, XXX1 QQ In the L. E. A. Yearbook cited in footnote (July 19581, 33-38. 94 the period from 1847 to 1864 in the educa- 92 E. H. Buetger, “The History of the Lu- tional history of the Missouri Synod is called theran High School in Milwaukee, Wis.,” Con- The Period of Planting; the period from I864 cord& f$istorical lnrtktute Quarterly, XXX111 to 1894 is called The Period of Expansion; from (January 1961)) 107-120; ibid., XXXIV 1894 to 1914, The Period of Assimilation; and (April 1961), 5-17. that from 1914 to 1947, The Period of Inteera- 93 Elsa j&4. Birkner, “Lutheran Secondary Ed- tion. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRZEF STATBMEZVT 413

ber of Fremde, nonmembers, in the 1932’ a new appreciation of the ‘objektiires, schools.@7 The Foreword of the 1871 the values, and the mission of the parish, Schdblatt said: “We want to further schools had set in among the meniberss of a Germ school setting in this our new the Missouri Synod and a new epoch h&l fatherland.” g* Yet the answer given to the set in.lo4 question, “What should move us to erect During the Middle Period the members Christian schools and use them faithfully of the Missouri Synod had to face serious for our children?” included six points, legal threats to their schools. In Illinois among which there was one “our love to the Edwards Law, the Bennett Law in Wis- our Fatherland {the U. S.A.1.” The com- consin, and the Starkwell and Knu‘ddkn ’ mand of God to the parents, the church, bills of Minnesota were directly or indi- the pastors, love for the children, and love rectly aimed against the parochial schools. for “God’s Word and our precious church” This crisis, around 1890, enlisted the forcWisconsin’ World War I caused some of these Synod, and the Synodical Conference in’ schools to be closed because they were support of the schools.lo5 It brought abodt “German” schools. The “German” school good. Internal improvements resulted: at Schumm, Ohio, e. g., ‘was dynamited and was closed for a period of almost a year. 1. More efficient training of teachers. Other schools were closed permanently. 2. Better support of the schools on the The congregations of the Synod had 2,2 16 tihools in 1912;loo in 1922 there were book of the Lurheran Education Association; 1,345 schools.lol This number increased Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1915 1) . by only 32 schools in ten years, for by 1932 104 L. G. Bickel, “The Period of Integration, X914-1947,” One Hundred Years of Christian there were no more than 1,377 schools.102 Education, p. 198: “Because of a great world Those that remained, however, were the disaster our people were forcibly led to re- ’ stronger as educational institutions, since examine their set of social ,and spiritual values, with the result that, having faced the choice, they were forced to re-examine their stand- they became stronger in their convictions both aTds,‘,and in part at least, to reorganize their in the spiritual realm and in their mission and curricula.los There are indications that by duty toward their children. At the dawn of an- other era, God appears co have prepared His people for great things for Him.” 97 Walter P. Wolbrecht, “The Period of Ex- 105 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1890, pp. 83 to pansion, 1864-1894,” One Hzmdrsd Years of SG; MO. Synod, Wisconsin District, Christian Education, p. 82. Proceedkngs, 1889, PP. 51-53; Proceedings, Mo. Synod, O* Ibid., p. 119. Wisconsin District, 1891, pp. 60-84; Proceed- 00 Ibid., p, 76, with reference to Proceedhags, ings, MO. Synod, Illinois District, 1889, pp. 114 MO. Synod, Iowa District, 1882, pp. 1Off.; the to ,117; Proceedhzgs, Synod&l Conference, essayist was Geo. Mezger. 1890, pp. 35-42; Stach, “The Period of As- 100 StatistiJches Jabrbach, 1912, p. 177. similation, 1894-l 9 14,” One Handred Years of Chhstian Edwatioa pp. 137-140; Waiter 101 StatistiGal Yearboo&, 1922, p. 132. A. Beck, Lgtherarp Elementary Schools k the 102 Statistical Yearbook, 1932, p. 138. United States (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing ,103 Arthur L. Miller, Edrzat~orcal Ad&n& House, 19391, pp. 227-250; Anson Phelps tration and Snpervision of the &.tbera~ Schools Stokes, Cbwcb agd State in the United States of the Missoti Synod, 1914-1950 (8th Year- (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 11, 737. 414 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF /I BRIEF STATEMENT

part of the congregation in the matter Sunday schoois, loo Saturday schools, sum- of books and other essential supplies. mer schools were fostered.“O Vacation 3. An upward extension of the elementary Bible schools were making their appear- school system. ance by 1932, e.g., in Rochester, Minn. 4. Increased use of the English language. These, then, are some of the trends and 5. More prayers on the part of the con- movements, illustrated by specific events, gregations for the continued existence of the Middle Period of the history of of the schools.lOa The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. After the First World War other attempts The period from 1887 to 1932 saw this . were made to curtail the work of the paro- church body changed from an immigrant chial schools. In Nebraska, Michigan, and group to a predominantly native-born in Oregon laws were passed that threatened group, second- and third-generation chil- the parish schools. lo7 Again the forces of dren of immigrants. In this period the the Synod, notably the American Luther Missouri Synod faced the overwhelming League under the leadership of J. C. Baur, demands of Znncre illirrion, a characteristic joined forces with others to bring about the which this period shared with the first eventual defeat of these measures. The de- period. During this Middle Period the cisions of the Supreme Court in the Synod began her foreign missions. She Oregon Case (1924) and the Meyer v. made the transition from a German to Nebraska case (1923) were of the greatest a predominantly English church body. She importance for the furtherance of the experienced a trend toward urbanization. church schools within the Missouri Synod She engaged in several struggles for her as well as within other church bodies.*o8 parochial schools, which she retained and The good resulting from the crisis of the strengthened. She expanded her system of early 1890s was repeated in a large meas- professional preparatory schools. She even ure in the early 1920s; another generation saw the beginnings of a gradual centraliza- within the Missouri Synod learned to re- tion of synodical functions. Doctrinal con- evaluate and appreciate its schools. cerns, a concern for the reine Lehre, were Part-time programs of Christian educa- still extremely strong, particularly in the tion, too, were furthered during this period. face of r-m-..-,liberal .- ., theology,., ._ ._ higher cci++m, theories of evolution, the sbcial gospel, fun- 106 Stach, p. 140, with reference to Beck, damentalism, and dispensationalism. Con- p. 261. version and election, the “Four Points*” 107 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1920, pp. 234, open questions, the Scriptures, were major 235; Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1923, pp, 152, 153; J. P. Meyer, “Der Kampf urn unser Schul- questions in her relation with other Lu- wesen,” Proceedings, Synodical Conference, theran bodies. It is to some of these doc- 1922, pp. I-25; Bickel, “The Period of Inte- trinal concerns to which we now turn. gration, 1914--1947,” One Hundred Years of Christian Education, 198; Beck, pp. 324-343; Stokes, II, 733-744; Fred Vonderlage, “Saving 100 Martin A. Haendschke, “The Historical the Private Schools: A Study of Pressure Group Development of the Sunday School Movement Influence on State Referenda in Michigan and in The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,” Oregon,” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, 1959, Unpublished Doctor’s dissertation, 1961, Con- Washington University, St. Louis. cordia Seminary, Sr. Louis. 108 Bickel, p. 198. 110 Bickel, pp. 200-204. TIE IIIs’l~~.>RICAL BACK<;ROUND OF A l3RZfi’F STATEMENT 415

II Protestantism as a whole in the 19th cen- tury was faced with the aftermath of the .IXightenmcnt and wirh continued Ra- tionalism. Fricdrich Schleiermacher ( 1768 ‘h II;CII of tllis gmcmtion of the Mid- to 18%) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge dlc Pcrioc! in itie 1lisCory of the Missouri (1772-1834) in the first part of the cen- Synod vxre doing battle “gcgen das Pabst- tury found the heart of religion in the tl~u~n, gl,gc~l Cngl~~uben, gegcn Schwiirme- I-C&~ of G‘cfi/h/, or emotion, a sense and rei und fa!sclics l.utherthunl.” 1 ‘I’lxy be- raste of the Infinite, the indispensable lievcd that polcnlics were ncccssary, didac- friend and advocate of morality.” In the tic, edifyillg, wholesome, and comforting.” course of the century Biblical criticismP Defense of f&c doclrirx meant a falsifica- came to the fore. Wilhelm Martin Lebe- tion oi the principil- of Scripture: rccht de Wette (1780-1849) was pre- In the “Vorwort” to the Lehre urrd c&d by Hcrmann Samuei Reimarus (1694 W’ehc for rhe first number of the 20th to 1768)) Johann Salamo Semler ( 1725 to ccxtury, 1’iepL.r asked the question, “What 1791) , and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn c!ocs the chrch nwd for the 20th cen- ( 1752-1827) .T Heinrich Georg August tury?” His answer was simple - the Gos- Ewald (1803-1875) produced his seven- pel, the old Gospd, the Gospci of God, the volume Geschichte des Volkes Israel by Gospl of the $xx! of God, the Gospel of 1859, which was criticized by conservatives peaCc, the cverlascing Gospel.’ and radical critics alike.8 Johann Karl Wil-

The mxnt on rcG)tc Lcbrc ws an ncccnt helm Varke ( 1806-1882 ) was less influ- on the Gospel. “Our Synod will retain the cntial but even more original than Julius pure Gospel and God will permit our Wellhausen ( 1844-1918) .@ Synod to grow an{4 ,xosper only if she is David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) zealr~s in her stipulated task, namely, in -.._- .I.-I the perpetuation and dissemination of the im Reiche Gottes,” Der Ltitheraner, XLVI (July pure Gospel.” R 29, lS?O), 126. Original in italics. From a -. ._ lecture presented at the convention of the Mis- souri Synod in 1890. 1 [Martin] Gfucntherl. “Vorwort,” Der Lu. 6 John Dillenberger and Claude Welch, theraner, SLVI (Jan. 1, 1890)) 1. l’vt~testant Christianity Interpreted through Its 2 G. Sr[oeckhardr), “Vorwort,” Lehre f~rnd Uer~elo&ent (New York: Charles Scribner’s Wehe. I-1 (January 19051, 2, 3: “Ja, die Pole- Sons, 1954 1, pp. 182-189. rnik isi nothwendi~:. . . Die Polemik, clas ist Kenneth Scptt Latourette, Cbrihznity in schriftgem;isze Polernik, ist Iehrreich. . . Die a I\eer,ohrionary Age (Vol. II of The Nineteenth Polemiii, rechre E’olemik ist erbaulich. . . . Pole- Crnturr in Europe: The Protestant and Eastern mik, rechte Polcmik ist heilsam und triistlich.” Chmdm, New York : Harper & Brothers, 3 F[rancis) Piieper), “Die Vertheidipung 1(;59), pp. 12-16. falscher Lehre ziehr die Fiilschun~ des Schrift- i F. L. Cross, ed. ptincips nach sich,” ibid, LI (January 1%15) , The Oxford Dictioltary of P--l& the Chrishan Cburcb (London: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1957)) pp. 334, 395, 1148, 1239, 4 Flrarlcis] PCicperj, “Vorwort,” ibid., XL11 44.3; Latourette, II, 41. (January 1901 ), I-5. ‘3 Flrancisl P(ieper], “Das Evan,wlium oder 8 Cross, d.rford D&t. of the Cbr. Ch., p. 480; die rcine I ehre van der Rechtfertipung die Latourette, II, 42 f. Quelk der rechten Begeisterung fiir aile Arbeit 1) Ibid., II, 43. 416 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OI: A BRIEF JTATEMENT

in his L.eben ]esB, published in 1835, ap- ize Westminster Theological Seminary.]” plied the “myth theory” and raised a com- Harry Emerson Fosdick was a prime target motion that gave a “major impulse” to of the Fundamentalists for such books as critial studies of the New Testamenr.*o his The Modern Use of the Bible.” How- Tuebingen’s Ferdinand Christian Baur ever, more than a decade before, beginning (1792-1860) did not quell the storm by in 1909, the twelve volumes of The Funda- his Hegelian interpretation of New Testa- rcsn&i.rt were being mailed to Protestant ment history.” pastors throughout. the length and breadth of the country.“’ In their controversy with The recall of these names is enough to the Liberals, the sympathies of the Mis- point up this movement in Protestantism, souri Synod theologians were on the side the elaboration and acceptance of “higher of the Fundamentalists, although by no criticism.” Dillenberger and Welch, more- means entirely 50.‘~ /’ over, make it plain that the movement in- In the Fundamentalist-Modernist contro- eluded an attack on the “significance and / versy, they warned, the Fundamentalists < azdority of the Bible as a whole.” They would lose, because of their approach to say: “In short, it was all up with the dogma Scripture. of the inerrancy of scripture.” lz Because they are not willing to take the In this country the newer theories were first step, that is, to believe that the Bible popularized by men like Lyman Abbott is the verbally inspired Word of God, that and John Fiske. l3 In the 1890s Charles it must be taken as it reads, and that no A. Briggs became the center of a storm man has the right to read into the words within the Presbyterian Church,l” a storm of the Bible his own opinions, therefore which raged until Gresham Machen and they are not willing to take the second his followers withdrew in 1929 to organ- step, in fact, they cannot consistently do so, namely, deny the others the right which

10 Ibid., II, 47; Cross, Oxford Diet. of Cbr. they for themselves have assumed; nor Cb., p. 1295. can they consistently take the third step, --_._- 11 Latourette, II, 47-50; Cross, Oxford Diet. of Chr. Cb., pp. 142, 143. 15 Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gsesham Machen: 12 Dillenberger and Welch, p. 195, italics in A Biographical IMemoir (Grand Rapids, Mich.: the original. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955) gives a sympathetic account of Machen’s role. la Ira V. Brown, Lyman Abbott: CbristMn Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church: Evolutionist, A Study in Religious Liberalism (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, A Sturdy of Theological Issues in the Pre.rbytsrian Church since 1869 (Philadelphia: University of 1953) * Aug. Schuessler, “Einige Aphorismen iiber Pennsylvania Press, 1954). das VerhEltniss von Theologie und Wissen- 16 Francis P. Weisenburger, Ordeal of Faith: schaft,” Lebw und Webre, XL111 (June 1897)) The Crisis of Chr/rcb-Going America, 1RGS to 176178, inveighs against both Abbott and 1900 (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), Fiske. He calls Abbott *‘The Goliath of the pp. 80-109. evolutionists of our country.” 17 Clifton E. Olmstead. History of Religion *4 For a Missourian reaction to the C~JUJ in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, N. J,: %ggs see P[rancis) Pfieper}, “Die Presby. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), pp. 549-553, for terianer und die Lehre von der Inspiration der “The Conservative Reaction”; also see pp. 467 :;?;;6Schrift,” ibid., XXXIX (June 1893)) to 474. - . l8 Infra, p.420. THE flIS’I-ORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STATEMENT 417

that is separate themselves from those who that Darwin undermined Genesis, chai- teach error.‘!’ lenged Theism, weakened the Fatherhood Contemporary with the development of of God, and threw doubt on the hope of “higher criticism,” continuing the tradition personal immortality .22 Diilenberger and of Schlciermachcr, stood Albrecht Ritschl Welch pointed out that because of the ( 1822-1889). His dual emphasis was on widespread acceptance of the hypothesis of justification and reconciliation and on the evolution in fields other than biology “in- kingdom of God. He influenced men like creased emphasis was laid upon the influ- Wilhelm Hcrmann (l&6--1X2), Adolph ence of cultural environment in the de- van Harnack ( 1851---1330)) and Ernst velopment of religious thought and prac- tice.” 2: Troeltsch ( 1865-1923) .“O These in turn i Three trends in Protestant thought, influenced some of the makers of the social which, according to them, “may properly gospel. be associated with liberal theology,” re- suited. The one was a much greater stress Along with the liberalism of Ritschl and “on the ‘immanence’ of God”; the second, Schleiermacher and the attacks on Scrip- “the reinterpretation of traditional concep- ture by Strauss and Wcllhausen and others tions of sin and redemption”; and the third, came the impact of the evolutionary that the relationships between Christian theories popularized by Charles Darwin and non-Christian religions were softened (1809-1882) in his The Origin of Spcies and greater syncretism (the term is not (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). theirs) resuIted.24 Science and the Christian faith were re- garded as incompatible. Nonetheless the For all that, as an eminent American scientific movement had a tremendous in- historian pointed out, “The impact of sci- fluence on theology.“’ H. G. Wood said ence, and especially of the Darwinian theory, was violent but not shattering.” 1:) J. H. C. Fritz, “Will the Fundamentalists He concluded: Win Out in Their Fight Against the Modern It was a tribute either to the skill of Liberals?” Theological Monthly, IV (Aug. and Sept. 1924)) 240; see pp. 234-242 for the en- Fiske, Beecher, Lyman Abbott, and their tire article. allies, or to the ability of Americans to di- aa Cross, Diet. of Chr. Ch., p. 1168; Dillen- vorce their Sunday from their weekday berger and Welch, pp. 198-200; Latourette, II, world, that the most scientific-minded peo- 16, 17. ple in the. western world were, on the 21 Dillenberger and Welch, pp. 200-206. whole, those whose faith was least im- Ralph I-I. Gabriel, The Coarse of American Democratic Thought: An Intellect& History paired by science. Since IS15 (New York: The Ronald Press Co., Certainly by every test but that of influ- 1940), pp. 161-172. Olmstead, pp. 465-467. The literature on Darwinism and its influ- Weisenburg, pp. 6 l-80. ence is large. No attempt is made to cite even Barbara M. Cross, Horace Bushnell: Miniher a significant portion of it. to a Chnngz’ng America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1358), pp. 115-133, tells 2z H. G. Wood, Belief and U&elief since 1860 (Cambridge: University Press, 19~5)) about Bushnell’s reaction to Darwinism. His Na&Te MZ~ Supernatural ( 1858) already had pp. 50-56. grappled with some of the problems of the “new 2s Dillenberger and Welch, p. 205. science.” Z-1 Ibid., pp. 205, 206. ence the church had never been stronger than it was at the opening of the twentieth century, and its strength increased steadily. . . . The typical Protestant of the twentieth century inherited his religion as he dki his politics, though rather more casually, ani\ was quite unable to explain the difkrence between denominations: We fourA himself a church member by accident and persistetl in his affiliation by habit; he greet4 each recurring Sunday service with a sense of surprise and was persuaded that he con- ferred a benefit upon his rector and his community by participating in church serv- ices, The church was something ro be “supported,” like some aged relative whose claim was vague but inescapable.gs

