CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY

The Paperback in the Pew DONALD L. DEFFNER

The Historical Background of "A Brief Statement" CARL S. MEYER

Homiletics

Theological Observer

Book Review

OL. xxxn August 1961 No.8 The Historical Background of "A Brief Statement" (Continued) By CARL S. MEYER

III ance of this organization has been stated MOVEMENTS WITHIN by Wentz from his point of view as follows: IN AMERICA, 1887-1932 It provided the means and agencies for Important as are the major theological prosecuting independent Lutheran educa­ movements in America and Germany be­ tional, missionary, 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.s have their roots in previous periods. The withdrawal of the Pennsylvania Min­ Without an understanding of these move­ isteriurn in 1823 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. Schmucker, 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).4 The Gen­ was in, what Jacobs calls, the period of eral Synod had resolved: revival and expansion (1817-60).1 Early In this seminary shall be taught, in the in that period the General Synod had been German and English languages, the funda­ organized (1820) by the Pennsylvania mental doctrines of the sacred Scriptures Ministeriurn, the New York Ministerium, as contained in the . the North Carolina Synod, and the Mary­ It required that every instructor on the land and Synod.2 The import- 172-186; Jacobs, pp.351-361; Fr. Bente, 1 Henry E. Jacobs, A History 0/ the Evangel- American Lutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia ical Lutheran Church in the United States, Vol. Publishing House, 1919), II, 12-175; Abdel IV: The American Church History Series, ed. R. Wentz, A Basic in Philip Schaff et alii; 5th ed. (New York: America (Philadelphia: The Muhlenburg Press, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907), p.349. 1955), 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, History of the Gettysburg Synod," The Lutheran Church Review, XI (Jan- Theological SemmM'Y (Philadelphia: The Muh­ uary 1892), 61-70; ibid., XI (April 1892), lenberg Press, 1926). 466 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 467 teaching staff of the seminary subscribe to their own conscience, having none to mo­ the statement: lest them or make them afraid. In the I believe the Augsburg Confession and the Lutheran church in this country, each of the above views has some advocates, though catechism of Luther to be a summary and just exhibition of the fundamental doc­ the great body of our divines, if we mis­ take not, embrace either the second or the trines of the Word of God.5 third.7 The changes made in the Augsburg Con­ The Definite Platform was an attempt to fession by Schmucker, therefore, in the make Lutheranism more conformable to "Definite Synodical Platform" of 1855 the American ecclesiastical scene, Puritan must be regarded as deviations from the in its outlook and Calvinistic in its theo­ adopted stand of the church body. logical orientation. However, only three Schmucker maintained that the Augsburg small Lutheran synods accepted it - the Confession approved the ceremonies con­ Olive Branch Synod, the Wittenberg nected with the Roman Mass, condoned Synod, and the East Ohio Synod. The private confession and absolution, and organization of the Melanchthon Synod by taught incorrectly on the Lord's Day, bap­ followers of Schmucker in 1857 caused tismal regeneration, and the Real Presence further misgivings within the General in the Lord's Supper.6 As early as 1834 Synod, into which it had been admitted, Schmucker indicated his views regarding up to the time of its reunion with the the Lord's Supper: Maryland Synod (1869).8 The young After a protracted and unprofitable strug­ gle, the Lutheran church has long since 7 Schmucker, Popular Theology, p.305. The settled down in the happy conviction, that "second view" referred to is: "That the bread on this, as on all other subjects not clearly and wine remain in all respects unchanged; that determined by the inspired volume, her the glorified human nature of Christ is not sons shall be left to follow the dictates of substantially (essentially) present at all, but only influentially, efficaciously and virtually; that is, by a special supernatural influence exerted on 5 Quoted by Jacobs, p.367 from Catalogue all communicants at the time when they receive and Constitution for 1840, p. 10. The Constitu­ the bread and wine" (p.300, in italics in the tion of the General Synod had no confessional original) . The "third view" is: "The third paragraph. See the English translation by Dr. opinion is, that there is no presence of the Endress in S. S. &hmucker, Elements of Popular glorified HUMAN nature of the Saviour, either Theology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: S. S. Miles, substantial or influential, nOf any thing myste­ 1845), pp.451-457. The "Formula for the rious or supernatural in the eucharist; yet that Government and Discipline of the Evangelical whilst the bread and wine are merely symbolic Lutheran Church," Appendix I, ibid., pp. 420 to representations of the Saviour's absent body by 450, likewise 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 estant Christendom as the Old and New worthy communicants, by which their faith and Testaments." (P.240) Christian graces are confirmed." (P.303; italics 6 Definite Platform: Doctrinal and Dis­ in the original) ciplinarian, for Evangelical Lutheran District 8 The best account of this episode in Amer­ Synods; Constructed in Accordance with the ican Lutheranism is still Vergilius Ferm, The Principles of the General Synod, 2d ed. (Phil­ Crisis in American Luthel'an Theology: A Study adelphia: Miller & Burlock, 1856). See also of the Issue Between American Lutheranism and "Americanisch-Iutherische Kirche," Lehre und Old Lutheranism (New York and London: The Wehre, I (October 1855), 319, 320. Century Co., 1927). H. Hoyer, "Die sogenannte 468 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"

