CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Luther as Exegete DOUGLAS CARTER
The Historical Background of "A Brief Statement" CARL S. MEYER
Brief Studies
Homiletics
Theological Observer
Book Review
Septe111ber 1961 No.9 The Historical Background of "A Brief Statement" (Concluded) By CARL S. MEYER
The union negotiations among the Nor are insignificant when compared with the wegians served to take most of the Nor free conferences held in Watertown, Wis., wegian Synod's members out of direct in 1903, Milwaukee in 1903, Detroit in fellowship with the Missourians. The con 1904, and Fort Wayne in 1905. summation of the Norwegian union The first of these free conferences, held seemed, on the other hand, to direct the in Watertown, Wis., April 29 and 30, Ohio and Iowa synods toward each other 1903, as is true of the others, was not and possibly toward the Missouri Synod. sponsored officially by any synod. The There were other factors, of course, which Joint Synod of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and tended to bring about a partial temporary Michigan had the largest representation amelioration of the animosity between the there - 85 ou:: of 205. The Rev. M. synods. One of these factors was a series of Bunge, a member of the Wisconsin Synod, free conferences held in the early years of was the leader in arranging the conference. the twentieth century. Fifteen men each from the Iowa and the Sporadic conferences were held in the Ohio Synod attended; 62 were present 1890s. Two such conferences in Canada in from the Missouri Synod.123 Prof. Francis 1892 - perhaps there were more in later Pieper lectured on the topic, "Die Grund years - were regarded as being directed differenzen in der Lehre von der Bekeh against the Missouri Synod.120 Five years rung und Gnadenwahl." In five points he or so later free conferences were held be gave the Missouri Synod teaching: (1) tween members of the Ohio Synod and the Scripture teaches that the reason for the Missouri Synod, entirely private in charac conversion and the salvation of those who ter.121 In May 1902, a free conference was are actually converted and saved is solely held in Beloit, Wis.122 These conferences the grace of God in Christ; (2) Scripture teaches that when some are not converted 120 Der Lutberaner, XLVIII (March 1892), and are lost, it is solely the fault of man 41; ibid., XLVIII (Oct. 25, 1892), 176. F. P[ieper}, "Zur kirchlichen Chronik," ibid., in resisting the work of the Spirit; (3) XLVIII (March 29, 1892), 57; "Was sie zu --- Stande bringen wollen, ist nicht sowohl eine accord on the conditions for fellowship and on kirchliche Einigung der Lutheraner, als ein Bund open questions. F. B[ente}, "Kirchlich-Zeitge- gegen Missouri." (Italics in the original.) schichtliches," ibid., L (September 1904), 420 121 Idem, "Vorwort," Lehre und Webre, to 422, citing the Bericht of the conference pub- XLV (January 1899). 2, 3. lished by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 122 Ibid., XLIX (May 1903), 142; ibid., in 1904. XLVIII (July and August 1902), 234, 235. 123 F. B[ente], "Die freie Conferenz von A free conference between pastors of the Watertown," "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," Michigan Synod and the Missouri Synod on ibid., XLIX (May 1903), 142. Bente, however, June 12 and 13, 1904, in Jackson, Mich., found gave the dates as May 29, 30. 526 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 527
What lies beyond these two truths be A second free conference was held in longs to the unfathomable ways of God; 1903, this one in Milwaukee, Sept. 9-11, ( 4) There is no reasonable, logical (ver attended by more than 700 persons. There nunftgemasze) answer to the question: Cur were 500 persons who actually registered, alii prae aliis? (5) The circumstance that of whom 377 belonged to the Synodical the Gospel has not been preached to all Conference. Two questions occupied this peoples of all times does not contradict the conference: "I. What is the relationship truth of God's grace.124 of the universal gracious will of God (der As a result of this conference a com allgemeine Gnadenwille Gattes) to predes mittee was elected to arrange another tination (Gnadenwahl)? 2. Must those pas free conference. The conference was com sages of Holy Writ, which ex prafessa deal mended because it sought unity of spirit with predestination (e. g., Eph. 1: 1-6, in doctrine, did not gloss over differences, 2 Thess. 2: 13, Acts 13:48), be interpreted but aimed at removing the differences for according to John 3: 16 and similar pas a God-pleasing unity. Unity was not sages on universal grace?" 126 The debate thought of as being dependent on ex revolved around principles of Scriptural ternals. Holy Scriptures (this was a basic interpretation. However, another free con assumption) must be the source and norm fererLce was scheduled for Detroit in of all doctrines in agreement with the 1904.127 Lutheran Symbols.125 Between the Milwaukee and the Detroit conference a meeting of the Planning Com 124 F. P [ieper], "Freie Conferenz," "Kirch mittee was held in Chicago on Dec. 29, lich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., XLIX (May 1903. Present were: F. Pieper and G. 1903),143f. Stoeckhardt, Missouri Synod; A. Hoenecke Idem, "Die Berichte liber die Conferenz in Watertown," Lehre und Wehre, XLIX (May and A. Pieper, Wisconsin Synod; F. Richter 1903), 129-132, defended himself against the and M. Fritschel, Iowa Synod; H. G. Stub, report in the Lutheran, that he modified his Norwegian Synod; H. A. Allwardt, H. (and the Missouri Synod's and the Synodical Conference's) position. He said (pp. 130, 131): Ernst, andF. W. Stellhorn, from the Ohio "Ich habe in Watertown nichts modifiziert und Synod. The Ohio Synod representatives nichts verdeckt, sondern unsere SteHung, wie ich wanted to make the 1877 theses (North sie seit 25 Jahren vertreten habe, unumwunden ins Licht gerlickt." ern District of the Missouri Synod) on the F. B[ente] also found fault with Nicum's analogia fidei the subject of discussion, and report in the Lutheran and cited other journals the first two theses were actually discussed. which did not agree with Nicum. "Die freie Conferenz in Watertown," "Kirchlich-Zeitge The committee members agreed to formu schichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, XLIX (July late positions on this doctrine and to dis August 1903), 232 f. cuss the analogia fidei at the Detroit con Pieper's essay was printed. Die Grunddi/ 128 /erenz in der Lehre von der Bekehrung und ference. Gnadenwahl (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1903), 48 pages. F. B[ente] closed his 126 Idem, "Die freie Conferenz in Milwaukee," review of the essay: "Diese Schrift Dr. Piepers "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., XLIX ist ein Eirenicon irn besten Sinne des Wortes." (October 1903), 304. Ibid., XLIX (October 1903), 301. 