I!1 hOW f2.i CVOIUtiOfl contributed t0 tht: growing seculxism of the nation is diffi- cult to say. Materialism, however, had pcr- vaded the i:ltcllectuai scene and overshad- owed the spiritual. The trend had set irl long before lSS9, to bc sure; by the end of the 19th century it had become most evident.“” “The church itself confcsscd to a steady secularizarion: as it invaded the social and economic fields, it retrearcd from the inte&ctual.” 27 And, we might add, all roo frequently from the spiritual. Along with Liberalism, evolutionism, and Bibiical criticism the restless and ebul- Iient era known as the Gilded Age or the Era of Big Business confronted the churches with socinl and economic prob- Ims. Nascc-nt sociaiism and ‘~xpandi:~g .._. ~5 Henry Steele Coinmager, The AnzericuD i\f&ad: An Interf)r&tion of Americdn Thog&t a& Charnc!er SOW the ISROr; paperbound ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959 fc. 1950} ) , p. 1 GG. x Jame.s I-I. Nichols, Ili.rtory of Christiuzity, 16.50--1950: Secrtlurkation of the West (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1956) ? p. 269. 5 Commager, p. 167. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STATEMENT 419 and pronouncemenr of a Washington Glad- ciiiation and arbitration” in labor disputes, den, Richard T. Ely, George I>. Herron, for the “abolition of child labor,” for the Francis G. Peabody, Josiah Strong, Henry “suppression of the ‘sweating system,’ ” for King, or Charles M. Sheldon. It remained, the “reduction of the hours of labor,” for however, for Walter Rauschcnbusch to ar- “provision for the old age of workers,” for ti&Ite the social gospel most clearly in his “the protection of the worker from dan- Chris&mity und the Social Crisis ( 1907) gcrous machinery,” and for “the most equit- and A ‘I’heology for the Social Gospel able division of the products of industry.““” ( 1918).” Progress and prosperity, it was The platform seemed radical to many; said, would be terrain hallmarks of the visionary to others. However conservative kingdom of God.“:( Among Lutherans some churchmen might have been, the so- J. H. W. Stuckcnbcrg in his Ch&tian So- cial gospel, nevertheless, maintained itself cio2ogy ( 1880) advocated an application as a force in American religious life into of Christianity to social problems.“” the 1930s. A major pronouncement of rhe social The concerns of the churches with the gospel, however, came from the Federal social order, pacifism, prohibition, the De- Council of the Churches of Christ in Amer- pression, and the New Deal were concerns ica. In 1908 it adopted the Social Creed thx grew out of the social gospel. That of the Churches. It called for the protcc- they were overemphasized and weakened tion of the workingman against the hard- the respect which many held for the ship “resulting from the swift crises of in- churches was stated especially by those who dustrial change,” for the necessity of “con- found the social gospel and Liberalism . . going hand in hand. 32 B. Y. Landis, ed. Razuchenbusch Reader A Billy Sunday denounced the doctrines of (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), is a convenient compilation of the best in Rau- universal brotherhood (“the fatherhood of schenbusch’s writings. God and the brotherhood of man”) and of 3:~ For the social gospel movement see espe- social service and, in the words of his biog cially Charle? H. Hopkins, The Rise of the So- cial Gospel irt American ProteJtantism. 1865 to rapher, “damned the whole social gospel I915 (New Haven: Yale University Press, movement as sacrilegious, un-American 1940) ; Henry F. May, Protestant Chtirches a7jd quackery.” z6 Sunday advocated civic re- Indzutrial America (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949); Robert Moats Miller, Ameri- form, prohibition, and “the old-fashioned can Protestantism and So&l Issuer, 1919 Gospel.” ST to 1939 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina press, 195 8) ; Nerhcrt W. Schneider, Sunday belonged to the Fundamentalists. Rrlixion in 20th Century America (Cambridpe: Their adherents stood for more than oppo- Harvard University Press, 1952); Paul Carter, sition to the social gospel. We have al- The Decline and Revival of the Social Gospel. -. - Social and Political Liberalism in American Prot- estant Churches, 1920-l 940 ( Ithaca, New X Elias B. Sanford, Origin rend HiStOry of York: Cornell IJniversity Press, 1956) ; Nichols, the FedL>val Council of the Churches of Christ pp. 269-282; Gabriel, pp. 305-330; Com- it? America (Hartford, Corm.: S. S. Scranton Co., mwx, pp. 165- 177; Olmstead, pp. 475 to 1916), pp. 493-503, esp. pp. 497 f. 494; Weisenburger, pp. 117-140. 30 William G. McLaughlin, Jr., Billy Sunday 34 A. R. Wentz, A Basic liistory of Lu- U”as IIis -Real h’ame (Chicago: University of t/,eraniJm in America (Philadelphia: Muhlen- Chicago, 1955), p. 138. berg Press, 19551, pp. 329, 330. 37 Ibid., pp. 225-234. 420 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A lTIf

ready noted the fact of the Fundamentalist- the 7’iiCOlO~J Of Crisis (in the same ym) Modernist controversy. The Fundamental- by its very rick ~,IS kcriptive of the new ists were essenrialiy polemical, opposing nmvemcnt. Karl ljarth’s ‘I’,& Word of God evolutionism, higher criticism, and Liberal- and the IIL’onl o/ I\I‘uI, had appeared in ism. They upheld the literal interpretation 132S; in IY.Yi George W. Richards Be- of the Bible, especially of Gen. 1 and 2, the youd I:l~~;rl,rnfoltrrii.r m und Modernism ap. deity of Christ, the substitutionary atone- [xxtd. Nco-orthodoxy, the theology of ment, the second coming of Chrisr, and, crisis, or whatcvcr lnbels may be used, are in many instances, a premilltnnium. Their IIPIIICS of a IK:W cm in theology in Amer. leaders included meri like J, Grcsham its begun betuecrl 19.52 and 1934.40 Machen, John Roach Straton, William What wcrc the xacrions of the Missouri Jennings Bryan, William Bell Riley. The Synod theologians to the various thcologi- controversy (who disturbed Israel, the cal movements between I887 and 15)32? Modernists or the Fundamentalists? ) Specifically what were their’ reactions to reached its peak in the 192Os, especially Biblical criticism, evolutionism, and the so- among the Baptists, both Northern and cial gospel? Southern, and the Methodists. Highly pub- Throughout the history of the Missouri licized, the Scopes trial was only one phase Synod there have been voices raised against of this controversy.3s Fundamentalism, the denial of the inspiration and infalli- however, remained a significant force in bility of the Scriptures. In the preface of Protestantism. the first volume of Z3e7 Lzr&cransr issued Of lesser importance but not to be ig- after rhe organization of Synod, now pub- nored is the movement known as Dispen- lished as an official organ of the church sationalism. Nlied to Fundamentalism and body, Walther wrote: Iiteralistic in its approach to the Bible, it . . . die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testa- emphasized the eschatological portions of mentes ist Gottes unwandelbares ewiges Scripture. Cyrus S. Scofield was most influ- Wort, vom ersten Buch Mosis an his zur ential in spreading such teachings.3g Offenbarung St. Johannis vom Heiligen Geiste eingegebcn Wort fiir Wort. Diese By 1932 the various movements in the- heiligen Schrifren der Apostel und Pro- ology in America were largely in a state pheten sind daher die einige Regel und yt of transition. Reinhold Niebuhr’s r Moral Richtschnur alles Glaubens, die einige J~M,~,~~zd lmmd~~i.- . Society ( 1932) was one Quelle aller seligmachenden Erkenntniss mdicaiion that a new movement was under und die einige Richterin alier, die christ- way. Walter Lowrie’s Ozlr Concern with .--_-._ 49 Sidney E. Ahlstrom, “Continental Inffu- ence on American Christian Thou,ght Since 33 Norman F. Futniss, The Ftindamentnlist World War I,” Church tfistory, XXVII (Sept. Co&oPefq, 1918-1932. Yale Historical Pub- 1~58)~ 256-272, esp. pp. 264-267; Olmstead, lications, Miscellany: 59 (New Haven: Yale pp. 574-578. University Press, 1954). Stewart G. Cole, The Published just as this article was going fo History of Fudsnentalisvn. (New York: Richard press is the two-volume Csi&zl Bibliography of R. Smith, Inc., 1931). 17ehion in America bv Nelson R: Burr in Re- i. .” 39 C. Norman Kraus, Dispensational&n in zgron i,n American Life, ed. James W. Smith America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond, and A. Lefand Jamison (Princeton, N. J.: Prince- Va.: John Knox Press, 1958), p. 111 et pas&m. ton University Press, 1961). THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STATEMENT 421

lithe Lehre bctreffendcn Streitigkeitcn. Missouri Synod theologians knew the the- Diese gcschricbene Offenbarung d~.s allcr- o!ogical developments in Germany at first hijchstcn Gottes sol1 &her w&r nach der hand. In 1857, while Walthcr was slowly blincicz Vcrnunft, nocb nach dt-m VU- nearing his end, the editor of Der Ls kehrten mcnschlichen Herzcrl ausgtlcgt fheraner reiterared: “Die iutherische we&n, sic crklnrt sich sclbst; es sol1 weder Kirche richtet sich in aliem, was sie lehrt, etwas Aaron noch &u gcthan und von keinem 13uchstahen derselbcn, wedcr zur genau nach der heiligen Schrift, sie thut Rcchten noch zur Linken, abgewichen, rlichts dazu, sic thut nichts davon, sie unter- somlcrn allcs so in kiodlich dcmiithigem, Lvirft sich unbedingt dem Worre Gottes.” 45 einfgltigem Glauben angcnommen wc’r- ?hc infallibility and clarity of Holy Writ den, wie die Wortc lauten.“’ ufas emphasized repeatcdly.4” ?‘his St‘\tCme:\t summarizes the lp&tion of In 1892 Der Ltdtheraner carried a series the hlissouri Synod for a hundred years. of articles by Prof. Stoeckhardt on “Die Walther’s “Vier ‘I’hcscn i.ihI issoltri. lS92), 141-143; XLVIII (Sept. 13, 1892), According to F. P[ieper], “Dr. C. F. W. Wal- 1.49-151; XLVIII (Sept. 27, l892), 157 to ther ais Theolope,” ibid., XXXIV (July and 159; XLVIII (Oct. 11, 1892), 166, 167. 422 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A DRZEI: S?‘ATI:‘,%+V?

3, I6., sie ist das Wort des groszen majests- not in non-tbeo!ogicis was not enough for tischen, allein weisen Gottes, sie ist die sound Lutheranism?” Wahrheit, Joh. 17, ll., und darum unfehl- The Missouri Synod, like Lehre wzd bar, sie ist das Wort, das alies richtet und Wehe, was not charabterlos. Anchored in von niemand gerichtet werden darf; das the theology of the 16th century, fortified Wort, unter welches alle Weir sich beugen with fidelity to the Lutheran Confessions, muss.” 4* Lehre utzd Wrhre maintained the inerrancy W. Willkomm read an essay to the con- of the Scriptures and their verbal inspira- vention of the Ev. Luth. Free Church in rion.“” Against Wofman, Frank, Luthardr, Sax&y in 1911, “Ueber die wBrtliche Ein- and others it insisted that the Scriptures gebung der ganten Heiligen S&rift mit are the only source of doctrine. It upheld besondcrer Beriicksichtigung der modcrnen rhc Schiftptinzip. Thereby it was safe- Einwlnde.” 4’3 To sacrifice the verbal in- guarded, roe, ir was said, from indifference spiration and complete inerrancy of the and unionism, secure in its reliance on Scriptures meanc, wrote Bente, to open the Scripture aloncF4 Verbal inspiration was floodgates of rationalism, to abandon sound accepted a poJteriori as well as a +riori. principles of exegesis, and to endanger such The entire Scriptures are verbaily inspired; doctrines as the deity of Christ. The Lu- therefore also the Kealien were given by theran Symbols become meaningless. “Alle divine inspiration: history, geography, diese Lehren, such die fundamentalsten, geraten darum ins Schwanken von dem 52 Ibid., p. 87. “Astronomic, Geologic, Augenblick an, da die wiirrliche Inspiration Physik, Chronologie, etc.” are mentioned spe- cifically. und vijllige Irrtumslosigkeit der Schrift in 5s F[ried&h] B[ente], “Vorwort,” ibid., L Frage gezogen wird.” 3o Verbal inspiration (Jan. 1904), 6: “Sie bekennt sich zlur Verbal- was denied within the General Synod and inspiration und Unfehlbarkeir der ganzen heili- the General Council, it was said. “Auch die gen Schrift. Sie bekennr sich zur Bibel, nichr blosz sofern sie Gottes Wott ist und Wahrheiten Lehre von der Inspiration betreffend ist in enthZlc, sondern weil sie in allen Worten und der americanisch-lutherischen Kirche erst Lehren Gottes Wort ist und darum nur Wahr- heiten birgt und gar keine Irrthiimer und noch Einigkeit hertustellen.” 51 To grant Widerspriiche. Und das such nicht blosz in den infallibility and inerrancy in theologicis but streng theologischen Materien, sondern such in ihren zahlreichen historischen, chronologiscben, geologischen, biologischen und astronomischen 48 [Martin} GIuenther], “Vorwort,” ibid., XLVI (Jan. 1, 1890), 1. Angaben.” This is the first instance found by the present writer of this enumeration in Mis- 49 See the notice in Lebe tllzd Wehze, LVlI souri Synod literature and may be regarded as (Dec. 1911) , 545, regarding the Verbandlungen the forerunner of paragraph one of the 1932 of this church body. BGef Statement. $0 F. B[ente], “Vorwort,” ibid., LX (Jan. In a review of R. Fr. Noesgen’s Die lutheri- 1914), l-11; the quotation is from p. 7. sche Lebre voe der I7tspiratiolt (Guetersloh: 51 F. BCente], “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1909) F(riedrich] ibid., L (Jan. 1904)) 39 f., with quotations from B[ente} criticized him for not upholding the the L&era@ World, Lutheran Chtlrch Review, historical, geological, and similar pronounce- and the introd+tion of Haas’ Biblical Csiiicism. ments of the Bible. Lehre und Wehe, LV (Dec. Lehre und Weh, L (Feb. 1904), 85-87, 1909), 550, 551. with citations from the Lutheran Chwch Re- 54 F. B[ente], “Votwort,” ibid., 1. (Jan. view. 1904), l-20. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF A BRIEF STATEMENT 423

At the dedication of Concordia Seminary ( 1926) J. W. Behnken, at that time Pres- ident of the Texas District, disclaimed the theological aberrations of the age and plcadc-d for a retention of the Scriptures and the doctrine of sola gratiu: One of the cancerous diseases which have devclqxd in many theological institutions today is this, that some professors have joinccl the ranks of Modernists, evolution- ists, higher critics, etc. By the grace of God this shall never happen at our new <.&co&a Seminary. May God ever keep our seminary firm and decided in its stand for the truths of the,Bible, especially the cardinal truth of salvation by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, that it may cvcr be a training camp to send forth battalion after battalioh of stalwart warriors nho in the face of modern Bible-under- mining, Christ-denying, faith-destroying .itt:icks will vz!iantiy contend for the faith \\ilich was once dciivcreil unto the saints and v;ith the sword of :he Spirit gain one victor: afrer another ‘for the Lord Jesus Christ. IO the glory of God and the salva- :ion of rxiny immortal soukG1