Missouri Synod followed the events in the General Council. They had helped to General Synod with interest, but found the strengthen Lutheran confessionalism and Definite Platform very inadequate.9 This in that way served to bring together some document, nevertheless, had one very of the synods that met in Fort Wayne in perceptible influence on the Missouri 1867 to organize the General Council. Synod: it was the immediate occasion for These synods were: The Pennsylvania Walther's invitation for free conferences Ministerium, the New York Ministerium, of all Lutherans subscribing to the Augs­ the Pittsburgh Synod, the English District burg Confession.1o Synod of Ohio, the English Synod of Ohio, These free conferences, held in Colum­ the Canada Synod, the Augustana Synod, bus (1856), Pittsburgh (1857), Cleve­ the Wisconsin Synod, the Michigan land (1858), and Fort Wayne (1859), Synod, the Minnesota Synod, and the discussed the Augsburg Confession. The Illinois Synod.12 Representatives 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." 13 The Illinois Synod ical Conference of 1872 may safely be and the Minnesota Synod withdrew from listed among the fruits of these endeavors.11 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 Americanische Dberarbeitung der Augsburgi­ faction with the General Council's stand schen Confession," Lehre und Webre, I (No­ on these questions.15 The Wisconsin vember 1855), 336-341. 9 Ibid., I (December 1855), 381£.; ibid., II (January 1856), 28; ibid., II (March 1856), 12 S. E. Ochsenford, Documentary History of 95, 96; ibid., II (July 1856), 223, 224; ibid., the Genet'al Council of the Evangelical Lutheran II (October 1856), 320; these are all news Church it; North America (Philadelphia: Gen­ notes. See H. Hoyer's review of W. ]. Mann's eral Council Publishing House, 1912), p.147; A Plea for tbe Augsburg Confession in Answer Bente, American Lutheranism, II, 176-227. to Objections of the Definite Platform in Lehre The influence of the immigrant Midwest Lu· und Wehre, II (March 1856), 75-83; "The theranism on Lutheranism in the East is analyzed Broken Platform," ibid., II (March 1856), 92 in detail by Carl Mauelshagen, American Lu­ to 94; Definite Platform, ibid., III (January theranism Surrenders to Forces of Conservatism 1857),27,28. (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, Division 10 [CO F. W. Walther], "Vorwort zu Jahr­ of Publications, 1936). gang 1856," ibid., II (January 1857), 1-5. 13 Ochsenford, p. 155 and pp.328-380. 11 E. 1. Lueker, "Walther and the Free Lu­ 14 Ibid., pp. 235, 336. theran Conferences of 1856-1859," CONCOR­ 15 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.ls a unionistic practice." 16 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 United Lutheran Church in America on ferences within the Lutheran Church so Nov. 16, 1918. This group, the United that there 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.19 (1861).17 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 mCA 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, Lutheranism in America, pp. the Middle Period may, however, be in 279ff.; F. B{ente}, "The United Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the South," order. Lehre und Wehre, LXIII (January 1917), 7 to The differences between the Missouri 16 (the article is in German). Synod and the Buffalo Synod centered in The Missouri Synod criticized the ULCA merger of 1918 because the uniting bodies devi­ questions of church polity. The Hirte1zbrief ated from sound Lutheran practices and allowed errors by men in their midst who denied verbal 18 Wentz, Lutheranism in America, p.284; inspiration, taught co-operation in conversion, Doctrinal Declarations: A Collection of Official tolerated evolutionism, supported the prohibition Statements on the Doctrinal Position of Various movement, permitted lodgery, and condoned Lutheran Synods in America (St. Louis: Concor­ unionism. [Th.} G[raebner}, "The Merger," dia Publishing House, n. d.) p.3; also see F. Lutheran Witness, XXXVII (Oct. 29, 1918), B[ente}, "Lerubasis der Generalsynode seit 340-342; ibid., XXXVII (Nov. 12, 1918), 1913," Lehre und Wehre, LXII (January 1916), 354--356; ibid., XXXVII (Nov. 26, 1918), 1-7; ibid., LXII (February 1916), 58-69. 372,373; ibid., XXXVII (Dec. 10,1918),386, 19 F[riedrich} B[enteJ, "The United Lutheran 387; ibid., XXXVII (Dec. 24, 1918), 403 to Church und das Federal Council," Lehre und 406. Idem, "Two Types of Lutheranism," ibid., Wehre, LXVIII (August and September 1922), XXXVIII (June 10, 1919), 180-183. 257; see pp.248-257 for the entire article. 470 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" of J. A. A. Grabau in 1840 had brought the history of the Missouri Synod. Wil­ about a rejoinder from the Saxons who helm Loehe had a hand in promoting the later participated in the organizing of the Iowa Synod, as he had helped the Missouri Missouri Synod. They disliked the strong Synod. The Iowa Synod, in fact, is a prod­ clericalism of the Pmssian 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. M. Grossmann, 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 settlements in Michigan - set­ falo Synod, some of the pastors joining the tlements sent over by Loehe that had be­ Wisconsin Synod.20 The Buffalo Synod was come organized congregations 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 IOUJaische Oppositionssynode.23 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 met in col­ The Missouri Synod, nevertheless, remained loquy with representatives of the Iowa conscious of her rlif'Ferences 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 resurrection ness in the early years of her congregations' were discussed, but not the doctrine of the existence.22 church and the ministry. No agreement, The Iowa Synod, too, appeared early in however, was reached.24