61 F~rancis] Pi iepr]. “Mitteilungen aus den Retlen. c!ie bei der Finweihun,C unserer Sank I~x~iser theoii>rriichen Al;stalt rehalten wur+n,” Lehre ma Wehre, LXX11 (Sept. 1926), 273. 424 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF /‘I 1?1:11.:!~ 5’1’/i’~‘1:.111:/‘~‘1’ netted with the origin of the books of cscr, thar tile rncn of rhis ;tgc knew noth- Moses-B’ F. C. Pasche concerned himself ing of thr ~/AUCIIOII of Scripture or that with questions of the transmission of the they minimized the saving p(>wcr of the Scriptures and of the infallibility of the inspired Word of God. ‘I’0 thc~t1 it was Scriptures. 63 Walter A. Maicr joined the a liyillg Word.“” No\,., liov,,cvc:r, tile situa- St. Louis seminary faculty in 1922. Wirh tion c:aJIc.c! for a dcf~nsc of its verbal and a firsthand acquaintance with the writings picilarp inspiration; they u~oilld not fail in of the higher critics and a thorough knowl- defending the ramparts rhcy ftir called on edge of Semitics, he examined the critical to prorcct. 7’lx:olog)~ to tlwrn has three interpretation of the Psalms and found it characteristics: it teaches only the Word of wanting.r b+ He reached the same conclusion God; it teaches r!lat the forgiveness of sins with respect to Is. 1: 1 S.‘;O or justificatior, is rcccivect only by grace, The extreme emphasis during the sec- for Christ’s sake, without the deeds of the ond half of the 19th century and the first Law, alone through faith; it makes the be- three decades of the 20th century on the liever certain .of the grace of God.G7 The form of Scripture by the polemicists of the Modernists or l,ibcrals lvcrc scored for Missouri Synod is understandable in the their refusal to accept rhe Scriptures N8 and light of the developments in contemporary for their rejection of rhc atoning sacrifice theology. This emphasis is reflected in of Christ on the cross.‘j!’ A Brief Statement. It did not mean, how- Confessional Lutheranism, they believed, required them to defend the v&al and CK! L{udwig] Fcuerbringerf, “Die neuere plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. The Pentateuchkritik,” ibid., XLIX (Feb. 1903 ), 33-37; ibid., XLIX (April 1903)) 97-104; Lutheran Confessions upheld the doctrine ibid., XLIX (May 1903), 133-141; ibid., of inspiration, although not ex @fesso. XLIX (June 1903), 161-168; ibid., XLIX In common with the Reformers of the 16th (July and August 1903), 214-227; ibid., XLIX (December 1903), 359-364; ibid., century they regarded the Bible as the L (Feb. 1904), 69-75; ibid., L (March 1904), Word of God.‘” Luther identified the Bible 110-121; ibid., L (April 1904), 155-164; with the Word of God and taught no other ibid., L (May 1904), 208-214; ibid., L (June _-_.^ ___,_ 1904), 259-266; ibid., L (July and Aug. 1904), 309-321; ibid., L (Sept. 1904), 410 66 See, e.g., “Die Lehre von den Gnaden- to 419; ibid., L (Nov. 1904)) 507-513. mitteln,” Der Lutherunef, XLIII (Sept. 1, K{ ‘F. C. Pasche, “Finden sich in der Schrift 1887), 133-134. Schreibfehler?” Ibid., LXVII (May 1921), 67 Flrancisl P[ieper}, “Drei Me&male der 140-154; F. C. Pasche, “Die Schrift redet rechten Theologie,” Lehre zmd Wehe, LXXV immer wahr,” ibid., LXVII (June 1921), 172 (Oct. 1929), 289-293. to 180; ibid., LXVII (July 1921)) 200-208. - O8 J. T. Mueller, “Lehrfortbildung und Lehr- o-1 Walter A. Maier, “The Pre-Israelite zerstiirung,” ibid., LXX1 (June 19251, 191 Psalms-the Historical Basis for a Readjust- 10 201. ment of the Higher Critical Theories Concern- 8’3 W. H. T. Dau, “The Meaning of Calvary ing the ibid., LXX1 (June 1925), Psalter,” in the Minds of the Modernists,” CONCORDIA 229-237. THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, III (Feb. 1932), 65 Walter A. Maier, “Vagaries of Tendential 85-95. Exegesis as Illustrated by the Interpretation of ‘* II’. E.1 KEretzmannJ, “Unsere’ Bekennr- IS. ~:~~."CON~ORD~A THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, nisse und die Lehre von der Inspiration,” I.&e III (March 1932), 175-180. und Wehe, LXX1 (Oct. 1925)) ‘35 l-354. Bible, his Savior.‘” The doctrines of man’s innate depravity and the redemption we The attacks on ~vol~ttiorl;sIn citk1 the so- denied by the evoiutionists, who also re- cial gospel sterlxned from their fidelity to jected, of course, the Genesis account of rhe I,utlxran Confcssioxs and the Scrip- creation.” They denied rhe Scriptures. The rtirc’s. As early 3s 1801 :k11 essay appcxcd writer maintained his belief in the divinity by a writer of the Missouri Synod against and the integrity of the Sacred Record. the thcorie, of (.;hark:; Darwin as a&o- “Wir nc&mcn j&s Wort der Schrift an, cated in his OriKi7~ of ,~pecieJ ( 1859 j .” uenn such alle Welt sich dagegen auf- In l()OO LL’I;YC UU$ Wrkc ;tg:lifi cxricd an Ichnte.” ifi The scientists themselves admit way on c.volllrion.i’~ Nine years later an- that they are advancing hypotheses.7g other series had the c:ipLioll “fivoiutio!l and These are of ten illogical.HO rhe Bible.” 74 Th. Iing&\cr in a lengthy The heaviest attacks against evolution essay in Lrhrc u;zd IVf2~!7re in 1912 warned by a Missouri Synod theologian were made against dif2 tr23722kene Wiss62z~chdft. Mod- by Theddore Graebner. His Evolution 81 cm theology and modern science belonged and L2ray.r on Euoltition 82 ran into several ro this category, according to him.75 They editions. It remained, however, for his want to rob rhc (;hristian of his faith, his massive ,Goa! and rhe Cosmos 83 to bring ,-. ..^. the most, reasoned and documented attacks 71 F[rancisl Priepcr], “Vorwort,” ibid., against this theory. Surveying the modern LXXIV (Jan. 1928), 7-9. I;. Pfotenhaxer, scene-the work was a distillation and “Synodalrede,” ibid., LXXV (July 1929)) 193 to 195, too, maintained the dependence of the compilation of notes made during three reformers on the Scriptures for the formulations dccadcs .or more ---it was an apologetic of the Lutheran Confessions. against various modern forces. Although 72 [C. I-i. R.] I.[ange], “Die biblische the work did not appear until 1943 it may Sch6pfungsgeschichte und die geologischen Erdbildungstheorien,” ibid., Vi1 (Feb. 1861)) be regarded as a product of the Middle 39-43; ibid., VII (March 1861), 68-74; Period of Missouri’s history. Missouri’s ibid., VII (April 1861). 98---102. attitude on cvolurion during that time can 73 Flriedrich] Bfente], “Evolution,” ibid., XLVI (Jan. 1900), S-15; ibid., SLVI (Feb. perhaps be best summarized in the words .-- 1900), 38-47; XLVI (May 1900), 135-141; ibid., XLVI (June 1900), 164-170; XLVI 7’; Ibid., LVIII (Dec. l912), 543. 1 July and Aug. 1900)) 2 17-239. 77 Ibid., pp. 549 f. T4 J. Hoeness, *‘Die Evolution und die 78 Ibid,, LIX (Jan. 1913), 17 A. The quo- Ribel,” ibid., LV (July 1909), 289-299; ibid., tation is from p. 22 and is in italics in the LV (Aug. 19O9j, 351--359; ibid., LV (Oct. original. 1909)) 454-464; ibid., LV (Nov. 1909)) 499 w Ibid., LIX (Feb. 1913)) 70 ff. to 5 IO; ibid., LV (Dec. 1909), 546-550. w Ibid., LIX (May 1913)) 215 ff. 75 Th. Engelder, *‘Die trunkcne Wissen- Y* Theodore Graebner, (Milwau- schaft; was sic will, und warum wir wenig Edution kee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1922). Respekt vor ihr haben,” ibid., LVIII (Dec. I9I2), 541-553; ibid., 1.1X (Jan. 1913), 17 Xz Theodore Graebner, &Jays on Evolutiofi to 27; ibid., J-IX (Feb. 1913), 70-77; ibid., (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1925). I-IX (May 1913)) 215-222; ibid., 1.1s (June *:l Theodore Graebner, God and the COS~OJ: 15)13), 256-267; ibid., LIX (July 1913), 306 A Critical Ana1y.k of Atbeim, Maferialism, and 10 312; ibid., LIX (Aug. 1913), 358-362; Evolution (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Pub ibid., LIX (Sept. 1913), 403-412, lishing Co., 1943). of one of Gracbner’s collengucs in the jour- nal which Gracbner did.: “Christian evolution” is neither Christian, agreeing with the teachings of the divine Word, tlor is it an evolution; it is simply a myth.“” In rhe face of the cries that the church should accept the li:Angs of science the Bible was held up as the oniy source of truth; besides that, the spccuiaGoi>s of sci- ence &an&d frc;m time f0 tiil.lc.x” “C;Od’S

Spirit hdS Sp0kcn to us thrO\i& the l%ib!e, speaks to LIS through C!lrisr;an preaching, and creates that response in our hurts which we cd faith,” it mxs pointed out, a faith rhar wi!l cling to t-112 prwo~1:m.c- mC!ltS of the War.!. of God. >(; Because of their stance toward the Holy Scriptixes, the denial of the ftlil&il?lU?td doctrines of Chrixianicy, a:ld the.zbandon- ment of the cssentin!s of the .Christiall faith, Modernism and Liberalism brought for:h the xvcresr 3:1nd c,f coi;c’:~~!liilation by Missoxi Synod wrixrs. Such basic doc- trincs as original sin, rile &icy of Chris:, the substitutionary atonement by Christ were declared to be in jeopardy unless the incrrancy of the Scriptures wuc rnnin- tained.R7 It was said, e.g., that the doctrin<

8.1 [Wm.) A[rndt}, “Can Evolution and Christianity Be Harmonized!” The I..vtherun Witness, XL11 (June 5, 1923)) 186, XB Frrancis:] PC&per!, “Ztu Evolution al.5 ‘festste!&nc!er Tatsache, ” Lehre und Weljrc. LXX1 (Sept. 1325). 324-32s. ” ‘Evolution unci clie IMA, ” ibid., LSXI (Dec. 1925). 42i-430. Th. En;:elcler, “‘J’he Shifting Sands of Sci- ence,” CON~ORMA ‘I%EOLOC;ICAL Mc)NTfir.Y, III (July 1932), 481~-4S9. M Theodore Graebnx, “Is the New Science Hostile to Religion?” i&l., III (Dec. Ir)jZ), 91.7-921. 87 J. I-I. C. Fritz, “Der moclerne Unglaube inmitten der lusseren Christenheit,” Lehre und anticipation of the Last Day. Because the Gospel brings these blessings, hc prayed that it might be maintained without falsi- fications of any kind.!‘” The Gospel and the sacraments were de- fer&d as the means of grace against the tcxhings of the Modernists. “May God in

His mercy preserve LIS from the destructive powers of Modernism, especially in its de- nial of the means of grace! ” B5 The means of grace are the bearers of the grace of God, it was emphasized; “they offer, they convey, they seal, to the believer the bene- fit of Christ’s vicarious atonement.” OdThe Modernists erred in the doctrine of the means of grace and concerning the outward form of rhe means of grace. In denying the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible rhcy rcdacc rhc teaching that the Gospel is a means of grace to an absurdity, it was said, and eliminate the sacraments as .gifts of God for the forgiveness of sins.97 Faith in the forgiveness of sins which Christ, the incarnate Son of God, obtained for all men by His substitutionary atone- ment (satisfactio ~1:cnr&b) and which is pro- claimed by Hi:; Word in the church, this is fundamental in the Christian faith, Piepcr maintained, as he examined the IJnitarians, the Romanists, the Calvinists, rhe Arminians, the synergistic Lutherans (so hc called them), the deniers of the

w F[rancisf Pfieperf, “Die Kraft des Evan- ,gcliumq,” ibid., I.SXIII (Nov. 1927), 321 to i i.1; ihd.. LSSlIl (Dec. 1927 ), 363-369; ilkl., LXXIV (Feb. 1928), 40-53; LXXIV (hIarch 19’S), 69-83. :x5 I’. E. Kretzmann, “The Means of Grace with Special Referrnce to Modernism,” Th80- logical .~to~tth~~, IS (Nov. 1929), 335. w llii., p. 32 1.. $7 For the entire essay see ibid., IX (Oct. 1929), 2S9--~0~; ibid., IX (NOV. 1929), 321 to 335; ibid., .1X (Dec. 1929), 362-368. God-ordained means of grace, and the dc- tractors of the inspiration of Holy Writ, and found them wanring in a clear tcsci- mony. Those who denied the incrrancy of the Scriptures also as a rule, he maintained, denied the satisfactio Christi wicaria.!‘” -.-...- Bs F[rancisf P[icper], “Das Fundament des chiistlichen Glaubens,” Lehro unil IVohre, LXX1 (Aug. 1925), 286; see p. 28s: “Allc Leugner der Inspiration der Heiligen Schrift, das heisst, alle welche die Schriften der Apostcl und ist. Wenn in einern Leugner dcr unfehlbaren Propheten nicht Gottes eig,enes unfehlbares gimlichcn Auroritit ), 75-42; werden, und Christi Apostel lehrt, dass die ganze ibid., LXX1 (April 1025 ), 97-107; ibid,. christliche Kirche bis an den Jiingsten Tag in LXX1 (Alay 19.?5), 123--1.54; ibid., LXXI allen und in jedem einzelnen ihrer Gliecler auf (July 1325), 24%-263; ibitl., LXX1 (hug. den Grund der Aposte’l und Propheten erbaut 1925), 282-288. The Historical Background of “A Brief Statement” (Continuedj By CARI, S.MEYER

III ante of this organization has been stated by Wentz from his point of view as MOVEMENTS WITHIN LUTHERANISM follows: IN AMERICA, 1887-1932 It provided the means and ajicncics for Important as are the major theological prosecuting indepen&zt Lutheran cduca- movements in America and Germany be- tional, missionar)., and charitable opera- tween 1887 and 1932 for an understand- tions. Above all, it gave to the church of ing of the Middle Period of the history this country, even to those who did not at of the Missouri Synod, even more im- once become members of the General portant are the movements within Lu- Synod, a nationwide outlook and interest theranism in America during this time. and a sense of permanent citizenship in These movements, to state the self-evident, this Republic.:’ have their roots in previous periods. The withdrawal of the Pcnnsylvani;l A$;n- Without an understanding of these move- isterium in lSZ.3 from the General Synod ments, however, the doctrinal formulations could have permanently disrupted this of the Missouri Synod, especially of body. The efforts of Samuel S. Schmuckcr, A Brief Statement, cannot be understood however, kept the remnants of the Gen- adequately. eral Synod together and rallied them When the Missouri Synod was or- around the founding of a theological sem- ganized in 1847 Lutheranism in America inary at Gettysburg ( 1826) :I The ,Cen- was in, what Jacobs calls, the period of era1 Synod had resolved: revival and expansion (1817-60) .I Early In this seminary shall be taught, in the in that period the General Synod had been German an61 English languages, the funda- organized (1820) by the Pennsylvania mental doctrines of the sacred Scriptures Ministerium, the New York Ministerium, as contained in the Augsburf: Confession. the North Carolina Synod, and the Mary- It required that every insrructor on the land and Virginia Synod.2 The import- 172-186; Jacobs, pp. 351-361; Fr. Benre, 1 Henry E. Jacobs, A Nistory of the Evangcel- American Lutheranism (St. Louis : Concordia icd Lutherun Church in the United States, Vol. Publishing House, 1917), II, 12-175; Abdel IV: The American Church Nhtory Series, ed. R. Wentt, A Basic History of Lutheralzism in Philip Schaff et alii; 5th ed. (New York: America (Philadeiphia: The Muhlenburg Press. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907)) p. 349. 19551, pp. 78-84. 2 J. W. Early, “The Ministerium of Penn- 3 Ibid., p. 80. sylvania and the Organization of the General 4 Abdel R. Wentz, Ili.rtory of the Gettysburg Synod,” The Lzttheras Church Review, XI (Jan- Theological Semilzary (Philadelphia: The Muh- uary 1892)) 61-70; ibid., XI (April 18921, lenberg Press, 1926) . 4GG ‘I’M HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 467