20 Chr. Hochstetter, Die Geschichte der 23 This phrase is used by Hochstetter, p.278. Evangelisch-lutherischen Missouri-Synode in For the Iowa Synod and more specifically Iowa­ Nord-Amerika, und ihrer Lehrkiimpfe (Dresden: Missouri relations to 1867 see ibid., pp.278 to Heinrich J. Naumann, 1885), pp. 179-278; 309; J. Deindoerfer, Geschichte del' Evangelisch­ Roy A. Suelilow, "The Relations of the Missouri Lutherischen Synode von Iowa und anderen Synod with the Buffalo Synod up to 1866," Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly, XXVII Staate11 (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, (April 1954), 1-19; ibid., XXVII (July 1954), 1897), pp. 3-23; G. ]. Fritschel, Quellen und 57-73; ibid., XXVII (October 1954),97-132. Dokumente zur Geschichte und Lehrstellung der Iowa Synode (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing 21 So, e.g., C. F. W. Walther wrote to Pastor House, 1916), passim. Fr. Brunn in Steeden, Nassau, Germany, in 1861: "Unser Kampf mit Buffalo ist ein Kreuz, 24 Besides references cited in footnote 23 see das uns fort und fort fast zu Boden driicken J. P. Beyer, Stenographisch aufgezeichnetes Col­ will." L. Fuerbringer, editor, Eriefe von C. F. loquium der Vertreter der Synode von Illinois W. Walther an seine Freunde, Synodalgenossen [sic for Iowa, given correctly on cover] und der und Familienglieder (St. Lows: Concordia Pub­ von Missouri, Ohio, u. a. St., ... (Chicago: lishing House, 1915), I, 160. Chicago Union, 1868), pp. 1-175. 22 Hochstetter, pp.32-60; Walter O. For­ Siegmund und Gottfried Fritschel, Iowa und ster, Zion on the Mississippi (St. Louis: Concor­ Missmtri: Eine Verteidigung del' Lehrstellung der dia Publishing House, 1953), pp.507-534; Synode von Iowa gegenuber den AngrifJen des Carl S. Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Prof. (F. A.) Schmidt (Chicago: Wartburg Pub­ Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, lishing House, n.d.), was written in 1878 (d. 1947), pp. 109-162. p. 289). In it Iowa's chiliasm, its Richtung, its THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 471

The third synod which made up the formation of the Synodical Conference in American Lutheran Church in 1930 was 1872, for which the Ohio Synod gave the the Ohio Synod. It is the oldest of the impetus.29 three synods, having been organized al­ Between 1868 and 1880 the Ohio Synod ready in 1818, a Western outpost of the and the Missouri Synod enjoyed fraternal Pennsylvania Ministerium. However, in relationships. It was the Ohio Synod Sem­ 1820 it refused to join the General Synod. inary which in 1878 awarded C. F. W. The influence of , and later Walther an honorary doctor of divinity Andrew Henkel, was in the direction degree.3o It was Lehmann who became of Lutheran confessionalism, a tendency president of the Synodical Conference in strengthened by W. F. Lehmann and Mat­ 1873, a position to which he was re­ thias Loy in the second half of the century. elected for one-year terms in 1874, 1875, The free conferences of the 1850s helped 1877, and 1879, a position he held at the to draw at least a portion of the Ohio time of his death (1880), in the midst of Synod clergy closer to the Missouri Synod. the Gnadenwahlstreit.31 It participated, as did the Missouri Synod, This controversy on election caused a in the preliminary convention of the Gen­ breach between the Ohio Synod and the eral Council (1866) ,25 but did not join the Missouri Synod which has remained until council in the following year, although its the present time. The breach is one of 26 delegates were present. It was the Ohio the major factors which helped shape the Synod that raised the question of the "Four course of Lutheranism in America in the Points" in 1867 and forced the protracted period between 1887 and 1932, because discussion of them in the convention of the the relationships between the Missouri following year.27 In this year (1868) fra­ Synod and the Ohio Synod remained essen­ ternal relations were established with the tially unfavorable throughout the period. Missouri Synod,28 the first step toward the The Norwegian Synod, too, withdrew from the Synodical Conference because of position on the symbols, and its open questions are defended. the controversy on predestination. 25 Ochsenford, p. 133. 26 Ibid., pp. 148, 154. 29 Denkschrift, enthaltend eine eingehende Darlegung der Grunde weshalb die zur Synodal­ 27 Ibid., pp. 328 if. A. G[raebner}, "Zur Conferenz der evangel.-Iuther. Kirche von Nord­ Geschichte der 'vier Punkte,' " Lehre und Wehre, Am-erika zutretenden Synoden sich nicht an XXXIV (June 1888), 167-173; ibid., XXXIV eine der hierzulande schon bestehenden luther­ (July and August 1888), 217-224; ibid., isch benannten Verbindungen von Synoden XXXIV (September 1888), 257-264; ibid., haben anschliessen konnen (Columbus: Schulze XXXIV (October 1888), 302-310; ibid., und Gassmann, 1871), p. 3. XXXIV (November and December 1888), 342 30 See file on "honorary degree" in Walther to 354. papers, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis. 28 Proceedings, Joint Ohio Synod, 1868, pp. 31 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1873, 32, 33; see Paul E. Kretzmann, "Documents Re­ p.31; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1874, garding Church Affiliation and Organic Union p.54; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1875, in the Lutheran Church of America," Concordia p. 36; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1877, Historical Institute Quarterly, IV (October p.52; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1878, 1931), 88, 89; ibid., V (October 1932), 109, p. 68; Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1879, 110. p.51. 472 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"

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 election.35 troversy which raged within the Synod Regarding the controversy on election it itself thereby might more easily be reached. Since the discussions in the Synodical Con­ need only be pointed out now that the ference were carried on in the German basic question at issue was, as Charles language, which was not understood by the Porterfield Krauth of the General Council majority of the Norwegians, it was feared phrased it from a vantage point outside the membership in this body might complicate controversy itself, "Is our faith a cause of matters and make a settlement more dif­ God's election, or an effect of it?" 36 The ficult.32 term intuitu fidei, as used by older Lu­ This Synod was organized in 1853; early theran dogmaticians, was interpreted, mis­ in its history it established fraternal rela­ interpreted, defended, and attacked in the tions with the Missouri Synod, utilizing its controversy.37 Missouri's formulation of Seminary for the training of pastors, and the "Thirteen Theses," 38 was approved joining with the Ohio and Missouri synods both by the Missouri Synod 39 and by the in the organization of the Synodical Con­ Synodical Conference.4o The "we believe, ference.33 teach, and confess" of each of the theses The Wisconsin Synod, which now in­ has the ring of a creedal 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 (1820), 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 (1818), and Buffalo (1845) Synod and became an integral part of it synods, the Norwegian Synod (1853), 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 consin and Other States, 1850-1950 (Milwau­ stanch Lutheran confessionalism.34 The kee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1951), pp.13-26. 35 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1882, 32 Chr. Anderson, "Historical Sketch of the p.64; Continuing in His Grace, p.79. Beginnings, Growth and Development of the Norwegian Synod," Grace for Grace: Brief His­ 36 Jacobs, p. 505, quoted from Lutheran Church Review, III, 68 ff. tory of the Norwegian Synod, ed. S. C. Ylvisaker (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 defin­ itive study of the controversy is a desideratum. 33 Ibid., pp. 57 H.; S. C. Ylvisaker, "The Mis­ souri Synod and the Norwegians," Ebenezer, ed. 38 They are found most easily in Erwin L. W. H. T. 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.4l. 1957, on microfilm in Concordia Historical In­ 40 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1882, stitute. p. 79, ". . . dass sich die Synodalkonferenz zu 34 Continuing in His Word: The History of den dreizehn Thesen . . . von der Gnadenwahl the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Wis- bekenne, . . ." In italics in the original. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 473

(1872), chiefly the Missouri (1847) and On behalf of the Iowa Synod, at least, the Wisconsin (1850) synods, were the an attempt was made to refute the charges chief Lutheran church bodies in America. of false doctrine levied by Grosse.42 Both The doctrines of election, the church and the Iowa and the Ohio synods, however, the ministry, confessional subscription, and were regarded as harboring "false proph­ the "Four Points" were the chief issues ets" and false teachings in 1905. By that which separated them. time the question of the analogia fidei had The appearance in 1889 of Grosse's been added to the doctrinal differences be­ popularly written comparative symbolics tween these synods and the Missouri Synod. in 132 pages highlighted the doctrinal dif­ The question of the analo gia fidei deals ferences among the Lutherans. He began with the question whether the clear Word with the Buffalo Synod, its "false doctrines" of God alone is the source and norm of (falsche Lehre) concerning the church, the faith or whether it is subject to enlight­ office of the keys, the ministry, ordination, ened reason.43 In the "Lehre von der Be­ synods, and church government. He then kehrung, Gnadenwahl und Schriftanalogie turned to the Towa Synod. Its false doc­ sind die Ohioer and Iowaer falsche Pro­ trines were: Chiliasm, concerning the An­ pheten," it was said.44 There were ample tichrist, open questions, the ministry and reasons, it was stated and detailed, why the church government, free will, conversion, Missourians should avoid them.45 and election, and its stance toward the It is not at all surprising that the Iowa Lutheran Confessions. The Ohio Synod and Ohio synods should attempt to reach taught falsely, according to Grosse, on doctrinal agreement and perhaps organic conversion, , election, or pre­ union. It is surprising that the latter was destination, and the certainty of election not accomplished until 1930. Meanwhile or salvation; moreover, its readiness to a series of conferences and theses prepared take doctrinal formulations of the fathers the way for such a union. as a foundation for faith was scored. The In July 1893 representatives of the Ohio General Council was called a unionistic and of the Iowa synods met in Michigan church body, which tolerated false doc­ City, Ind. They adopted six theses dealing trines concerning conversion and justi­ fication, condoned pulpit fellowship with Synoden sowie der namhaftesten Sectenkirchen in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika sectarian churches, altar fellowship with (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia·Verlag, the heterodox, and permitted lodge mem­ 1889), pp.1-57. bership even among its pastors. In addi­ 42 S. Fritsche1, Die Unterscheidungslehren der Synoden von Iowa und Missouri (Chicago: tion, its teachings on church government Wartburg Publishing House, n. d.), 94 pages, were regarded as false and dangerous. The according to p. 3 a reprint from the Kirchliche General Synod, so Grosse maintained, was Zeitschrift of 1891 and 1892. not truly Lutheran in its intent and doc­ 43 F. B[ente}, "Warum ki:innen wir keine gemeinsamen Gebetsgottesdienste mit Ohi'Oern trinal position, thoroughly unionistic in its und Iowaern veranstalten und abhalten?" Lehre practices.41 und Wehre, LI (March 1905), 98 f. 44 Ibid., p. 10 1. 41 C. Johannes Grosse, Unterscheidungslehren 45 Ibid., pp.98-115, especially pp. 103 to der hauptsiichlichsten sich lutherisch nennenden 115. 474 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" with the Church, the Ministry, the Symbols, lowship with the Iowa Synod, because of Open Questions, Chiliasm and the Anti­ Iowa's friendly relations with the General christ, Predestination and Conversion.46 Counci1.52 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 ex­ demned within the Missouri Synod.47 This pression of church fellowship and pleading condemnation, however, seems not to have for fellowship with the Ohio Synod.53 This been on the official level. The same theses meeting at Richmond (1910) welcomed were discussed again and adopted with the statement of the Iowa Synod, acknowl­ some changes 48 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 differ­ Ohio, Feb. 13-15, 1907.49 They were ences in doctrine before altar and pulpit promptly dubbed "Die Toledoer Unions­ fellowship was established.54 thesen" in Missouri circles. It was pre­ In 1912 the representatives of these two dicted 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. 50 The Iowa Synod accepted the misgivings on the part of the Ohio Synod.55 theses in convention assembled in Men­ N. Rasmussen of the Ohio Synod issued dota, 111., June 20-25 of the same year, a pamphlet entitled Can We Unite With and declared church fellowship with the Iowa? He stated the Ohio and Iowa synods Ohio Synod.51 agreed on open questions and a quatenus However, the Ohio Synod, meeting in subscription to the confessions. The ques­ 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. 56 46 F[ranz] P[ieperJ, "Das Colloquium der In 1918 altar and pulpit fellowship was Synoden von Ohio und Iowa," ibid., XXXIX (September 1893), 257-264. 52 Idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., 47 Idem, "Zur Beurtheilung des ohioisch­ LIV (October 1908),462-465. iowaischen Colloquiums," ibid., XXXIX (Octo­ ber 1893), 289-293. 53 From the Kirchenzeitung [1910], pp. 543 f. as reported by F. B[ente], "Kirchlich­ 18 So Meisinger of Baden as quoted by F. Zeitgeschichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LVI B[ente] in "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., (September 1910), 409-411. LUI (November 1907), 518 f. The doctrine of 54 From the Kirchenblatt (Sept. 24, 1910), the Antichrist was not included in the Toledo as quoted by F. B[ente] in "Kirchlich-Zeitge­ theses. schichtliches," Lehre ucnd Wehre, LVI (Decem­ 49 Doctrinal Declarations, pp. 5-7; the date ber 1910), 561. 1908, however, should be corrected to 1907. 55 E. P [ardieck], "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht­ G. ]. Fritschel, ed., QueUen und Dokumente, liches," ibid., LVIII (June 1912), 270, 271, No. 114, pp.362-364. with a quotation from the Kirchenzeitung. 50 F. B[ente}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- Lehre und Wehre, LVIII (September 1912), liches," Lehre und Wehre, LIII (June 1907), 414,415. 278-284. 56 Summarized by E. P[ardieck], "Kirch­ 51 Idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., lich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., LIX (January LIII (October 1907), 469-471. 1913),32-35. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 475 declared between the Ohio and the Iowa fraternal ties which had existed between synods.57 Doctrinal agreement between the the Missouri Synod and the Norwegian Iowa and Buffalo synods was declared in Synod before the Gnadenwahlstreit con­ 1919.58 In this year representatives meet­ tinued, even though they were not as ex­ ing in Chicago adopted (March 11, 1919) tensive as previously. In 1903, e. g., the the Chicago Theses. 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 Norwegian orary degrees - a rare event in those days Church of America, the United Danish - on Laur. Larsen, U. V. Koren, and H. A. Church, and the United Lutheran Church Stub; the Norwegian Seminary recipro­ were represented at this meeting.59 The cated with honorary degrees for Francis theses deal with general questions of Chris­ Pieper and A. 1. Graebner.60 Between tology and soteriology. 1903 and 1917, however, the Norwegian This year 1918 (or the years 1917, 1918, Synod drew closer to the elements within and 19l9) must be regarded as crucial in its own ethnic group that had been antag­ the history of the Lutheran Church in onistic to the Missouri Synod. America, even though they merely divide In 1887 this antagonism to the Missouri the ~vfiddle 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 fellowship roots of this antagonism merely in the was declared between the Iowa and the controversy on election or in ethnic dif­ Ohio synods; in 1917 the Norwegian 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 movement among the Nor­ lay preaching, and the pietistic leanings wegians was of momentous importance to among some Norwegians. In 1876 another the Missouri Synod and governed its ac­ Norwegian group had effected a reorgan­ tions to a greater extent than has been ization out of the Evangelical Lutheran readily admitted or recognized. The close Church in America (the Eielsen Synod, so