their own conscience, having none to mo- lest them or make them afraid. In the 1 believe the Augsburg Confession and the Lutheran church in this country, each of cat~thism of Luther to lx a summary and the above views has some advocates, though just exhibition of the funJamcnta1 cloc- the great body of our divines, if we mis- rrincs of the W’ord of Gorl.‘J rake not, embrace either the second or the third.’ ‘I’hc chmgcs ma& in the Aclgsburg Con- 7’/x Defide Platform was an attempt to fession by Schmucker, therefort’, in the make Lutheran&m more conformable to “IIcfinirc Synorlical PIntform” of 1855 the American ecclesiastical scene, Puritan miisc be rcgard4 as deviations from the in its outlook and Calvinistic in its theo- ;1dojwd stnr1d of the church body. logical orientation. However, only three Schmuckcr maintained that the Aqsburg small Lutheran synods accepted it-the Confession approved the cCrc3nonics con- Olive Branch Synod, the Wittenberg nec:cd with the Roman Mass, condoned Synod, and the East Ohio Synod. The privxc confession and absolution, and organization of the Melanchthon Synod by t:t~ght incorrectly on the Ixxd’s Day, bap- followers of Schmucker in 1857 caused tiSJlX3l regeneration, and the Real Presence fcrther misgivings within the General in the I,ord’s Supper.” As eariy as 1 S% Synod, into which it had been admitted, Schmuckcr indicated his views regarding up to the time of its reunion with the the Lord’s Supper: Maryland Synod ( 1869) .* The young After a prorractcii and unprofitable strug- glc, the I;uthcran church has long since 7 Schmucker, Popajar Theology, p. 305. The scttlcd down in the happy conviction, that ‘*second view” referred to is: “That the bread on this, as’on all other subjects not clearl! and wine remain in all respects unchanged; that cict~rmincd by the inspired volume, her the glorified human nature of Christ is not sons shail be left to follow the dictates of substantially (essentially) present at all, but only influentially, efficaciously and virtually; that is, by a special supernaturai influence exerted on rt Quoted by Jacobs, p. 367 from Cdtaloguc ail communicants at the time when they receive m2d Constitution for 3840. p. IO. The Constitu- rhe bread and wine” (p. 300, in italics in the rion of the General Synod had no confessional ori‘qinal), The “third view” is: “The third paragraph. See, the 1:nplish rranslarion by Dr. opinion is, that there is no presence of the Ikdres5 in S. S. Schrnuckcr. E1rmpnt.r 0j I’Opul‘n glorified HUMAN nature of the Saviour, either The4og~. 5th ed. (Philadelphia: S. S. hlilcs. substanrial OK influential, nor any thing myste- IS-45). pp.dSl---457. The “Formola for the rious or supernatural in the eucharist; yet that Government and Discipline of the Evangelical whilst rhe bread and wine are mereIy symbolic Lutheran Church.” AppcoJis I. ibid., pp. 420 to representations of the Saviour’s absent body by 450. liLe\visc had no doctrinal paragraph be- which we are reminded of his sufferings, there yond that which affirmed a belief in the revela- is also a PECULIAR and SPECIAL spiritual tion “contained in the books known in Prot- blessing bestowed by the divine Saviour on all ecrant Christen&m as the Old and New aorthr communicants, by which their faith and Tc5taments.” ( I’. 2.10 j Christian praces are confirmed.” (P. 303; italics R Defrwite Pf~tform: Doctri?zral and Dis- in the original) ri[~linariu?l. 107 E~r1dugclical Lvtheran #istrict 8 The best account of this episode in Amer- .Slnodr: Con.ctructrtl in Arcr,~/atzce ql jth the ican Lutheranism is still Vergilius Ferm, The Principles of the dirneral Synod. 2~1 4. (Phil- Crisis in American Lutheran Theology: A Study adelphia: hliller Fr B~lrlock. 1856). See also of the Issue Betwee% Am.erican Lfctheralzism and “Americanisch-luthcrische Kirche.” Lehre z~nd Old Lutheranisn (New York and London: The Wehve, I (October 1855), 3 19, 320. Century Co., 1927). I-I. Hoyer, “Die sogenannte Missouri Synod followed the events in the General Council. They had helped to General Synod with interest, but found the strengthen Lurhcrarl confessionalism and Definite Pldform very inadequate? This in that way served to bring togcchcr some document, nevertheless, had one very of the synods that mcc in Fort Wayne in perceptible influence on the Missouri 1867 to organize the (&era1 Council. Synod: it was the immediate occasion for These synods were: The IJcnnsylvania Walther’s invitarion for free conferences Ministcrium, the New York Ministcrium, of all Lutherans subscribing to the Augs- the Pittsburgh Synod, the English IXstrict burg Confession.‘o Synoc+ of Ohio, the IZn+sh Synod of Ohio,’ These free conferences, held in Colum- the Canada Synod, the Au,q~stzx~ Synod, bus ( 18X), Pittsburgh ( 1857 ), Cleve- the Wisconsin Synod, the Michigan land (3858), and Fort Wayne (1859), Synoci, the Minnesota Synod, and the discussed the Augsburg Confession. The Illinois Synod.lz Rcprcsenratives of the fifth conference was not held, partly be- Iowa Synod and of the Ohio Synod were cause of Walther’s absence (he was in present, but these synods did not join the Europe for reasons of health). Repre- General Council in 1867. The Ohio Synod sentatives of the Ohio Synod found it raised the “Four Points” - questions which undesirable to participate further. are still being asked in American Lu- Thus a great attempt to unite Lutherans in theranism. They pertained to “Chiliasm,” America came to an end. That the Con- “Mixed Communions,” “exchanging pul- ferences produced results, however, cannot pits with sectarians,” and “secret or un- be doubted. The formation of the Synod- churchly societies.” K{ The Illinois Synod ical Conference of 1872 may safely be and the Minnesota Synod withdrew from listed among the fruits of these endeavors.il the General Council in 1871 because the Indirectly, these free conferences were answers of the Council on the “Four a factor also in the formation of the Points” were unsatisfactory.14 The Iowa Synod, too, in 1872, expressed its dissatis- American&he tiberarbeitung der Augsburgi- faction with the General Council’s stand schen Confession,” Leh und Wehre, I. (No- The Wisconsin ’ vember 18551, 336-341. on these questions.‘” 9 Ibid., I (December 1855), 381f.; ibid., II (January 1856), 28; ibid., II (March 1856), !” S. E. Ochsenford, Documentctry History of 95, 96; ibid., II (July 1856)) 223, 224; ibid., the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran II (October 1856), 320; these are all news Chz~ch in Nor& America (Philadelphia: Gen- notes. See H. Hoyer’s review of W. J. Mann’s eral Council Publishing Mouse, 1912), p. 147; A Plea for the Augsbsrg Confession in hswer Bente, American Lutheranism, II, 176---227. to Objections of the Definite Platform in Let&e The influence of the immigrant Midwest Lu- un.d Wehre, II (March 1856)) 75-83; “The theranism on Lurheranism in the East is analyzed Broken Platform,” ibid., II (March 1856)) 92 in detail by Carl Mauelshagen, American Lu- to 94; Definite Platfomt, ibid., III (January therunism Silrreaders to Forces of Conservatism 1857), 27, 28. (Athens, Ga.: [Jniversity of Georgia, Division , 10 {C. F. W. Walther), “Vorwort zu Jahr- of Publications, 1936). gang 1856,” ibid., II (January 1857), l-5. 13 Ochsenford, p. 155 and pp. 328-380. 11 E. L. Lueker, “Walther and the Free LU- 14 Ibid., pp. 235, 336. theran Conferences of 18561859,” CONCOR- 16 Ibid., p. 236. The question of pulpit and DIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, XV (August altar fellowship was not answered satisfactorily 1944), 529-563. for the Iowa Synod. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 469

Synod had withdrawn already in 1869, as the inspired Word of God, the only rejecting “each and every form of Chili- infallible rule of faith and practice; the asm,” warning against membership in three ecumenical creeds of Christendom; secret societies as “anti-Christian and soul the Augsburg Confession; the other Lu- endangering,” and designating altar and theran Symbols as in harmony with the pulpit fellowship with non-Lutherans “as Augsburg Confession.l* a unionistic practice.” I6 The action of the ULCA in joining the ’ Besides the General Synod and the Federal Council of Churches in 1922 on General Council there was a third group a “consultative” basis caused a writer of which went into the composition of the the Missouri Synod to call for free con- r-.Uni~.dJ.u&m~Church .-. in America on ferences within the Lutheran Church so Nov. 16, 13-18. This group, the United that rhere would not be a closer alignment Synod of the South, organized in 1876, with the Federal Council by the ULCA. was the product of a union of the General These conferences, he wrote, should be Synod of the South ( 1863 ) , the Tennes- continued until, D. v., full unity had been see Synod ( 1820)) and the Holston Synod attained.lQ (1861 ).I7 These three groups, number- Of greater consequence, as indicated, ing 45 district synods in North America, were the relationships between the Mis- in effecting the ULCA brought about the souri Synod and the synods which entered union of a powerful organization within into the American Lutheran Church in Lutheranism. However, it was more dis- 1930. These were the Buffalo Synod, the tantly removed from the Missouri Synod Iowa Synod, and the Ohio Synod. It is not than the Midwest synods. In its constitu- the intention here to review the relation- tion the ULCA spelled out its doctrinal ships in the period from 1847 to 1887 in basis: all the canonical books of the Bible any detail. A reminder of principal dif- ferences between each of these synods and 16 Ibid., p. 332. the Missouri Synod as they persisted into 17 Wentz, Llctheraksm in America, pp. the Middle Period may, however, be in 279ff.; P. Bfente), ‘The United Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the South,” order. Li Lehrg and We&e, LX111 (January 1917)) 7 to The diflerences between the Missouri 16 (the article is in German). Synod and the BufIalo Synod. centered in The Missouri Synod criticized the ULCA questions of church polity. The Hirtenbrief merger of 1918 because the uniting bodies devi- - -- ated from sound Lutheran practices and allowed errors by men in their midst who denied verbal 18 Wentz, L&era&n i7t America, p. 284; inspiration, taught co-operation in conversion, Doctrinal Deckar&~on.s: A Collectim of Oficid tolerated evolutionism, supported the prohibition Statements on the Doctrhal Pm&m of Various movement, permitted lodgery, and condoned Ltztberas Synods k America (St. Louis: Concor- unionism. [Th.] Gfraebner), “The Merger,” dia Publishing House, n. d.) p. 3; also see F. Lutheran Witness, XXXVIJ (Oct. 29, 1918)) B {entef , “Lehrbasis der Generalsynode seit 340-342; ibid., XXXVII (Nov. 12, 1918), 1913;’ .Lehre md Wehre, LX11 (January 1916), 354-356; ibid., XXXVII (Nov. 26, 1918), l-7; ibid., LX11 (February 1916), 58-69. 372, 373; ibid., XXXVII (Dec. 10, 1918), 386, 19 F [riedtich] Blente] , “The United Lutheran 387; ibid., XXXVII (Dec. 24, 1918), 403 to Church und das FederaI Council,” Lehre zxrzd 406. Idem, “Two Types of Lutheranism,” ibid., Webre, LXVIII (August and September 1922)) XXXVIII (June 10, lPlP), 180-183. 257; see pp. 248-257 for the entire article. 470 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEI: S’I’ATEMI~N’T”

of J. A. A. Grabau in 1840 had brought the history of the Missouri Synod. Wil- about a rejoinder from the Saxons who helm Lochc had a hand in promoting the later participated in the organizing of the Iowa Synod, as he had hclpcd the Missouri Missouri Synod. They disliked the strong Synod. The Iowa Synod, in fact, is 3 prod- clericalism of the Prussian group. A col- uct of the differences on the questions of loquy in 1866 discussed the doctrines of the church and the ministry between Loehe the ministry, the church, ordination, and and the Missouri Synod. It was organized excommunication, questions which were in 1854 by G. hi. Grossm;mn, John Dein- not downed by the conference. The con- doerfer, and others, who had been in the ference resulted in a split within the Buf- Franconian settlemc’nts in Michigan - ser- falo Synod, some of the pastors joining the tlements sent over by Loche that had be- Wisconsin Synod.‘O The Buffalo Synod was come organized congreglrions belonging to not a large group at any time after that; the Missouri Synod. To the Missourians it it numbered only 35 pastors and 6,800 was the lou:tii.rche O~/~siti~~~s~~ node.‘:’ In members in 1930, at the time of the organ- 1867, the year after the colloquy with the ization of the American Lutheran Church. Buffalo Synod, the Missourians nwt in col- The Missouri Synod, nevertheless, remained loquy wirh reprcsentativcs of the Iowa conscious of her differences with this Synod. The position on the Lutheran Sym- church body,21 perhaps because the doc- bols, open questions, chiliasm, the doctrine trines of the church and the ministry had of the Antichrist, the doctrine of Sunday, been faced with almost traumatic acute- and the question of the first rcsurrcction ness in the early years of her congregations’ were discussed, but not the doctrine of the existenccY2 chwxh and the ministry. No agreement, The Iowa Synod, too, appeared early in however, was rcached.“i

20 Chr. Hochstetter, Die Geschichte der 23 This phrase is used by Hochstetter, p, 278. Evangelisch-Lutheriscben M&o&-Synode inFor the Iowa Synod anal more specifica!ly Iowa- Nerd-Amerika, snd ihrer LehTkiimPfe (Dresden: Missouri relations to 1867 see ibid., pp. 278 to Heinrich J. Naumann, 1885) , pp. 179-278; Roy A. Suelflow, “The Relations of the Missouri 309; J. Deindoerfcr, Gescbichte Jcr Ez,angelisch- Synod with the Buffalo Synod up to 1866,” Lutherischen Synode wn Iowa und anderen (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, Concordia Histo&& Institute Qwrterly, XXVII Staaten (April 19541, l-19; ibid., XXVII (July 1954), 1897), pp. 3-23; G. J. Fritschei, Quellen. und 57-73; ibid., XXVII (October 1954), 97-132. Dokuments 2217 Geschichte und Lehrstellun,p der Iouja Synode (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing 21 So, e.g., C. F. W. Walthet wrote to Pastor Fr. Brunn in Steeden, Nassau, Germany, in House, 1916), passim. 1861: “Unser Kampf mit Buffaio ist ein Kreuz, 24 Besides references cited in footnote 2j see das uns fort und fort fast zu Boden driicken J. P. Beyer, StenoRraphi.sch uzlfgczeichnetes Col- will.” L. Fuerbringer, editor, Briefe ~012 C. F. loquium der Vertreter der Synode f/on Illinois W. Wafther an seine Frewzde, Synodalgenossen {sic for Iowa, given correctly on cover! tinti der urcd Familienglieder (St. Louis : Concordia Pub- VOA Missozlri, Ohio, 21. a. St., . , . (Chicago: lishing House, 1915), I, 160. Chicago Union, 1868), pp. I-175. 22 Hochstetter, pp. 32-60; Walter 0. For- Siegmund und Gottfried Fritschel, Iou:a grid ster, Zion oa the Misrissiflpi (St. Louis: Concor- hlissowi: Eine Verteidigting der Lehrstelllrng der dia Publishing House, 1953)) pp. 507--534; Synode uon Iowa gegenlber den Angriflen ties Carl S. Mundinger, Gouernment in the M&o& Prof. {F. A.) Schmidt (Chicago: Wartburg Pub- Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, lishing House, n. d.), was written in 1878 (cf. 1947)) pp. 109-162. p. 289). In it Iowa’s chiliasm, its Rich~mg, its -IlIE I IIS’I’( ,fII(:AI. f3ACKGROLJND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 471

formation of the Synodical Conference in American I.utheran Church in lVj0 was 1872, for which the Ohio Synod gave the the Ohio Synod. It is tk oldest of the impctus.L!!’ three synods, having bet11 organized al- Between 1868 and 1880 the Ohio Synod ready in 1818, a Wcstcrn outpost of the and the Missouri Synod enjoyed fraternal Pennsylvania Ministcrium. tiowcver, in relationships. It was the Ohio Synod Sem- 11320 it refused IO join the (;cncral Synod. inary which in 1878 awarded C. F. W. The influence of I%ul I-k&cl, and later Walthcr an honorary doctor of divinity Andrew Hcnkel, was in tllc directiondcgrec.:“’ It was Lehmann who became of Lutheran confession;llisul, a tendency president of the Synodical Conference in strcngthencd by W. 1:. Lchmann a11d Mat- 1873, a position to which he was re- thi;ls 1.0~ in the sccontl half of the crntury. elected for one-year terms in 1874, 1875, The free confcrcnces of the 18X15 helped 1877, and 1879, a position he held at the to cirrlw at Icxt 3 portion of the Ohio time of his death ( 1880)) in the midst of Synod clqy closer to the hfissouri Synod. the G~adenwahlJtreit.“” It pxticipated, 3s did the Missouri Synod, This controversy on $ectkkg. caused a in tlic prClimin;xy convention of tilt Gcn- breach between the Ohio Synod and the era1 Council ( 1 SGG) ,‘;I but did not join the Missouri Synod which has remained until I council in the following pear, although its the present time. The breach is one of dclcgntcs wc-rc prcxnt.-‘; It was the Ohio the major factors which helped shape the Synod that r;tiscci the yuc_stion of tk “Four course of Luthcranism in America in the Points” in 1 X07 :inil forced tlic protrxxd period berween 1887 and 1912, because disciissioll of tl1cm in the convention Of the rhe relationships between the Missouri following yc:lr.zi In this year ( 1 S6;S) fra- Synod and the Ohio Synod remained essen- tcrnal relarions were established \vith the tially unfavorable throughout the period. hlissouri S;;nod,l” the first seep to\vard the The Norwegian Synod, too, withdrew from the Synodical Conference because of the controversy on predestination. ---

:u) See !ile on “honorary degree” in Walther papers. Conwrdia Historical Institute, St. Louis. .?I Proceeding, Synodical Conference, 1873, p. 3 1; PtoceeAings, Synodical Conference, 1874, p. 54; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1875, p. 36; P,oceertings, Synodical Conference, 1877, p. 52; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1575, p. 68; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1879, p. 5 1. 472 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A Bl-tll:i: S’~‘A I‘PMPN’~-”