57 [Th.] G[raebner] in "Kirchlich-Zeitge­ named after its leader, Elling Eielsen). This schichtIiches," ibid., LXIV (October 1918),473 reorganized group chose the name Hauge's and 474. Evangelical Lutheran Synod, after the in­ 58 Der Lutheraner, LXXV (Dec. 2, 1919), fluential Norwegian layman Hans Nielsen 389. Hauge (d. 1824). The Norwegian Au­ 59 Doctrinal Declaration, pp.22, 23, for the theses. These theses must be distinguished from gustana Synod (1870) and the Conference the (Chicago) Intersynodical Theses of 1928. for the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Lu­ See also [Th.] G[raebner] in "Kirchlich-Zeitge­ theran Church in America (1870) had not schichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LXV (April 1919), 183-187; Lueker, ed. Lutheran Cyclo­ been orientated toward the Missouri Synod. pedia, p. 193. When, therefore, the anti-Missourians in G. M. Bruce, The Union Documents of the the Norwegian Synod looked for partners, Evangelical Lutheran Church with a Historical Survey of the Union Movement (Minneapolis: they found them among these two groups, Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1948), pp. 84, 85. 60 Ylvisaker, in Ebenezer, ed. Dau, p.269. 476 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"

even though the Hauge Synod and the was discussed. The year 1887, however, smaller Eielsen Synod did not join them. was the year in which the Anti-Missourians In 1890 the United Norwegian Lutheran left the Norwegian Synod because of the Church was organized.61 controversy on election.63 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 same year, and wegian groups toward union. In the 1870s, Minneapolis (1890), which brought about perhaps because of the free conference of the formation of the United Lutheran the 1850s,62 the Norwegian Synod pro­ Church,64 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) Not 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 United 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 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 Lanesboro 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,65 and the justification ("justification of the world") second at Northwood (Iowa) in October,G6 continued the discussions on conversion 61 E. Clliford Nelson and Eugene L. Fevold, and election. The Lutheran Church Among Norwegian Amer­ In 1900 the district conventions of the icans (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 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 Quarterly, 64 Ibid., II, 3-37. XXXIII (January 1961), 126, 127. Bruce, 65 Ibid., II, 129-138. pp.I-6. 66 Lehre tmd Wehre, XLV (December 1899), 62 Supra, footnote 11. 378 f. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 177

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 compeers in colloquy. Two meetings were theses on election, prepared by H. G. Stub, held. The talks were broken off; however, caused protracted discussions (five meet­ conversations were resumed again in 1905, ings between 1908 and 1910). when the Hauge Synod, the Norwegian Within the Missouri Synod, Stoeckhatdt Synod, and the United Norwegian Synod scrutinized the theses on calling and con­ met to discuss doctrinal differences. A set version and on election 70 and found them of theses on absolution, drawn up in "ambiguous and misleading."71 He warned 1874, were discussed, accepted by the com­ against indifference and unionism.72 Pieper mittee (1906), 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. The following The Wisconsin Synod Quartalschrift, too, year (1907) theses on the call, and a year found the theses defective.14 later (1908) theses on conversion, were However, when the Union Committee agreed on.67 All 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.68 Most of theses [Easrvold'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.75 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 O. E. Brandt were the Norwegian Synod, as visitors, explained present. 70 G. St[oeckhardtJ and F. P[ieperJ, "Be­ to the Synodical Conference (in August leuchtung der norwegischen Vereinigungsthesen," 1908) that their Synod would take no Lehre und Wehre, LVI (October 1910), 433 action on these theses and that these theses to 456. 71 Ibid., p.441. still lacked antitheses.69 Antitheses, how- 72 Ibid., p. 456. 73 Ibid., pp. 456-466 with reference to 67 Anderson, "Historical Sketch, etc.," Grace Lehre und Wehre, XXX (May 1884), 183, n. 1; lor Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp.92-102; pp.156 XXX (June 1884), 212, n.l; 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 68 Anderson, "Historical Sketch, etc.," Grace den norwegischen Synoden," Theologische Quar­ for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, p.97. talschrilt, VIII (April 1911), 81-98. 69 F. B[ente}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," 75 D. [Dau?], "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LV (February 1909), 77,78. Lehre und 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 Lutheraneren. Grace for 478 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"

In 1912, nevertheless, a basis for agree­ fied by the Hauge Synod and the United ment was reached by the new union com­ Norwegian Church. The district conven­ mittees elected in the previous year. "Two tions of the Norwegian Synod accepted forms of presentation" on election were the theses. To the more general satisfac­ given (Feb. 22, 1912) in the Opgjoer, the tion expressed in the Lutheran periodicals, Madison Agreement, the one according to the Lehre und Wehre remarked that the Article XI of the and action seemed a compromise and a sur­ the other according to Pontoppidan.76 Pie­ render.81 The mystery between the univer­ per criticized it almost immediately for salis and sola gratia and the cur alii prae allowing intuitu fidei finalis. 77 aliis remained.82 The Synodical Conference The union movement among the Nor­ convention of this year asked the Norwe­ wegians, indeed, caused Pieper to take gian Synod to remove the thesis which another long hard look at the differences permitted the teaching of the second form, among Lutherans because of the doctrine to formulate an antithesis which would of election.78 He voiced the hope that all indict every statement finding a cause of Lutherans would agree fully on sola gratia. conversion in man, and to clarify the "Sind wir erst wieder in der 'Kernfrage' earlier theses on conversion and election. einig, so diirfte bald die Einigkcit in den A committee, consisting of W. Dau, ubrigen Punkten folgen." 79 In 1913 his F. Pieper, and J. Schaller, was appointed Zur Einigung der amerikanisch-lutherischen to present these points to the Norwegian Kirche in der Lehre von der Bekehrung Synod.s3 und Gnadenwahl appeared in both the Bente called the Opgjoer "ambiguous" original version and in a translation by and unionistic.84 Pardieck found a mixture W. H. T. Dau.80 of fanaticism, indifference, lack of serious­ The Madison Agreement was soon rati- ness, and misunderstanding among the Norwegians.85 Within the Norwegian Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 193, 194. Nelson and Fevold, II, 139-169. 81 E. P[ardieck}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht­ 76 Doctrmal Declarations, No.6, pp. 8-10. liches," Lehre und Wehre, LVIII (August 1912), Grace for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp.194-198; 367. Grace for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 99 to Ebenezer, pp.272-274. Nelson and Fevold, 105. II, 169-182; Appendix c., pp. 356, 358. Bruce, 82 Lehre und Wehre, LVIII (August 1912), pp.38-57 for the Madison Agreement; pp.62 369. to 67 the Austin Agreement. 83 E. P[ardieck}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht­ 77 F. P[ieper}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht­ liches," ibid., LVIII (September 1912), 413. liches," Lehre und Wehre, LVIII (May 1912), Proceedmgs, Synodical Conference, 1912, pp. 222,223. 14-24. 78 Idem, "Welch Schwierigkeiten es fur Lu­ 84 F. B[ente}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," theraner macht, in der Lehre von der Gnaden­ Lehre und Wehre, LVIII (November 1912), wahl, wie sie in der Scheift gelehrt und im SIS. Cf. pp. 511-515 for additional views. Bekenntnis unserer Kirche bekannt ist, nicht Bente was faulted for reading more into the einig zu sem," ibid., LVIII (May 1912), 193 journal items, especially in Amerika, than they to 198; ibid. LVIII (June 1912), 241-251. actually said. See F. B[ente}, "Kirchlich-Zeitge­ 79 Ibid., pp. 250, 251. schichtliches," ibid., LIX (February 1913), 80 Both published by Concordia Publishing 81, 82. House, St. Louis. 85 E. P[ardieck}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 479