. . . not because of disagreement in doc- Wisconsin Synod remained solidly on the trine with the other synods, but because side of the Missouri Synod in the contro- it was hoped that a settlement of the con- versy on clecti~>.n.:‘,~’ troversy which raged within the Synod ReSx&ng rllc controversy on election it itself thereby might more easily be reached. need only be pointed out now that the Since the discussions in the Synodical Con- ference were carried on in the German basic question ar issue w;is, as Charles language, which was not understood by the 8 Portcrfield Kraurh of rhe <;cncr:ll Council majority of the Norwegians, it was feared phrased it from a vLtnt;lge point outside the membership in this body might complicate controversy itself, “Is our fzith a cause of‘ matters and make a settlement more dif- God’s election, or an effect of ir?” a(’ The ficult.3’ term i?2tuitzd jicki. as usrc~ by older Lu- This Synod was organized in 1833; early theran do~maticians, was interpreted, mis- in its history it established fratcrnai rela- interpreted, defended, and attacked in the tions with the Missouri Synod, utilizing its controversy.“7 Missouri’s formulation of Seminary for the training of pastors, and the “Thirteen Theses,” :$,s was approved joining with the Ohio and Missouri synods both by the Missouri Synod X) and by the in the organization of the Synodical Con- Synodical Conference:” The “we believe, ference.3a teach, and confess” of each of the theses The Wisconsin Synod, which now in- has the ring of a crecdal statement. cludes the Minnesota Synod, is the only Looking back, this is the situation in charter member of the Synodical Confer- 1887. The General Synod ( lSZO>, the ence, besides the Missouri Synod, which General Council ( 1867), and the United has retained its membership in that body. Synod of the South (1876), the Iowa The Illinois Synod joined the Missouri (1854)) Ohio ( lSlS>, and Ruffnlo ( 1845) Synod and became an integral part of it synods, the Norwegian Synod ( 1851) , and (1880). By 1872 earlier unionistic and the synods of the Synodical Conference doctrinally loose tendencies within the Wisconsin Synod had given way to a comin and Other States. lli’SO--1950 (Milwau- stanch Lutheran confessionalism.a-r The kee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1951), pp. 1 j-26. xi Proceedhg~, Synodical Conference, 1882, a2 Chr. Anderson, “Historical Sketch of the p. 64; Contin&g in fiis Grace, p. 79. Beginnings, Growth and Development of the Norwegian Synod,” Grace for Grace: Brief His- 36 Jacobs, p. 505, quoted from Lutheran Tony of the Norwegiun Synod, ed. S. C. Ylvisaker Chzmh Reviewt III, 68 ff. (Mankato, Minn.: Lutheran Synod Book Co,, 37 *No attempt will be made in any way to 1943 > , pp. 61 f. cite the literature on this controversy. A delin- 33 Ibid., pp. 57 ff.; S. C. Ylvisaker, “The Mis- itive study of the controversy is a clesicieratum. souri Synod and the Norwegians,” Ebenezer, ec]. as They are found most easily in Erwin L. W. H. ‘I’. Dau; augmented ed. (St. Louis: Con- Lueker, ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Con- cordia Publishing House, 1922), 264-272; cordia Publishing House, 1954), pp. 1057, 1058, Gerhard Belgum, “The Old Norwegian Synod,” sub “Thirteen Theses.” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 39 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1881, p.41. 1957, on microfilm in Concordia Historical In- 40 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1882, stitute. p. 79, ‘(* . . dass sich die Synodalkonfetenz zu 34 Continuing in His Word; The History of den dreizehn Thesen . . . von der Gnadenwahl the El/drtgelicai Lutheran Joint Synod of W~J- bekenne, . . .” In italics in the original. Or1 kchalf of the Iowa Synod, at least, an attempt was made to refute the charges of false doctrine levied by Grosse.42 Both

the Iowa and the Ohio synods, however, wc’rc’ regarded as harboring “false proph- ets” and false teachings in 1905. By that time the yuc-stion of the an&o@ &!ei had ‘I’llc ilp~~(*ikr;ki’lC~ in 1 H89 of (;rosse’s been ad&d to the doctrinal differences be- pop~~l;trl!~ wrirtc,n comp:irfltive syrnholics IwCtn the-se synods and the Missouri Synod. in I.32 p:~ges higilliphtcd thu doctrinal dif- The quc-stion of the analog& fdei deals ftrenccs among 11~ I.uthcmns. Hc befr:ln with the question whether the clear Word with r!~ l~uflalo Synod, its “false doc.rrinc5” of God alone is the source and norm of rfrrl.rl.b~ I,c~~I.L ) concerning the church, the faith or whether it is subject to enlight- off~cc of the keys, the ministry, ordinaricm, ened rczison.4d In the “Lrhre von der Be- synods, and church governmC’nt. f-4~ rkn k&rung, (inadenwahl und Schriftanalogie turned to the Iowa Synoti. Its false doc- sind die Ohioer and Iowaer falsche Pro- trines wc’rc: 0ili:tsrn. c~)nc~rnirig t!le An- photon,” it was said.4J There were ample tichrisr, 0pc.n questions, tilt ministry and reasons, it was stated and detailed, why the church gov~rnmcnt, free will, convc.rsion, Missourians should avoid thcm.45 and ClccI iOil, and its stance toward the It is not at all surprising that the Iowa I..uthcr:ui G~nfcssions. The Ohio Synod and Ohio synods should artempt to reach taLlgt.!t i.1lscly, according fo Gross~. 02 doctrinal agreement and perhaps organic conversion, justif;cation, election, or pre- union. It is surprising that the latter was desrination, and the ccrt;linty of election nor accomplished until 1330. Meanwhile or s:l!v3rion; morcovcr, irs rcadincss to a series of conferences and theses prepared talc doctrinnf formulations of t!le fathers the way for such a union. as a four>d:ition for faith was scored. The In July 1893 representatives of the Ohio Gcnczll kuncil kv:is called a unionistic and of the Iowa synods met in Michigan church body, uhich tokrated false doc- City, Ind. They adopted six theses dealing trines concerning conversion and justi- fication. condoned pulpit fcllo~~~ship with SI n&en JOU ie der namhaftesten Sectenkirchen in den Vereiuigten Stauten I on Sod-Amerika sectsrian churches, altar fellowship with ( SC Louis: Lurherischer Concordia-Verlag, the heterodox, and permitted lodge mem- ISSO j, pp. l-57. hership even among its pastors. In addi- 42 S.’ Frirschel. Die i.‘n;er.rcheidun~sleh~en tion. its teachings on church government der S?nonen I o?z 1011 (I Iinn .1ii.;souri (Chicago: Wartburp Publishing House. n. d.) , 94 pages, \vCrc rc,qlrdcd as false iltld dangerous. The accordirqc to p. j a reprint from the Kid.diche General Synod, so Grosse mainrained. was Zeit.rchri,ft Of 1891 and 1893. not truly Luthernn in its intent and doc- 43 F. B[ente], “Warurn kcnnen wir keine .cemeinsamen (;ebetsSottes;lienste mir Ohioern trinal position, thoroughly unionistic in its und Io\yaern veranstalten und abhalten?” Lehre pr:lctiq,s:-” und D”ehre. LI (March 1905), 99 f. --_-. - 44 Ihid.. p. 101. 45 Ibid., pp. 9~---115, especially pp. 103 to 115. 474 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIl:I; S-I’ATI:,\;IEN?“’ with the Church, the Ministry, the Symbols, iowship with rile Iown Synod, because of Open Questions, Chiliasm and the Anti- Iowa’s friendly relations with the General christ, Predestination and Conversion.“” Council?” The Iowa Synod gave an ex- Especially the last thesis was directed planation to the Ohio Synod, admitting against the Missouri Synod and was con- that it had exchanged delegates as an cx- demned within the Missouri Synod.17 This pression of church fellowship and pleading condemnation, however, seems not to have for fellowship wirh the Ohio Synod.‘>” This been on the official level. The same theses meeting at Kictmond ( 1010) wclcomcd were discussed again and adopted with the statement of rhc Iowa Synod, acknowl- some changes 4s when representatives of edged it as an orthodox Lutheran body, but the Ohio and Iowa synods met in Toledo, pleaded for the removal of certain diffcr- Ohio, Feb. 13-15, 1907.4” They were cnces in doctrine before altar and pulpit promptly dubbed “Die Toledoer Unions- fellowship was cst~~blistd.‘~~l thesen” in Missouri circles. It was prc- In lY12 the representatives of these two dieted that eventually the Ohio Synod bodies met again in Toledo. The question would enter into church fellowship with of pulpit and altar fellowship between the General Council and the General Iowa and the General Council still caused Synod.“O The Iowa Synod accepted the misgivings on the part of the Ohio Synod.‘l; theses in convention assembled in Men- N. Rasmussen of the Ohio Synod issued dota, Ill., June 20-25 of the same year, a pamphlet entitled Can WC Unite IVirh and declared church fellowship with the Zowo? He stated the Ohio and Iowa synods Ohio Synod.“l agreed on open questions and a C/ZU~CUN.T However, the Ohio Synod, meeting in subscription to the confessions. The qucs- Appleton, Wis., in 1908, resolved that it tion of the Antichrist is not divisive; other could not enter into pulpit and altar fel- points, he said, showed no significant dif- ferences.“‘i 46 Ffranz] Pfjeperl, “Das Colloquium der In !YIS altar and pulpit fellowship was Synoden von Ohio und Iowa,” ibid., XXXIX (September 1893)) 2S7-264. fig Idem, “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” ibid., 47 Idem, “Zur Beurtheilung des ohioisch- LIV (October 190X), 462-465. iowaischen Colloquiums,” ibid., XXXIX (Octo- ber 1893)) 289-293. 53 Prom the Kkchenzeitung [ 19103, pp. 543 f. as reported by F. B[ente], “Kirchlich- 48 So Meisinger of Baden as quoted by P. I&itgeschichtliches,” Lehre und Wehre, LVI BIente) in “KirchlichZeitgeschichtliches,” ibid., (September 1910), 409-411. LIII (November 1907), 518 f. The doctrine of 54 From the Kirchenhlatt (Sept. 24, IYlO), the Antichrist was not included in the Toledo as quoted by F. Blente‘) in “Kirchlich-Zcitge- theses. schichtliches.” Lehre ma Wehre, Lx’1 (Decem- 49 D~ctriml Declarations, pp. 5-7; the date ber 1910), 561. 1908, however, should be corrected to 1907. 55 E. Pfardieck}, “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- G. J. Fritschel, ed., Quellen und Dokgmente, liches,” ibid., LVIII (June 1912), 270, 271, No. 114, pp. 362-364. ‘with a quotation from the Kirchenzeitzrng. 50 F. B {ente}, “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- tehre W& WehTe. LVIII (September 1912)) liches,” Lehre wnd We&e, LIII (June 1907)) 414, 415. 278-284. 56 Summarized by E. Pcardieckj, “Kirch- 51 Idem, “KirchlichZeitgeschichtliches,” ibid., lich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” ibid., LIX (January LIII (October 1907), 469-471. 1913), 32-35. ‘I.1 Iii 1llS’I’ORICAL 11AC:KGR()I!ND ()I: “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 475 declared bctwecn the Ohio and the Iowa fraternal ties which had existed between synods.c7 Doctrinal agrecmcnt bctwccn the the Missouri Synod and the Norwegian Iowa and Buffalo syr&is was declared in Synod before the Gnadenwahlstreit con- 19 1 9.qTs In this year represcntativcs meet- tinued, even though they were not as ex- ing in Chicago ndoptcd ( March 11, 1910) wnsivc as previously. In 1903, e.g., the the Chicago 7’6cscs. The Augustana Synod, 50th anniversary of the founding of the the Iowa Synod, the Joint Synod of Ohio, Synod, Concordia Seminary conferred hon- the Lutheran Free Church, the Il’orwc$an orary degrees - a rare event in those days Church of America, the IJnitcxI ‘Lhi~h -on Laur. Larsq U. V. Koren, and H. A. Church, and thtr Unircd 1,urheran Church Stub; the Norwegian Seminary recipro- wc’rc represcnrctl ;tt this m(,eting.“!’ The cated with honorary degrees for Francis thcs~s deal with gcncral questions of Chris- Pieper and A. L. Graebner.GO Between cology and soterioktgy. 1903 and 1917, however, the Norwegian This year 19 18 ( or tllc years 19 17, 1918, Synod drew closer to the elements within and 1919) must be iqarded as crucial in its own ethnic group that had been antag-. the history of rhc Lutheran Church in onistic to the Missouri Synod. America, cvcn though they merely divide In 1887 this antagonism to the Missouri the Middle Period in the internal history Synod crystallized in the formation of the of the Missouri Synod into two parts. It Anti-Missouri Brotherhood. To find the is not only that altar and pulpit fc4lowship roots of this antagonism merely in the’ was declared bctwccn the Iowa and the controversy on election or in ethnic dif- Ohio synods; in I91 7 the Nor\vepi;m syn- ferences would be to disregard the earlier ods had united. controversy on slavery among the Norwe- gians, perhaps even the controversy on The union mownxm ;irnong the Nor- lay preaching, and the pietistic leanings wegians \vas of momemous importance to among some Norwegians. In 1876 another the Missouri Synod and govcrnc-d its ac- NorGegian group had effected a reorgan- tions. ro a greater extent than has been ization out of the Evangelical Lutheran readily admittc4 or Wcognizcd. The close _. Church in America (the Eielsen Synod, SO named after its leader, Elling Eielsen). This :T [Th.) C[rachner‘) in “Kirchli~h-7,eitFe. schichtliches,” ibid., LSJV (October 19 18). 4-j reorganized group chose the name Hauge’s and 4-4. Evangelical Lutheran Synod, after the in- .i’ Lkr Lntheraner, LSSV (Dec. I?, 1919). fluential Norwegian layman Hans Nielsen 3 SO. Hauge (d. 1824). The Norwegian Au- ‘3) Dortrinol l~erlaratimz. pp. 27, ,?i, for the theses. These theses must he distinguilhed from gustma Synod ( 1570) and the Conference the (Chicago) Intersynotlital Theses of 192s. for the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Lu- SW also [‘I%.) G [racbncr) in “Kirchlich-Zeitsc- theran Church in America ( 1570) had not schichtliches,” Lehre unfl IL’ehe. LXV ( April 1019)) 183-187; Lueker, cd. I,uthrru?~ Cjclo- been orientated toward the Missouri Synod. pc,liu, p. 19.3. When, therefore, the anti-Missourians in the Norwegian Synod looked for partners, they found them among these two groups. _.-_ ~0 Ylvisaker, in Ebenezet, ed. Dau, p. 263. 476 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A URilil; STATl:~fI+j’X”’

even though the Hauge Synod and the was ciiscusscd. ‘I’he yc;x 1887, 110wcver, smaller Eielsen Synod did not join them. was the ycrar in which the Anti-Missourians In 1890 the United Norwegian Lutheran left the Norwcginn Synod because of the Church was organized.“l controversy on clcxtiofl.‘iii The meetings Already before 1890, however, efforts at Eau Claire (Wis.) in 1888, at Scan- had been made among the various Nor- dinavia ( Wis.) in the s;mlc year, and wegian groups toward union. In .the 18705 Minneapolis ( 1890). which brought about perhaps because of the free conference of the formation of the IJnitcd Lutheran the 185Os,m the Norwegian Synod pro- Church,“.’ belong to the series of confer- moted free conferences among the Norwe- ences and meetings which continued even gians. The Rushford (Minnesota) con- after 1890. ference and the Rock Prairie (Wisconsin) No: all of the meetings need be men- conference did not settle differences in doc- tioned. It is important to note, however, trine among the Norwegians. Yet regional that in 1889 the Minnesota District of conferences in 1877 and 1878 served to the Norwegian Synod adopted a’memorial, prepare the way for union meetings in the petitioning the Synod to continue efforts 1880s. The St. Ansgar (Iowa) conference to bring about a union of all Norwegian in 1881, the Roland (Iowa) conference in synods. A resolution of the Synod ac- 1882, and the Holden (Goodhue County, cepted the essentials of the .memorial. Minn.) conference in 1883 were free con- Thus in 1890 the initiative for an eventual ferences in which the doctrines of objective union between the Norwegian Synod and justification (“justification of the world”), the Unired Synod already had been faith, and absolution were discussed. The launched by the former. The 1892 meet- free conferences then gave way to joint ing in Willmar (Minn.) showed that the meetings as the result of the election of questions of prayer fellowship, the inspi- official committees to carry on negotiations ration of the Scriptures, and the place of with the other synods by the Norwegian the Boo4 of Concord had to be added to Synod, the Norwegian-Augustana Synod, the questions which divided the Norwegian the Norwegian Conference, and the Hauge Lutherans. A free conference at kanesboro Synod. Joint meetings were held at Chi- (Minn.) in 1897 showed up differences cago in 1885, in Goodhue County (Minn.) in the doctrines of conversion and election. in 1886, and at Willmar (Minn.) in 1887. In 1899 two free conferences, one at At the Willmar meeting the doctrine of Austin (Minn.) in January,“;’ and the justification (“justification of the world”) second at Northwood (Iowa) in October,GG continued the discussions on conversion 61 E. Clifford Nelson and Eugene L. Fevold, and election, The Lutheran Church Amortg Norwegias Amer- In 1900 the district conventions of the icans (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, I_---.... 1960) in two volumes tell the story in detail; see the review of this work by Robert Preus 63 Nelson and Fevold, I, 302-335. in the Concordia Historical Institute Qmyterly, 04 Ibid., II, 3-37. XXX111 (January 1961), 126, 127. Bruce, 65 Ibid., II, 129-138. pp. 1-6. 66 Lehre llnd Wehre, XLV (December 1899), W Supra, footnote II. 378 f. ‘1’1 If: I~IIS1’ORlI:AL l3ACKCROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 477

Norwegian Synod invited the district pres- ever, were not produced. In 1910 these idents and the theological faculties of the 1908 theses were endorsed by the Union United Norwegian Synod to join their Committee. Union was delayed when the compcers in colloquy. ‘1.~0 meetings were theses on election, prepared by H. G. Stub, hold. The talks were broken off; however, caused protracted discussions (five meet- conversations were resumed again in 1905, ings between lYO8 and 1910). when the &uge Synod, rhe Norwegian Within the Missouri Synod, Stoeckhardt Synod, and the United Norwegian Synod scrutinized the theses on calling and con- met to discuss doctrinal dificrcnccs. A set version and on election X’ and found them of thcscs on absolution, drawn up in “ambiguous and misleading.“51 He warned 1874, were discussed, accepted by the com- against indifference and unionism.T9 Pieper mittee ( 1306 j, and ratified by the three pointed out that already in 1884 he had synods which they represented ( 1912 ) , voiced objections to a set of theses drafted In that same year (1906) theses on lay in the Norwegian Synod, which were ma- preaching were adopted by the committees terially very similar to the 1908 theses.73 and later ( 1912 ) ratified. ‘I’he following The Wisconsin Synod Q~artalschri~t, too, year ( 1907) theses on the call, and a year found the theses defective.?” later ( 1908 j theses on conversion, were However, when the Union Committee agreed on.‘i7 Ail of these theses, however, of the three Norwegian bodies met in lack antitheses, and the lack of antitheses, Minneapolis (Dec. 13, 1910), another set it was held, was a serious defect.“:’ Most of theses [Eastvold’s theses} were also pre- important was the action in 1908, when sented. The Hauge Synod and the United the United, the Haugean, and the Norwe- Synod approved these theses. The Norwe- gian Synod representatives met in Chicago. gian Synod withdrew from the meeting.‘” The theses regarding the call and conver- Nelson dubbed it “a theological log jam.” sion were accepted for submission to the bodies represented. The representatives of p. 4, that J. Nordby and 0. E. Brandt were the Norwegian Synod, as visitors, explained present. 70 G. St{oeckhardt] and F. P&per), “Be- to the Synodicnl Conference (in August leuchtung der norwegischen Vereinigungsthesen,” 1908) that their Synod would take no Lehre zrnd Wehre, LVI (October 191O), 433 action on these theses and that these theses to 456. still lacked antitheses!;!’ Antitheses, how- 71 Ibid., p. 441. 72 Ibid., p. 456. 73 Ibid., pp. 456-466 with reference to 67 Anderson, “Historical Sketch, etc.,” Gsar,e Lehre und Wehre, XXX (May 1884), 183, n. 1; for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 92-l&?; pp. 156 XXX (June 1884), 212, n. 1; see also ref- to 160 (theses on absolution); pp. 137-140 erences to Koren’s position, ibid., XXX (May (on lay preaching) ; p. 193. Nelson and Fevold, 1884), 170-183; ibid., XXX (June 1884), II, Appendix C, pp. 344-355, also have the 209-212. theses. Bruce, pp. 28-38. 74 J. Schaller “Die Vereinigungssache bei 6s Anderson, “Historical Sketch, etc.,” Grace den norwegischen Synoden,” Theologische Quar- for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, p. 97. t&&f/, VIII (April 1911), 81-98. 69 F. B[ente], “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” 75 D. [Dau?], “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” Lehre md Wehre, LV (February 1909)) 77,78. Lehre llnd Wehre, LVII (January 1911), 31 f., The Synodical Conference Proceedings, 1908, do with reference to the official minutes published not report this incident, although they record, in Kirketidende and in Llltheraneren. Grace for In 1912, nevertheless, a basis for agree- ment was reached by rhe new union com- mittees elected in the previous year. “Two forms of presentation” on election wcrc given (Feb. 22, 1912) in the Oppjoerl the Madison Agreement, the one according to Article XI of the Formula of Concord and the other according td Pontoppidan.“’ Pic- per criticized it almost immediately for allowing intzlitu f&i fiwalis.ii The union movement among the Nor- wegians, indeed, caused Pieper to take another long hard look at the differences among Lutherans because of the doctrine of election.7s He voiced the hope that all

Lutherans would agree fully on ~01~4 patia. “Sind wir erst wieder in der ‘Ktrnfrage’ einig, so diirfte bald die Einigkeit in den iibrigen Punkten folgen.” 71) in 1913 his Zur Einigung der amerikanisch-llltherisc/?elz Kirche in der Lehre ,ton der Bekebrung zllzd Gn&enwahl appeared in both the Bentc called rhe O/~,yjccr “:unbiguous” original version and in a translation by and unionistic? E’arriieck fotlrid n mixture W. H. T. Dau.8O of fanaticism, inditfucncc, lack of serious- The Madison Agreement was soon rati- ness, and n?ir~~nd~rstandinl: among the -- Norwegians.“, Within the Norwegian Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 193, 194. Nelson and - . Fevold, II, 137-169. fi1 E. Piarclieck}t “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- 7o Doctrinal Deciaralions. No. 6, pp. g-10. Ii&es,” Lehre UNC~ Il”phre. LVlII (August 1912), Grace for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 194-198; 367. Gruce /or Gruce: cd. Ylvisaker, pp. 99 to Ebenezer, pp. 272-274. Nelson and Fevold, 105. II, 169-182; Appendix C., pp. 356, 358. Bruce, hz Lel7re utf~l K’ehre. LVIII (August 1912), pp. 38-57 for- the Madison Agreement; pp. 62 369. to 67 the Austin Agreement. W E. P[ardieckj,, “Kirchlirh-Zeitgeschicht- 7-1 F. P lieper), “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichr- liches,” i&i., LYIII (September 191&Z), 413. liches,” L&e rend Wehfe, LVIII’ (May 1912)) Proceeilings. Syr&iral Conference, 19 12, pp. 222, 223. 14-24. 78 Idem, “Welch Schwierigkeiten es fiir Lu- Rt F. B[ente), “Kirchlith-~~it,~esrhichtliches,” theraner macht, in der Lehre von der Gnaden- Lebre and W’ehre. LVIII (November 1912)) wahl, wie sie in der Schrift gelehrt und im 5 15. Cf. pp. 5 1 l-5 15 for additional views. Bekenntnis unserer Kirche bekannt ist, nichr Bente was faulted for reading more into the einig zu sein,” ibid., LVIII (May 1912), 193 journal items. especially in Amerib. than they to 198; ibid. LVIII (June 1912 j, 24l---251. actually said. See F. B{ente), “E;i:c!riich-Zeitee- 79 Ibid., pp. 250, 251. schichtliches,” ibid., LIX ( February 1913), So Both published by Concordia Publishing 81, 82. House, St. Louis. 85 E. Plardieck], “Kirchlich-Zeitgcschicht- respondence between its committee and the church council of the Norwegian Synod. The council declined permission to the Synodical Conference delegates to appear before their body. It elected a spe- cial committee to deal with the committee of the Synodical Conference. The Synod- ical Conference committee stated that it had no instructions for such a procedure, but Dau and Pieper offered to meet with the Norwegian committee as private per- sons upon their own responsibility, No meeting resulted. The Norwegian Synod endorsed the action of its council (1913); the Synodical Conference, of its committee ( 1914). It appointed another committee with broad powers to deal with the Nor- wegian Synod. Pieper, Dau; and SchluetPr were members of this committee.“O The articles of agreement between the three Norwegian church bodies of 1914 arc to be distinguished from the Op~joer. The former are constitutional. They pro- vided, e.g., that the churches would not co-operate with those “who do not share the same faith and confession.” This con- stitutional provision meant a separation from the Synodical Conference, Graeb- ner said.91 The Norwegian Synod’s Lzl- theran Herald made of this remark an excommunication. In reply Graebner stated that the Norwegians were still regarded as brethren, of the household of faith, but that they were being warned .against taking a step that would lead to separation.“” .--- .._. - -_.. 90 Z+oceeA&z~s, S~nodical Conference, 1914, pp. 33-44. 9’ [‘I-h.] G [raebner] , “Kirchlich-zeitge- schichtliches,” Lehre WU! We&e, LX1 (March 1915), 132. 02 Ibid., LX1 (July 1915), 324-326; which also quoted the Lutheran Witness to the same Between 1914 and 1916 the efforts of the Synodical Conference committee to meet with the committee of the Norwc- gian Synod were futile. Nevertheless, the 1916 convention instructed the committee to proceed with conferences (“alle ihm sonst noch zweckentsprechrnd erschcinen- den Lehrbesprechilngen”) ?~ When the Synodical Conference met again in 1920, no such meeting had been held because the Norwegian church council regarded a col- loquium at this tirne inappropriate. “Our people need peace and rest.” 94 In 1918 Howrvcr, between 1012 xld 1320 the the small, nonmerging minority organized union movcrncnt ainong the Nor\vcgian into the Norwegian Synod of the American bodies also rcncu&i within the Missouri Lutheran Church; in 1320 this “Little Nor- Synod thcologi4 qucsrions conncctcd with the doctrine of election. Election to faith, effect and the reply to the Ltlthsralz Stclndard, ibid., pp. 326-328. it R’~S shown aga’in, ufas the Scriptural The United Norwegian Church (ForeneJe teaching.“s With this question was coupled Kirke) was characterized as synergistic, indif- the whole qucsrion of Lttthcran unity.O!’ ferent to pure doctrine or doctrinal differences, and demonstrated Reformed tendencies in its Picper’s ZUT t,i7zi,~ilcrc~e JP~ alz~~riRulzisch- teachings regarding Sunday, chiliasm, the in- iutl~ekcbcu k’i~chc ir2 der Lehe ~:oa der spiration of Scripture, and in its revivalistic activities. Nor was the Hauge Synod regarded Behcbrzm,q t4ud Gwdmu~dd belongs to the as being in line with the traditional teachings stream of Lutheran union movements in of the Lutheran Church, particularly in its 1913. Ir was written specifically, as the sub- attitude toward lay pteaching. The compromise of the Opgjoel made it unacceptable. This was title states, Im Amchiusz a?z die no~ld.:c@ the position taken by Th. Graebner in a rather schen VcreiniR?~lzS.ssii~~~ wzd deren Kriti- thorough examination of the Forelaede Kirke ken. Pieper compared Opgjoer very and the Haugeans. [Th.} Glraebner), “Lehr- stellung der Forenede Kirche und der Hauge- carefully with Article XI of the Formula synode,” Lebre tclzd Wehte, LX1 (March 19 15 ) , and the judgments of the old dogmati- 97-108; ibid., LX1 (April 1915), 200-210. ----. _^_ -_. The terminology of the irztuitu fidei doctrine in the O@gjoer was a toleration of this doctrine 96 Ibid., pp. 22, 2). Grace for Gruce, ed. not in “the sense of Missouri.” This doctrine Ylvisaker, pp. 115-122. was to make room for a corr&t disposition of 90 Proceedin~~s, Synbdical Conference, 1920, a person, at least a person’s readiness to believe, pp. 19, 20. as the cause of his election. Wiese’s pamphlet 97 Proceedings. MO. Synod, 1917, p. 8. in 1915 showed the compromising character of !!s IL. Aug.] Il[eerbot!h, “Die ‘Wahl zum the Madison Agreement. ph.] Gtraebner], Glauben’ austlrticklich in Jer S&rift gelehrt,” “Kirchlich-Zeitschichtliches,” L&e uncl Webye, Lehre fad Wehe, LIX (October 1913)) 433 LX1 (June 1915)) 2%---~80. to 439. 93 Proceedhags, Synodical Conference, 1916, 911 Pieper himself stated that it was “his- pp. 62-79. torisch stark veranlastt” by the Norwegian union g4 Proceedtngr, Synodical Conference, 1920, theses. Ffranz] P[ieper}. “Wird Einigkeit p. 20. werden?” ibid., LX (February 1914)) 50. ?‘I 11: I IIS’I‘oRlCAL UACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 419 1 cinns.‘“” He pleaded: Unity in the truth Church in America had a greater response must bc sought; da putiu and p&a zini- in the circles of the General Council, for z~~i..si;ii.r, the two fundamental doctrines of instance, than it did among the Norwe- conc.crsion and election, arc to be main. gians. The General Synod’s Lutheran tilined in rhcir purity.“‘” The expl;ination pleaded for spiritual unity (“Our Church of the rliscr~rtin @7so?z1it~~0 is not the in America at this moment is forgetting t c1~rcf~icdcne.r vcYbaltc?z.‘~” In an irenic that the underlying preliminary to Church but firm spirit, :IS also Lutheran writers of Enity is not wholly doctrinal, nor practical, orl~r synt~ls zdrnittcd, IJieper plcndc~~ for but spiritual”). ““’ Agreement with other :;n adherence to the teachings of Scripture Lutheran bodies, Pieper replied, depended and the I,~~rhcran <:onfessions as the basis on agreement in doctrine and practice,l”’ for frt!~’ unity.!“‘: especially agreement in the doctrines of Tll~ ct1:1rges 0,C Calvinism, lack of char- conversion and election; the repudiation ity. and 3 want of spirituality wcrc brought of the explanation for election in differing 3g:tir.s; Missouri. “N Not the Norwegians attitudes (“verschiedi?ne men.rchliche Ver- - they largely disregarded Piepcr’s Zz.1~ h&&j must first be made.los I:i:ziCung - but the representatives of the To the cluster of Lutheran mergers, Ohio and Iowa Synod took up the pica, in around 1917 and 1918 the formation of SO~C insranccs were ready to drop these the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of charges, and asked rhat the white fiag be’ Wisconsin and Other States ( 1919) must hoisted and ~C’XC declared. Party consid- be added. The first Evangelical Lutheran erations, I-‘a~teigeisr, alone hindered the Synod of Wisconsin was founded in May possibility of unity in doctrine and prac- 1850; l”!’ the Evange,lical Lutheran Synod rice! they d2clatcd.‘“” of Michigan and Other States was organ- Piep:r’s plea for unity in the Lutheran ized in December 1860;ll” the German - Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Minnesota l”cJ Pieper, Znr Einigs~7g, pp. 27-9 I. was organized in 1860.‘11 In 1892 these 1~1 Ibid., pp. 11-13; E. Prardieck], “Zum three synods formed the Ev. Luth. Joint ‘richtipen Verhalten,’ ” Lehre und Wehre, LIX Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, (December 1913), 529, 548. and Other States.l*” This was not, how- ‘(‘2 Emphasized by I;. P{ieper) in “Kirchlich- Zeit~gcschichtliches,” Lehre und Wehre, LX ever, a complete merger. The Nebraska (January 1914), 34f. mission field grew into the Nebraska Dis- I(‘3 Flranz] Pfieper], “Wird Einigkeit wcr- trict and then in 1904 into the Nebraska den?” ibid., LX (February 1914), 49--60. S lnod ll:j By 1917 a more closely knit ibid., 1-S (March 1914), 97-105; ibid., L,‘; 1 . (May 1914), 193-201; ibid., LX (June 1914), 241-250. 106 Quoted by F[ranz] P[ieper], “Wird Ei- nigkeit werden?” ihid., LX (February 1914)) 5s. Also see the editorial, “Lutheran Union,” Lu:heran K’&less, XXXII (June 19, 191 3)) 97. If)7 Ibid., LX (March 1914), 103. lo4 See the quotation from the Lutbeuan it1 1(‘S Ibid., LX (June 1914), 251 f. Lehre ~tnd Wehre. LX (March 1914), 97-105; J(X) Conrinl/ing in I-l& Word, p. 14. from the Lutheran Herald in ibid., LX (April 110 Ibid., p. 85. 1914), 17%-181. 111 Ibid., p, 101. ‘{Jr, Ibid., LX (June 1914), 25, as quoted by Jlz Ibid., p. 109. Pieper. 113 Ibid., p. 115. 482 THE HISTORICAL DACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” union of this group was needed. The toward associating Lutherans in an over- semi-independent synods, Minnesota and arching organizational structure. Member Nebraska, surrendered the measure of au- bodies included the synods which went to tonomy they had enjoyed. The revised make up the IJLCA, the Norwegian Lu- constitution was accepted in 1919, and the theran Church, the Ohio, the Iowa, and Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Wis- Buffalo synods -the Iowa Synod withdrew consin and Other States came into being.“-l in 1920; the Buffalo Synod, in 1925; the Other plans had been considered, among AT,C became a member in IOiO- and them the plan for a unification or amal- a number of smnllcr Lclrhcran synods. l‘he gamation of all the synods of the Synod- synods of the Synodical Confcrcnce did ical Conference.l15 This plan was advanced not join:lls No moves were made between in 1914, and a Missouri Synod committee 1918 and 1932 ro bring the Missouri had been called into being to work out, if Synod into the National Lutheran Council. possible, a plan of union with the other In general the attitude within the Missouri Synodical Conference synods.’ l 8 A com- Synod toward the council remained crit- mittee of the Wisconsin Synod agreed with ical.“” The organization, however, cnuscd the Missouri committee on amalgamation, less apprehension than did the union of but the moves within the Wisconsin Synod the Norwegian bodies in 1918: stymied these plans.*17 1*X Wentz, Lutheranism in America. pp. 302 In 1918, too, the National Lutheran to 308; [Th.) G[raebner), “Kirchlich-Zeitgc- Council was organized, a major move schichtliches,” Lehrs tmd Wehre, LXIV (No- --- vember 19tS), 520-523; ibill., LXV (Feb- ruary 1919), 86-89. l** Ibid., p. 37. See also Wentz, Lt&erunism in America, pp. 272-278. 119 See,’ e.g., E. Prardieckf in De7 Lzl- theraner, LXXV (Dec. 30, 1919), 427, 428. “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- 115 E. Plardieckf, [Th.] Grraebner) said: “Our criticism of the liches,” #dnd LIX (August 19 13 ) , Lehre Wehre, National Lutheran Council has never been a 370, 37 1. sweeping and unreserved condemnation,” Lu- l16 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1914, p. 175. theran Witnea, XL (April 12, 1921), 11% ~7 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1917, Germ. The first part of the sentence was in bold face ed., pp. 152, 153; Engl. ed., pp. 75,76. type in the original.