Synod itself doubts and misgivings were respondence between its committee and mollified by statements that the Opgjoer the church council of the Norwegian did not alter the doctrines of conversion Synod. The council declined permission and election as professed by that Synod.86 to the Synodical Conference delegates to Repeatedly the plea was made within the appear before their body. It elected a spe­ Missouri Synod that the Opgjoer be tested cial committee to deal with the committee thoroughly as to its Scripturalness and that of the Synodical Conference. The Synod­ all ambiguity be removed from it.87 ical Conference committee stated that it The events which led from the Madison had no instructions for such a procedure, Agreement in 1912 to the Austin Settle­ but Dau and Pieper offered to meet with ment in 1916 and the merger in 1917 the Norwegian committee as private per­ must be summarized briefly. The minority sons upon their own responsibility. No group within the Norwegian Synod at the meeting resulted. The Norwegian Synod special convention in 1913 was organized endorsed the action of its council (1913); more effectively for the 1914 convention. the Synodical Conference, of its committee The special convention of 1915 postponed (1914). It appointed another committee action on the merger until the 1916 con­ with broad powers to deal with the Nor­ vention. On resolutions for merger in this wegian Synod. Pieper, Dau, and Schlueter 1916 convention the minority mustered were members of this committee.9o 203 votes against 520 votes. Then followed The articles of agreement between the the Austin Agreement and the consumma­ three Norwegian church bodies of 1914 tion of the merger.88 are to be distinguished from the Opgjoer. What about the reaction of the Missouri The former are constitutional. They pro­ Synod to the moves within the Norwegian vided, e. g., that the churches would not Synod between 1912 and 1917? Selected co-operate with those "who do not share parts of Pieper's Zur Einigung were cir­ culated among the pastors of the Norwe­ the same faith and confession." This con­ gian Synod in a Norse translation (by stitutional provision meant a separation M. F. Wiese) .89 The 1914 convention of from the Synodical Conference, Graeb­ the Synodical Conference heard the cor- ner said.91 The Norwegian Synod's Lu­ theran Herald made of this remark an liches," ibid., LVIII (December 1912), 563. excommunication. In reply Graebner stated Also see pp. 562, 564. that the Norwegians were still regarded as 86 Ibid., LIX (January 1913), 32; ibid., brethren, of the household of faith, but LIX (May 1913), 227. 87 E. g., F. B[ente], "Kirchli:ch-Zeitgeschicht­ that they were being warned against taking liches," ibid., LIX (February 1913); E. P[ar­ a step that would lead to separation.92 dieck], "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., LIX (April 1913), 176, with a quotation from the Herald, endorsing the action of the Madison­ 90 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1914, Chicago special conference of the Norwegian PP·33-44. Synod asking for a "basis of union clearer than 91 [Th.] G[raebner], "Kirchlich-Zeitge- the (Madison) Agreement." schichtliches," Lehre und Wehfe, LXI (March 88 Grace for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, pp. 101 to 1915), 132. 110; Nelson and Fevold, II, 183-225. 92 Ibid., LXI (July 1915), 324-326; which 89 Grace for Grace, ed. Ylvisaker, p. 112. also quoted the Lutheran Witness to the same 480 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"

Between 1914 and 1916 the efforts of wegian Synod" was accepted into member­ the Synodical Conference committee to ship in the Synodical Conference.95 They meet with the committee of the Norwe­ had been counseled by the Synodical Con­ gian Synod were futile. Nevertheless, the ference committee (at a meeting in the 1916 convention instructed the committee Aberdeen Hotel in St. Paul on June 5, to proceed with conferences ("aIle ihm 1916) to testify; propriety, however, for­ sonst noch zweckentsprechend erscheinen­ bade Dau and Pieper to participate in the den Lehrbesprechungen") .93 When the planning of an opposition organization.96 Synodical Conference met again in 1920, In 1917 President Pfotenhauer reported no such meeting had been held because the a "grave" status among the Norwegians, Norwegian church council regarded a col­ but no action was taken by this Missouri loquium at this time inappropriate. "Our Synod convention.97 people need peace and rest." 94 In 1918 However, between 1912 and 1920 the the small, nonmerging minority organized union movement among the Norwegian into the Norwegian Synod of the American bodies also renewed within the Missouri Lutheran Church; in 1920 this "Little Nor- Synod theolo[,ical questions connected with the doctrine of election. Election to faith, effect and the reply to the Lutheran Standard, ibid., pp.326-328. it was shown again, was the Scriptural The United Norwegian Church (Forenede teaching.98 With this question was coupled Kirke) was characterized as synergistic, indif­ the whole question of Lutheran unity.99 ferent to pure doctrine or doctrinal differences, and demonstrated Reformed tendencies in its Pieper's Zur Einigung der amerikanisch­ teachings regarding Sunday, chiliasm, the in­ lutherischen Kirche in der Lehre von der spiration of Scripture, and in its revivalistic Bekehrung und Gnadenwahl belongs to the activities. Nor was the Hauge Synod regarded as being in line with the traditional teachings stream of Lutheran union movements in of the Lutheran Church, particularly in its 1913. It was written specifically, as the sub­ attitude toward lay preaching. The compromise of the Opgjoer made it unacceptable. This was title states, 1m An.rchlusz an die norwegi­ the position taken by Th. Graebner in a rather schen Vereinigungssatze und deren Kriti­ thorough examination of the Forenede Kirke ken. Pieper compared Opgjoer very and the Haugeans. [Th.} G[raebner), "Lehr­ stellung der Forenede Kirche und der Hauge­ carefully with Article XI of the Formula synode," Lebre und Webre, LXI (March 1915), and the judgments of the old dogmati- 97-108; ibid., LXI (April 1915),200-210. The terminology of the intuitu fidei doctrine in the Opgjoer was a toleration of this doctrine 95 Ibid., pp. 22, 23. Grace for Grace, ed. not in "the sense of Missouri." This doctrine Ylvisaker, pp. 115-122. was to make room for a correct disposition of 96 Proceedings, Synodical 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 98 [L. Aug.} H[eerbot}h, "Die 'Wahl ZUffi the Madison Agreement. [Th.) G[raebner}, Glauben' ausdriicklich in der Schrift gelehrr," "Kirchlich-Zeitschichdiches," Lebre und Wehre, Lehre und Webre, LIX (October 1913), 433 LXI (June 1915), 278-280. to 439. 93 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1916, 99 Pieper himself stated that it was "his­ pp.62-79. torisch stark veranlaszt" by the Norwegian union 94 Proceedings, Synodical Conference, 1920, theses. F[ranz) P[ieper}. "Wird Einigkeit p.20. werden?" ibid., LX (February 1914), 50. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 481