(To be concluded) The Historical Background of “A Brief Statement”

The union negotiations among rhr hTor- wegians served to take most of rhe Nor- wegian Synod’s members out of dirccc fellowship with the Missourians. The con- summation of the Norwegian union seemed, on the other hand, to direct the Ohio and Iowa synods toward each other and possibly toward the Missouri Synod. There were other factors, of course, which tended to bring about a partial temporary amelioration of the animosity between the synods. One of these factors was n series of free conferences held in the early years of the twentieth century. Sporadic conferences were held in the 1890s. Two such conferences in Canada in 1872 -perhaps there were more in later years-were regarded as being directed against the Missouri Synod.‘“” Five years or so later free conferences were held be- tween members of the Ohio Synod and the Missouri Synod, entirely private in charac- ter.‘zl In May 1702, a free conference was held in Beloit, Wis.‘“” These conferences -__ -...- ._.. 120 Der Luthermer, XLVIII (March I X92), 41; ibid., XLVIII (Oct. 25, 1892), 176. F. P{ieper), “Zur kirchlichen Chronik,” ibid., XLVIII (March 29, lS92), 57; “Was sie zu Stande bringen wollen, ist nicht sowohl eine kirchliche Einigung der Lutheraner, als ein Lund gegelz f%i.rsozlri.” (Italics in the original.) I*1 Idem, “Vorwort,” Lehre and K’ehre. XLV (January lS99), 2, 3. lzz Ibid., XLlX (May 1903), 142; ibid., XLVIII (July and August 1902), 234, 235. A free conference between pastors of the Michigan Synod and the Missouri Synod on June 12 and 13, 1904, in Jackson, Mich., found 526 A second free conference was held in 1003, this one in Milwaukee, Sept. g-11, attcndd by more than 700 persons. There were 500 persons who actually registered, of whom 377 belonged to the Synodical Conference. Two questions occupied this conference: ” 1. What is the relationship of the universal gracious will of God (der ull~c~~~ci~~c Gnademuillc Gottcs) to predcs- tination iG12aderz?~,cchZj? 2. Must those pas- sages of Holy Writ, which ex professo deal with predestination (e. g., Eph. 1: 1-6, 2 Thcss. 7: 13, Acts 1 .i:/tS), be interpreted according to John 3: 16 and similar pas- sages on universal grace?“l”” The debate revolved around principles of Scriptural interprtitntion. However, another free con- ference. was scheduled for’ Detroit in 190.4 127 Between the Milwaukee and the Detroit confcrcncc a meeting of the Planning Com- mittce ‘~11s held in Chicago on Dec. 20, 1903. Present were: I;. Picpcr and G. Stocckhardt, Missouri Synod; A. Hocnecke Idem, “Die Herichte iibcr die Confcrenz in Watertown,” Lehre zlnd LV7ehre, XLlX (P&y and A. Pieper, Wisconsin Synod; I?. Richter 1903)) 129-l 32, defendeci himself against the and M. Fritschel, Iowa Synod; H. G. Stub, report in the Lutheran, that he mdified his Norwegian Synod; H. A. Allwardt, H. (and the hlissouri Synod’s and the Synodical Conference’s) position. He said (pp. 11~0, 13 1) : Ernst, and I;. W. Stellhorn, from the Ohio “Ich habc in Watertown nichts modifiziert d Synod. The Ohio Synod rcprcscntatives nichts verdeclit, sondern unscrc Srellun,g, wit ich wanted’ to make the 1877 theses (North- sie seit 25 Jahren vertreten habe, unumwunden ins Licht geriickt.” ern District of the Missouri Synod) on the F. B{ente] also found fault with Nicum’s unalogiu /id& the subject of discussion, and report in the Lutheran and cited other journals the first two theses were actually discussed. “Die freie which did not agree with Nicum. The committee mcmbcrs agreed to formu- Conferent in Watertown,” “Kirchlich-Zcit.~e- schichtliches,” Lehre ZUU/ w’ehrs. XLlX (July- late positions on this doctrine and to dis- August 1903), 232 f. cuss the drlalogirt fidci at the Dctroir con- Pieper’s essay was printelI. nz+ ~r~d~lil- fcxence.lY~ fercnz in tlar Lcb~ 2.0~ 116~ lL3Sehrufl.e d ~~na~ienwu~~ (St. Louis: ConcorJia Publishing House, 1903)) 48 yapes. I;. Blentel &sed his 1~ Idem, “Die freie Conferenz in Milwaukee,” review of the essay: “Dicse Schrift Dr. PiePers “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtlichcs,” ibid., XLIX ist ein Eirenicon im besten Sinne des XVorrCS.” ( October 1903) , 304. Ibid., X1.1X (October IOOJ ) . 30 1. ‘3 ltd., pp. 304, 305. i2Ti F. R[entc], ibi about their Synod. They were certain that voted to meet in Fort Wayne in the fol- the free conferences were not s\iccessful lowing year to discuss the doctrine of prc- in convincing their opponents of the error destination.“! of their position. Dr. Picpcr was :itt:lckcd The Detroit Free Conference did not by the Ohio church papers. However, rhe have the opportunity to discuss the areas Missourians were’ rciuctant to break of1 the of agreement and disagreement regarding conferences.‘:‘;’ Missouri was blamed for analogia fide; as set forth for each side re- the SO years of disuniry in the Lurheran spectively by Stellhorn (Ohio and Iowa) church since the o~ga’;ization of the Gen- and by Pieper (Synodical Conference and eral Council.“‘d It was branded as a sect.‘:%‘! Norwegian Synod). The committee, at the request of the Ohio Synod, had substiruted 132 G. StIoeckhardt], “Preie Conferenz in the two general quesrions which were dis- Fort Wayne,” in “Kirchlich-%eitgeschichtliches,” cussed.1”0 Subsequently Pieper form&cd ibid., LI (August 1905), jGS-372. See idem, “Was lehrr St. Paulus Epheser sentences on hermeneutical principles in 1 :3-14 von der Gnadenwahl?” ibid., LI (Ocro- their relationship to the analogia fidei?:I’ ber 1905), 433~44G; ibid., LI (November In 1905 (Aug. S-10) the fourth of the 1905)) 481-489. F. B[ente), “Die intersynoJale Konferenz in free conferences was held. This one took Fort Wayne,” ibid., LII (December 1906), 529 place in Fort Wayne, attended by 200 to to 545; ibid., LIII (January 1907)) I&--33; 300 men. Eph. 1 was discussed; this led to ibid., LIII (February 1907)) 77-8;. See also idem, “Kirchlich-Zeitpeschichtliches,” a discussion of Art. XI of the Formula of ibid., LIII (January 1907)) 36-38. --- F., “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches,” ibid., LIII 1~ G. St{oeckhardt}, “Kirchlich-Zeitge- (hIarch 1907), 127-129. schichtliches,” ibid., I. (April 1904) I74--176. I33 Idem, “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichrliches,” Average attendance, 500, of whom 305 were ibid., LI (November 1905), 512, 513. clergymen; 124 from the Missouri Synod, 10 See idem, “KirchlichZeitgeschichtliches,” from the Wisconsin Synod, 97 from the Ohio ibid., LI (August 1905), .373-375, for rhe Synod, 23 from the Iowa Synod, etc. atracks on Dr. Pieper’s presidential report in De- ~0 F. Plieperl, “Ueber die Analogie oder troit, who found fault with the Ohio Synod for Regei des Glaubens,” ibid., L (Seprember 19041, its position on conversion as synergistic and irs 405-410. analogia jic/ei doctrine. The Iowa Synod. too. 131 Idem, “Schriftauslegung und Analogie F. Bientef declared, was continually arousing des Glaubens,” ibid., LII (November 1906), hatred against Missouri. 481-486; ibid., LIII (January 19O7), 1 I-18; Also see his [Bente’s) “Vorwort,” ibid., 1.11, ibid., LIII (February 1907)) 70-77; ibid., (January 1906)) 1, 2. I-111 (April 1907), 153-160; ibid., I.111 (De- 1~4 Ibid., p. 6. cember 1907), 529-534. 135 Ibid., pp. 7, S. I 1 It. 1-I IS’1 OKIC.AI. IIACtiGKUUND (il: “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 529

&tailed swen points of differenctr- between Iowa and Missouri. Briefly summarized t hey pertained to the questions: 1. What constitutes a divisive doctrine? 2. What is the correct doctrine of the ch arch? .3. What is the Scriptural docrrine of the ministry:’ 4. W’hat about the teachings concerning Slmday? 5. What about eschatological questions? The Antichrist? 6. The miilenium? 7. The first rcsurrcction? Sotcriological qwstions and questions per- taining to conversion remained as major points of diffcr&ce.‘:~!’ In the controversy with the Ohio Synod: Bcnre remarked: “Klarc Bibdsrden ma- chcn auf die Ohioer and o!Gxhe Auslc- gtingen machen auf Missouri keinen Ein- druck.” *lo Ohio limited the .co!a ~;,a&, 13ence maintained.“” There were other free confcrenccs held Lifter these four from 1903 to 1905. They \vere relatively unimportant. Those bc- tween the Missouri Synod pasiors and the General Council pastors in the New York City area around 1909 died out, although the Missouri Synod pastors declared their

1:~’ G. St [oeckhardt]: “Die Lehrdifferenzen zwischen Xlissouri und Iowa,” ibid., L (Ocrober 1004). Cri$---450; ibid... L (November 1904)) 488-49;; ibid., L (December 1904), 533 to 510; with referqnce to Stellhorn’s “Weshalb vcrsap

VU”&i~L~Ug dar lutheri~ then Synoden

Awerihus in2 Wege?“” He surveyed the various Lutheran church bodies in America ir! tllcir historical development and detailed the points of diffcrcnce between each and the Missouri Synod. Bente’s book caused ;I minor controversy, an editorial give-and- take bctwecn church papers of the Ohio Synod and the Missouri Synod.1”4 The controversy was not of such a nature as to disrupt the steps toward formal union negotiations between Missouri and Wis- consin on the one hand and Ohio and Iowa on the other. The free conferences that were being hcid, especially in 1916 and 1917, exercised a strong influence, it may safely be said, in bringing about more official negotiations among the synods. Especially the intersynodical ccnfcrenccs in the Northwest (e. g., St. Paul on May 9, 1917 ) brought pressure on the Missouri Synod to elect an inrersynodical commirtec to examine the theses proposed by such an intersynodical confertnce.lz” Thus, in 1917, the year of the Norwegian merger, rwo years before the Wisconsin Synod for- mally consolidated its forces, the year be- fore the organization of the United Lu- theran Church in America, the year in which union plans among the Lutherans in America were more prominent than in

IL3 Published by Concorclia Publishing House, St. I-ok, in 101-; 110 pages. lyb,i [hf.} S\ommer). “One Prevenrive of Union,” Lutherans U”itness. S SXVI (May 29, 191-j. 15P, 159. Nor part of the conrroversy but of some in- terest is the fact that J. Schaller of the Wiscon- sin $xoJ srated rhar he did not agree with all of lknte’s conclusions, but dici nor detail his &x)ints of &sqreernent. Theoiogixche Quartql- .cchri/t, XIV (AIxil IOI;j, 11.

la,‘, I’rcmdivtq.r. MO. Synod, 1917. Germ. CC!., pp. 15 i. 154; hgl. et]., pp. ‘6, 7’. any year before 1.959, the h1issouri Synod had its first unity or union commitrec. The committee was named by that name; it was regarded, if not so named, as rhc Committee on Intersynodical Matters. Gco. Mczger, J. G. F. Kleinhans, and 0. I.. Ho- henstein were elected ( by ballot ) CO rhc committee. They were instructed to “bc prepared to treat with similar committees representing other Lutheran Synods.” ‘X It may be noted that Piepet was not elected was rc-ciccted to c’.trfy on tllc negotiations to this committee nor was any member of with r\lc 0:hcr syncxis.“‘” ‘1‘1~ Ohio Synod, the Springfield faculty. too, expressed its joy ovcf the progress The other synods also eiccred or ap- made and rcsolvcd to sp:c~d the theses on pointed committees for intersynodicai rc- which agrc~cmcnt had been rcachcd on irs lations. The committees of the respective minutes.“;’ Optimism, therefore, in l QO, synods (Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, and Wis- was not altogcthcr out of order. BtuBalo consin) held a meeting in Sr. Paul on and Iowa had re:~chcd agrccmcnt; Iowa and Feb. 6, 7, 1918, and agreed to meet again Ohio had arri\.cct nr that point CKli~r; from July 23 to 25 in Milwaukee.“’ Missouri and Wisconsin hatI reached ac- A series of six meetings was held between cord with Ohio ;lnd IOX\Y~ on the doctrine 1917 grid the 1920 Derroir convention of of conversion. “Arc avc’ I00 I;,lrtpuinc if the Missouri Synod. The Intersynodical avc hope rhat, the be:tcr our position is Board (Intersynodale Kommission, - the known,” it was snic!, “the grc2tw the num- official title of the committee elected in ber of our friends v.,ill bccomc? - that in 1917 -reported that ten theses on con- the end n majority of all Lutherans \yiil version had been agreed on. Progress was enter into relations of fe-llowship writh us being made toward agreement in the doc- on the basis of the i.uthcran Confcs- trine of election, but agreement had not sions j“ If?2 yet been achieved. The Synod was ready Bcrwecn 1970 and 1923 three or four .‘r* to continue these meetings and expressed meetings w2rc held annually by the rcprv- a prayer for unity with the Ohio and Iowa scntatiws of the jive synods (Wisconsin. synods.l,‘s Iowa, Ohio, Buffalo, and Missouri j. ThciI The Committee on Intersynodical Matters ivork was slow: no attempt was mlde to reported that our committee and the com- mittee of the Wisconsin Synod has since lx) fTh.1 G [racbner), “The Story of the Convention,” 1918 carried on doctrinal discussions with L14therar2 1t~'itPtPJ.i. XXSIS (July 6, 1920), 213. 1~’ E. E., “Bericht tiber unsere Dekgaten- l.T(; Ibid. I synode,” Der iAheraner. LSSVI (Juli 1 j, ~7 De? Lathermer, LXXIV (Feb. 26, 1920)) 233. 1918), 84. 161 Ibid., LXSVl (Scpr. 21, IOX), .?I?. l68 Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1920, Germ. 1~ ITh.1 GCraebntr], “Prwpects for Lu- ed., pp.239-241 (the report of the committee theran Church Union,” Lztherlm W’irne.r.r. in full); Engl. ed., pp. $3, 84. XXXIX (Sept. l/t, 1920)) 204. ‘~‘f-if: t{lS’I’ORlCAL UACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 533

Church is found in false doctrine and harm- ful, destructive practices based upon this false teaching.” l(jci Wir kijnnen riie Sachiage so zusammen- The Intersynodical Committee with the f;lSSC.fl : %u wahrcr Einigung in der corresponding committees of the other christilchcn I>chrc van der Bckchrung und synods, in the meanwhile, agreed on theses Gn&nwahl gchijrt unzwcidcutig fest- and antitheses regarding the doctrines of zustcllcn, 01) man in clcrn Satz von der conversion and election. However, a num- “glciC!ic~n SchLJld“ UrJd &In “gleich tibkn ber of protests were lodged against them \‘uh:tlten” cinig ist, wcnn die Mcnschen, at the convention of the Missouri Synod wclchc l>ckchrt uncj sclig w&en, mit den hlcnschen, wclchc ;;nbekchrt bleihen und in I 923. A Prijf~nX”kommi.fsiorc, so desig- 1 criorcn gchcn, wrglichm we&. . . . nated by the Synod, was elected and was Wenn man cliest’ bcidcn Mcnschcnklassen given until the end of 1925 to examine mitcin:inder vergleiche, mii.rse man ganz and judge these theses and antitheses. In notwcn,!ig lehrcn, class Bckchrung und the meanwhile the Intersynodical Com- Sclipkcit nicht ailtin von Gottcs Gnade, mitee was to continue its discussions with sondtrn such van scinem .“vcrschiedentn the other synods.’ (ii Th. Graebner replaced Vcrilaitcn.” scincr sclhsrbcstimmung, sci- Hohcnstein on this commirtee; Kleinhans seincr geringcren ncr Sclbstsctzung, continued to serve.16* Mezger, although Qhui~!,.> soincr Unterlassung dcs fnutwil- reappointed to this committee, could not ligcn Widcrsrrcbcns usw. aMange.“;:! serve because of his transfer to Germany and was replaced by Wm. Arndt.l”!’ Th. Engelder, R. Neitzel, professors at Concor- dia Theological Seminary in Springfield, and Pastor P. Schulz of Springfield were elected to the Priif~n~s:skonzmission.“” -- Discussion of the differekes was re- 1 Ii:< I:, P[ieper), “Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- liches,” Lehre und Wehre,, LXVlI (July 1921)) garded as the only way in which agree- 214. ment between Lutheran bodies could be 1~1 [Tkj G[rachnerj, “Why Lutherans Can- achieved. The Intersynodical Committee nof I;nirc.” Lr~:hl,~+rzn \Pir,2e:.r. XSXVI (Jan. 9, and unofficial conferences were helpful 19 17 ) , 6; idem, “The Greatest Hinclrance to Lu- theran Uniq,” ibid., XXXVI (Feb. 20, 1017), toward this end. In 1923 a note of quiet 54 f.; idem? “Why Lutherans Cannot link,” but genuine optimism was still discernible ibid., XXXVI (Aug. 21, 1917), 263’(“Union- - - . . _ -.- ism is a bar to rrue unity”); idem, “Unionism lfx [M.) S(ommer), Defined,” ibid., XXSVII (Oct. 29, 1918 i, 316 “Who Is Guilty of (“Ir [unionism] lays the ax at the roof of Lu- Keeping Lutherans Apart?” ibid., XI-11 (Jan. 2, theran church life”). 1923), 5. lfii lQwcesdin~.~, MO. Synod, 1923, Germ. IliT, [lM.] S{ommer], “Union Without Unity,” txi., pp. 223-229; Engl. ed., p. 92. ibid., XXXVI (Dec. 25, 1917), 406; [Th.] G{raehnerj, “Unionism Without Unity Is Trea- 1~ Ibid. Germ. ed., p. 240; Engl. ed., p. 92. son,” ibid., XL (March 29, I?2 1 ), 104; {Wm.) Ifi!) Proceedings, MO. Synod; 1926, Germ. .%{rndt), “The Aim of the Synodical Confer- ed., p. 223; En& ed., p. 136. ence: Unity Rather than Union,” ibid., XL1 1~ Proceedingst MO. Synod, 1923, Germ. (July 4, 19221, 216. ed., p. 229. -agreement might be reached between the Ohio and Iowa synods and the Synod- ical Conference. 171 There was a readiness even to stress the fact that doctrinal dif- ferences still existed. A “Lutheran Forum,” for instance, in Chicago heard William Dallmann speak on “Things Which Dis- unite” in October 1924.“” In this same year Pieper delivered an essay at the Ore- gon and Washington District of the Mis- souri Synod on “Unionism.” He said: Holy Scriptures teach very emphatically and in manifold ways that all fellow-ship i.ric) with false doctrine is forbklclen of God and detrimental to the Church.li:’ In applying this proposition he rejected union with the, Reformed denominations, “both such as teach that God does not de- sire the salvation of ail men, as well as those that maintain that God does not by grace alone wish to save and convert men.” Then he added: “It is a regrettable fact that the latter false doctrine has found