cians.lOO He pleaded: Unity in the truth Church in America had a greater response must be sought; sola gratia and gratia uni­ in the circles of the General Council, for versalis, the two fundamental doctrines of instance, than it did among the Norwe­ conversion and election, are to be main· gians. The General Synod's Lutheran tained in their purity.101 The explanation pleaded for spiritual unity ("Our Church of the discretio personarum is not the in America at this moment is forgetting verschiedenes Verhalten.lo2 In an irenic that the underlying preliminary to Church but firm spirit, as also Lutheran writers of unity is not wholly doctrinal, nor practical, other synods admitted, Pieper pleaded for but spiritual") .106 Agreement with other an adherence to the teachings of Scripture Lutheran bodies, Pieper replied, depended and the Lutheran Confessions as the basis on agreement in doctrine and practice,1°7 for true unity.103 especially agreement in the doctrines of The charges of Calvinism, lack of char­ conversion and election; the repudiation ity, and a want of spirituality were brought of the explanation for election in differing against Missouri.lo4 Not the Norwegians attitudes (rlverschiedene menschliche Ver­ - they largely disregarded Pieper's Zur haltenlJ) must first be made.10s Einigung - but the representatives of the To the cluster of Lutheran mergers Ohio and Iowa Synod took up the plea, in around 1917 and 1918 the formation of some instances were ready to drop these the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of charges, and asked that the white flag be \lVisconsin and Other States (1919) must hoisted and peace declared. Party consid­ be added. The first Evangelical Lutheran erations, Parteigeist, alone hindered the Synod of Wisconsin was founded in May possibility of unity in doctrine and prac­ 1850; 109 the Evangelical Lutheran Synod tice, they declared.lo5 of Michigan and Other States was organ­ Pieper's plea for unity in the Lutheran ized in December 1860; 110 the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Minnesota 100 Pieper, Zur Eimigung, pp.27-91. was organized in 1860.111 In 1892 these 101 Ibid., pp.l1-13; E. P[ardieck}, "Zum three synods formed the Ev. Luth. Joint 'richtigen Verhalten,''' Lehre und Wehre, LIX Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, (December 1913), 529, 548. and Other States.112 This was not, how­ 102 Emphasized by F. P[ieper} in "Kirchlich­ Zeitgeschichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LX ever, a complete merger. The Nebraska (January 1914), 34 f- mission field grew into the Nebraska Dis­ 103 F[ranz} P[ieper}, "Wird Einigkeit wer­ trict and then in 1904 into the Nebraska den?" ibid., LX (February 1914), 49-60; Synod.113 By 1917 a more closely knit ibid., LX (March 1914), 97-105; ibid., LX (May 1914), 193-201; ibid., LX (June 1914), 241-256. 106 Quoted by F[ranz} P[ieper}, "Wird Ei- nigkeit werden?" ibid., LX (February 1914),58. Also see the editorial, "Lutheran Union," Lutheran Witness, XXXII (June 19, 1913), 97. 107 Ibid., LX (March 1914), 103. 104 See the quotation from the Lutheran in lOS Ibid., LX (June 1914), 251f. Lehre und Wehre, LX (March 1914), 97-105; 109 Continuing in His Word, p. 14. from the Ltttheran Herald in ibid., LX (April 110 Ibid., p. 85. 1914), 178-181. 111 Ibid., p. 101. 105 Ibid., LX (June 1914),25, as quoted by 112 Ibid., p. 109. Pieper. 113 Ibid., p. 115. 482 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 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 ULCA, 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.114 in 1920; the Buffalo Synod, in 1925; the Other plans had been considered, among ALC became a member in 1930-and them the plan for a unification or amal­ a number of smaller Lutheran synods. The gamation of all the synods of the Synod­ synods of the Synodical Conference did ical Conference.115 This plan was advanced not join,us No moves were made between in 1914, and a Missouri Synod committee 1918 and 1932 to 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.116 A com­ Synod toward the council remained crit­ mittee of the Wisconsin Synod agreed with ical.11 9 The organization, however, caused 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.117 118 Wentz, Ltttheranism in America, pp.302 In 1918, too, the National Lutheran to 308; [Th.} G[raebner}, "Kirchlich-Zeitge­ Council was organized, a major move schichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LXIV (No­ vember 1918), 520-523; ibid., LXV (Feb­ ruary 1919),86-89. 114 Ibid., p.37. See also Wentz, Lutheranism in America, pp. 272-278. 119 See, e.g., E. P[ardieck} in Der Lu­ theraner, LXXV (Dec. 30, 1919), 427, 428. 115 E. P[ardieck}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht­ [Th.} G[raebner} said: "Our criticism of the liches," Lehre und Wehre, LIX (August 1913), National Lutheran Council has never been a 370,371. sweeping and unreserved condemnation," Lu­ 116 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1914, p. 175. theran Witness, XL (April 12, 1921), 118. 117 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1917, Germ. The first part of the sentence was in bold face ed., pp. 152, 153; Eng!. ed., pp. 75, 76. type in the original. (To be concluded)