171 {Th.} Gltaebner}, “Lutheran Union,” Lutheran When, XL11 (Aug. 14, 1923), 263. He said: “For this purpose {to bring about agreement] our Synod has an Intersynodical Committee. For this purpose, too, unofficial con- ferences between out men and the representa- tives of other bodies have been held and are being held. These negotiations have not been without blessed result, and the hope is bright for the removal of differences which have been 174 Ibid., p. 10. In italics in the original. a cause of schism and disunion.” 175 Ibid., p. 1’). Also see EM.] SIommer], ” ‘Ohio,’ ‘Iowa,’ 17~ Paul Lindemann, “ChL!rch Union,” A ser- and ‘Missouri,’ ” ibid., XLII (Oct. 23, 1923), mon delivered at the convention of the Nor- 341: “Entire agreement has not yet been wegian Synod, June 6, lO?O, at .&linncapolis, achieved, because all the points of controversy Minn., on John 10: 1 G? ~~lu~clzi?z fii~ emng.-lrttb. have not been fully discussed, but progress has Homiletik und I’a.rtovalltheoloni~. XLIV (Otto- been made, and the effort will be continued.” ber 1920), 465 f. Ii? Ibid., XLIII (Nov. 18, 1924), 420. ITi [Th.] Giraebner], “Letters to a Young 173 F. Pieper, Unionism: What Does the Preacher,” Tenth Letter. ;Ilagazin fiir ewmg.- R&e say ahoat Chtirch-Union? trans. J. A. Rim- 1?&7. Homiletik unrf I’a.rtora~theol/,Rie. SI.lV bath and E. H. Brandt (Oregon City, Oreg.: (December 192,0), 566. Oregon City Enterprise for the Oregon and 178 W. Arndt, “The Lutheran Church and Washington District of the Missouri Synod, Unionism,” Theological Afontbly, VI ( Novem- {1925] ), b. 5. In italics in the original. ber 19.26), 311-328. I.1 II: ii IS’lT~RICAl. UACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 535

The Missouri Synod leaders were more concerned, however, by the fact that these synods were negotiating with the Norwc- gian Lutheran Church and had agreed on the h/linfzeapolis 7’/$escs in 1925. These theses dealt with the following topics: the Scriprurcs; the Lutheran Symbols; Church Fellowship; the Chicago Theses of 1919 ( the work of Christ, the Gospel, absolu- tion, Uaptism, justification, faith, conver- sion, and election j; the lodge question; and a declaration of mutual rccognition.18” Meetings were continued also between the representatives of the Synodical Con- fcrence and of the Ohio and Iowa Synods (but not the Norwegian Lutheran Church). When the Missouri Synod committee re- ported to the convention in St. Louis in 1926 it could state that agrccmenc had been reached with the committees of these synods on m:my points: the doctrines of the Scriptures (deemed necessary because of its importance for unity, although no controversy had raged on this point except on the q:lestion of amlogi,a fide;), at- titude toward the Confessions, church fel- lowship, the church, the spiritual priest- hood, the ministry, Antichrist, chiliasm, Sunday, and open questions. The adequacy of these theses was to be Synod’s decision on the basis of the report of the Examin- ing Committee. In any eventuality con- tinued discussions with the other Synods wcrc urged.‘“-’ The convention r&joiced over the prog-

10.?6), ,310. Cf. ibid., LXX11 (November 1926)) j4.2 , .%‘r,3 re these differences. 1~ Doctrinal Declarations. pp. 20-23; Bruce, pp. S I--Si; Th~oiogical 11iontbly. VII (April 19?T), 1 I.!--ll?. l ‘:I Proceedings, MO. Synod. 1976. Germ.

d. - 1,n1 2 :, -L’“4. fess which hnd been made. It found that “the Lutheran doctrine has not yet in all points received such expression as is clear, precise, adequate, and exclusi\fc of 311 error.” Pastoral conferences Lvrre IO Sttiti). them. It rc-dected the personnei of the intersynodical Committee, \vith instruc- tions to remove other obsraclcs to\v:rrd unity and union, among rhcm the- ciiii’cring concept of Christian fellowship.15’l This convention also heard the report of rh< Examining Committee, which had been appointed to review the producrs of the Intersynodical Committee. It rccommendeci about 24 changes, both in the theses on conversion and election submirred in 1921 and the additional theses agreed on bc- tween 1923 and 1926. It found these changes “necessary” !niitiQq) .lsc With the encouragemen: of the conven- tion the Missouri Synod Intersynodical Committee (Th. Engeider had rcplnccd Th. Graebner) continued meeting with the committees of the other synods. The revisions of the Missouri Synod Prifwgs- konzitee were presented to this joint com- mittee. Most of them were accepted; none were rejected for doctrinal reasons. Im- portant additions were made, especially a section treating election ilzt.z&u fi$ci, and one expa.nding the section on chiliasm.‘“7 The final formation was the well-known “Chicago, Theses Concerning Conversion, Predestination, md Other Doctrines,” adopted by representatives of the Buffalo, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin

lr6 Ibid., pp. 227-229; En& ed., pp. I 40 f. lH6 Ibid., Germ. ed., pp. 225, 226; En& ed., pp. 135-137. lsi Reports and Memorials. MO. Synod, 1929, pp. 130, 131. It woLil

the Scriprurcs 3ix.I the Lutheran Confes- . . . 10:~ Procee~r’in~~.r. Mo. Synod. 1727, pp. 110 to 112; the quotation is from p. i 12. Italics added. The German report. which is much smoother than the English, is in Reports and ~~femoriafs. Alo. Synod, 1927: pp. 131-134. The Chicago Theses will be examined in more detail in Section IV of this essay. 19-l Procdhgs, Mo. Synod, 1927. p, 112; KePorts and Afemoria/s. 1727, p. 134, where the protest is given in full in German. 538 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” sions has been made.” In other respects, “as a brief Scriptural statement of the doc- too, it toned down, as best it could, the trinal position of the Missouri Synod.” lQs raspiness of the report of the Examining The Synodical Conference as such was Committee. Committee 19 did not, how- not involved in the conferences and theses ever, recommend the acceptance of the of the years 1917 to 1929, although the Chicago Theses. Nor did it recommend Wisconsin Synod representatives partici- that all negotiations be broken off. It pated. Nor did the Synodical Conference recommended that a committee be ap- accept A Brief Statement-it was never pointed by the President of Synod ‘Lo asked to do so. formulate theses which, beginning with Now 29 years later, in almost another the stattis co&ouersi?ae, are to present the generation and in the midst of another doctrine of the Scriptures and the Lutheran round of union movements, it has become Confessions in the shortest, most simple a symbol of controversy within the church manner.” In other words, this committee body that fathered it. was to draw up a brief statement on doc- We must look at its period of literary trines in controversy. The recommenda- gestation before we can conclude. tions of Committee 19 were adopted. The report stated: IV It was emphasized that future discussion MAJOR DOCTRINAL FORMULATIONS be contingent on the following two con- W ITHIN THE MISSOURI SYNOD ditions: 1887-1932 a) That the move toward fellowship Only against the backdrop of the move- between the Ohio and Iowa synods, on ments within the Missouri Synod, major the one hand, and the Norwegian Lutheran theological movements of the period and Church, on the other, be first adjusted Missouri’s reaction to them, and the de- according to the Word of God; velopments within Lutheranism in Amer- b) That future deliberations proceed ica can the form and phraseology of the from the exact point of controversy and take into account the pertinent history.19” Brief StatemeBnt of 1932 be understood. The literary genesis of this document must Between 1929 and 1932, therefore, there also be considered. What does it owe to were no intersynodical conferences. Uni- its predecessors, if any? Who is its major lateral action was taken to formulate author? A Brief Statement by the committee ap- The second question can be answered pointed by President Pfotenhauer. This very simply. It was !Francis Pieper, profes- committee consisted of F. Pieper, W. Wen- sor of theology at Concordia Seminary, ger, E. A. Mayer, L. A. Heerboth, and Th. St. Louis, from 1878 to 1931 and its presi- Engelder. With only a few stylistic changes dent from 1887 to 1931. After the death and with the elevation of the English ver- of Dr. C. F. W. Walther he was regarded sion to co-equal official position with the as the “Elisha” on whom Walther’s mantle German, the theses were adopted in 1932 had fallen. His essays at synodical and dis- -- IQ5 Pmceedings, MO. Synod, 1929, pp. 112, IQ0 Pmceedings, MO. Synod, 1932, pp. 154, 123. 155. ‘I’1 It: II19 0KIC:AI. f~ACKC;iIOUND 01: “A bllIEF STATEMENT” 5.39

of 1932. Two other formulations must also be noted. Both are from the pen of Francis Piqxr; both appeared in 1893. The one is rhc essay read at the convention of the Missouri Synod, giving a survey of the doctrine and practice of the Synod.” ‘The second is in English, a cdntribution to a symposium on the distinctive doctrines of the individual Lutheran church bodies in America.’ In his ‘1893 synodical essay Picper began \virh rtx position of the Missouri Synod tonard th? Holy Scripcures. He noted the attacks on Holy Scriptures. I>ic hciligc Schrift sol1 nicht m&r das unichibarc Gottcswort sein, dem sich alles, ~1s Mcns~h hcisst, im Glaubensgehorsam zu untcrwcrfcn hat, sondern ein Buch, das :Lucll irrige Mcnschcnmcinungen enthalte, an dem &her die Menschen Kritik iibcn kijnnrcn und m&ten? He called this position to chc Scriptures ,qott/os.” Higher criticism was treated, in Picpcr’s own phrase, without a compli- illent.“’ The doctrine of God was discussed . . (; Francis Pieper, ‘Zberblick iiber unsere Stellung in Lehre und Praxis, welche wir als Synode dem uns umgebenden Irrthum und Missbrauch gegeniiber einnehmen,” Proceedings, MO. Synod, 1893, pp. 26-53. 7 The six essays in the volume are by M. Loy on the Ohio Synod, M. Valentine on the General Synod, S. Fritschel on the Iowa Synod, H. E. Jacobs on the General Council, E. ‘I’. Horn on the United Synod of the South, and F. Pieper on the Synodical Conference. See F. Pieper, “The Synod&l Conference,” The Disrincti~e Doc- trines and l:saKes of the General Bodies of the Eoangelicaf Lutheralz Chzrrch in the United States (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication So- ciety, I873 ) , pp. 117-l 66. 8 Pieper, “Cberblick,” Proceedings. MO. Synod, 1873, pp. 26,2’. !’ Ibid.. p. 27. 10 Ibid., p. 30. 540 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” by him before he proceeded to a discussion tion of the next major division, after which of the doctrines of conversion, justification, Pieper turned to the topic “‘On ‘Open election, and the church. He talked about Questions.’ ” He dealt with the position the visible and the invisible church as well of the Synodical Conference on the ques- as orthodox and heterodox church bodies. tions of Sunday, the Antichrist, and abso- Chiliasm and the Antichrist came in for lution before he turned to the major treatment, the latter longer than the for- doctrines of justification, conversion, and mer. Under “*practice” he discussed church predestination. This last doctrine received discipline and the position of the Missouri rather extensive treatment, including ‘Ob- Synod toward the union movement (Ver- jections to this doctrine” and the assurance ekigmgsbestrebmgen) of the day. He re- of election.12 fered brieffy to Missouri’s position on The doctrine of predestination was lodges.ll treated more extensively in the English The second of his essays in 1893, this in essay than in the German one. The “Four English -possibly translated by W. H. T. Points,” too, received more extensive treat- Dau, although this is nowhere stated- ment in the former. Oddly, it may seem, borrowed heavily from the first, and it was the doctrine of Scripture was not treated in some respects a simple rewrite of the in the English essay, although it had been German essay. The German essay had treated first in the German essay. Of thir- about 13,000 words; the English, about teen major topics treated in the two essays 10,000. It brought out in an evangelical five were treated in both; three in the fashion the points on which the Missouri German essay only; five in the English Synod differed from other Lutheran church essay only. bodies. However, the parallels and the differ- Pieper began this English essay with ences between A Brief Statement of 1897 a discussion of the doctrine of the church. and A Brief Statement of 1932 are of He defined the term .and showed the im- greater significance. The 1922 version has portance of the doctrine. He spoke of the some variations in language, but it is not invisible and the visible church, the uni- as significant as either the 1897 or the versal church and particular churches, or- 1932 document. AlI of the topics treated thodox and heterodox churches. The “Four in the 1897 document were treated also in Points” commanded his attention: chiliasm, the 1922 and 1932 statements; the 1932 pulpit fellowship, altar fellowship, and se- took up four other topics, of which three cret societies. Then he turned to the dm- had been treated by Pieper in his 1893 trine of the ministerial office; under this English essay. Table II provides an over- caption he included the topic of ordination, view of the topics treated in each of the the right of judging on questions of doc- presentations.13 trine, the obedience due to the ministerial office, and the relation of synods to congrew I2 Pieper, “The Svnodical Conference.” D~S- gations. “Of Church-Union” was the cap- -- 13 G-1893 is the document referred to in footnote 6 E-1893 is the document referred to 11 Ibid., passim. in 7. ?‘HE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT” 541

Table 1Z comes in the last paragraph. Here the TOPICS TREATED IN FIVE MISSOURI 1932 reading is different in its phrase- SYNOD DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS ology throughout, noting the Unitarians 1887-1932 and the synergists specifically and con- demning those, too, who “again mix hu- 123 18:3 1897 1922 1932 Of the Holy Scriptures X x x xman works into the artide of justification Of God X x x x by ascribing to nian a cooperation with Of Creation x x x God in the kindling of faith. . . ,” l5 Thus Of Man and Sin x x x Of Redemption x x x in including “objective justification” and Of Faith in Christ x x x warning against the Verschiedenheit des Of Conversion x x x x x menscblicben Vedaltens it was meeting Of Justification x x x x x Of Good Works x x x two of the issues that had been raised Of the Means of Grace x x xsince 1887. Of the Election A Brief Statement of 1932 was not in- ’ of Grace x x x x x Of the.ourcfi -~~-.---I. X-. X. .X.._.._, X _____& tended to be a summary of the beliefs held .Of the_Public-.Ministry. I_ .-_ ..-. X- -- X-X--. X., : by the Missouri Synod, at least not accord- Of’*the Millennium x x x ing to the 1929 resolutions. It became Of the Antichrist x x x x x Of Church and State x x x that in effect because it relied so heavily Of Sunday X X on the 1897 statement with the @@endage Of Open Questions X X of four sections. The intention was that Of the Symbols of the Lutheran Church X it should deal primarily with the questions Of Church Fellowship X X which were in statti controuersiue. Since Of Church Discipline X the resolutions came in connection with X Of Absolution the rejection of the Chicago Theses, it To give a detailed textual criticism of would seem that the new document should the 1897, the 1922, and the 1932 docu- set forth in detail the Missouri Synod on ments would seem to serve little purpose. the points on which there was disagree- One illustration might s&&e, that on the ment with these theses. Such was not the article on justification. The 1932 document case, however. A Brief Staternest of 1932 adds the clause “that God has already de- weaves into an existing document the doc- clared the whole world to be righteous in trinal position of the Missouri Synod on Christ, Rom. 7: 19; 2 Cor. 5: 18-21; Rom. questions that had been discussed in the 4:25; . . .” Instead of saying (as did the years following the original framing of 1897 and 1922 statements), %ho believe that document. So, for initance, the article in Christ, that is, believe that for Christ’s on the Scriptures brings an echo of the sake their sins are forgiven,” the 1932 ver- Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy, the sion says, ‘*who believe in Christ, that is, article on creation reffects opposition to believe, accept, and rely on {da& be- evolutionism, the article on justification rahefi), the fact that for Christ’s sake their repudiates those who deny gniversalis sins are forgiven.” l4 There are one or two gratis. other variations. The greatest variation The question remains, In how far did -- 1* Paragraph 17. 15 Paragraph 19. 542 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF “A BRIEF STATEMENT”’

A BGef Staternest deal with the same the space in the Chicago Theses was ac- questions with which the C&ago Theses cupied by these two doctrines. In view dealt? Again, a tabular overview may be of the happenings from 1880 to 1928 this helpful in arriving at a quick, satisfactory was not altogether surprising. What is answer. Table III makes it evident that surprising is that A Brief Statemelzt deals the doctrines of conversion and election, with topics with which the Chicago Theses are not concerned. Even more surprising, Table ZZZ at least to some individuals, is the lack of COMPARISON OF A BRIEF any direct refutation - if refutation was STATEMENT ( 1932) WITH THE CHICAGO needed -of the Chicago Theses. How- THESES (1928) ever, A Bkef Statement is a reaction to (,, Chicago Brief Topic Theses Statement the total theological climate of the 1880s x Of the Holy Scriptutes D, 1-3 l-3 to the late 192Os, particularly to the events Of God 4 in Lutheranism in America. 2 Of Creation The 1897 document spoke in more uni- Of Man and of Sin A, 1 * z7 Of Redemption B, 1-4 1- 8’ versa1 tones -it does not need to be read Of Faith in Christ 9 in reverse to see the questions to which Of Conversion A, l-10 10-G it was addressed-than did the 1932 doc- Of Justification B, 1-4 “r 17-19 Of Good Works 20 ument. It spoke with an evangelical, con- Of Means of Grace 2 l-23 fessional voice, but it was not a polemical Of the Church D, 14-15 24-27 product. The 1897 Brief Statement, in the On Church Fellowship D, 9-13 28-29 The Spiritual Priesthood D, 16-17 30 ___,_ I .,_., opinion of the present writer, answers the Of the Public Ministry ,D, lSm2~-+-31-,33 “1 need of the 1960s better than does its Of Church and State 34 1932 offspring, because it has less of an Of the Election of Grace C, l-8 35-40 ad hoc character. The 1932 document ’ Of Sunday D,25-26 41 Of the Millennium D, 23-24 42 seems to him an illustration of pouring Of the Antichtist D,21-22 43 new wine into old bottles. The church Of Open Questions D, 27-29 44 might have been served better if modifica- Of the Symbols of the tions had been made in the Chicago Lutheran Church D, 4-8 45-48 Theses where they may have been neces.sary. Be T quite properly, bulked largest in both dot- that as it may. If the 1932 Btief State- mmm. Almost 50 per cent of the space merit is indeed a product of the Middle in A Brief Statement and 75 per cent of __I- Period of the Missouri Synod, can it serve as an adequate statement of her beliefs at ’ Section A is headed “Conversion.” the close of the third period of her history? t Section B is headed “UniversaI Will of Grace.” St. Louis, MO. ‘