127 Ibid., pp. 304, 305. 125 F. B[ente], ibid., XLIX (May 1903), 128 Idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," 142 f. Also see pp. 144, 145. ibid., L (January 1904), 35-37. 528 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"
On April 5, 1904, this committee met Concord. The issue was joined. Does this again in Detroit prior to the conference. passage speak of God's universal plan of It set up two questions: 1. What is the salvation or of God's eternal decree of analogy of faith? 2. How is the analogy election? No agreement was reached, al of faith to be used? The two-day discussion though arrangements were made for an in the free conference (April 1904) raged other free conference in the coming year.l32 about these questions, the doctrines of elec The Missourians, it was admitted, had tion and conversion receiving references little zeal for further meetings, because of most frequently. In spite of lack of agree the uncomplimentary reports circulated ment the large assembly (about 500 men) about their Synod. They were certain that voted to meet in Fort Wayne in the fol the free conferences were not successful lowing year to discuss the doctrine of pre in convincing their opponents of the error destination.129 of their position. Dr. Pieper was attacked The Detroit Free Conference did not by the Ohio church papers. However, the have the opportunity to discuss the areas Missourians were reluctant to break off the of agreement and disagreement regarding conferences.133 Missouri was blamed for analo gia fidei as set forth for each side re the 50 years of disunity in the Lutheran spectively by Stellhorn (Ohio and Iowa) church since the organization of the Gen and by Pieper (Synodical Conference and eral Councip34 It was branded as a sect.135 Norwegian Synod). The committee, at the request of the Ohio Synod, had substituted 132 G. St[oeckhardt], "Freie Conferenz in the two general questions which were dis Fort Wayne," in "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," 130 ibid., 11 (August 1905), 368-372. cussed. Subsequently Pieper formulated See idem, "Was lehrt St. Paulus Epheser sentences on hermeneutical principles in 1:3-14 von der Gnadenwahl?" ibid., 11 (Octo· their relationship to the analogia fidei. 131 ber 1905), 433-446; ibid., 11 (November In 1905 (Aug. 8-10) the fourth of the 1905),481-489. F. B[enteJ, "Die intersynodale 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., LlII (January 1907), 18-33; 300 men. Eph.1 was discussed; this led to ibid., LIII (February 1907), 77-87. See also idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," a discussion of Art. XI of the Formula of ibid., LIII (January 1907), 36--38. F., "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," ibid., LIIl 129 G. St[oeckhardtJ, "Kirchlich-Zeitge- (March 1907), 127-129. schichtliches," ibid., L (April 1904) 174-176. 133 Idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," Average attendance, 500, of whom 305 were ibid., LI (November 1905),512,513. clergymen; 124 from the Missouri Synod, 10 See idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," from the Wisconsin Synod, 97 from the Ohio ibid., LI (August 1905), 373-375, for the Synod, 23 from the Iowa Synod, etc. attacks on Dr. Pieper's presidential report in De 130 F. P[ieper], "Ueber die Analogie oder troit, who found fault with the Ohio Synod for Regel des Glaubens," ibid., L (September 1904), its position on conversion as synergistic and its 405-410. analagia fidei doctrine. The Iowa Synod, too, F. B[enteJ declared, was continually arousing 131 Idem, "Schriftauslegung und Analogie hatred against Missouri. des Glaubens," ibid., LII (November 1906), 481-486; ibid., LIII (January 1907), 11-18; Also see his [Bente's] "Vorwort," ibid., LII, ibid., LIII (February 1907), 70-77; ibid., (January 1906), 1,2. LIII (April 1907), 153-160; ibid., LIII (De 134 Ibid., p. 6. cember 1907), 529-534. 135 Ibid., pp. 7, 8. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 529
The loose position on Scripture within the detailed seven points of difference between General Synod 136 and the refusal or in Iowa and Missouri. Briefly slL·nmarized ability to acknowledge the basic nature of they pertained to the questions: the differences between Ohio and Missouri 1. What constitutes a divisive doctrine? (analogy of faith, election, conversion) 2. What is the correct doctrine of the brought on, Bente stated, the charges church? against Missouri of causing the disunity 3. What is the Scriptural doctrine of the in the Lutheran Church of America. Thus ministry? the failure of the free conferences led to 4. What about the teachings concerning new strictures of the Missouri Synod. Once Sunday? more the doctrine of election was the sub 5. What about eschatological questions? ject of the debate and with it the question The Antichrist? of the principles of Biblical interpreta 6. The millenium? tion.137 7. The first resurrection? Bente asked, "Wie kann die Einigkeit unter den Lutheranern in Amerika herge Soteriological questions and questions per stellt werden?" He did not agree with the taining to conversion remained as major Luthei ver that the different Lu points of difference.139 theran bodies were the various species In the controversy with the Ohio Synod, within the genus Lutheranism. To agree Bente remarked: "Klare Bibelstellen ma on the universal in Lutheranism meant chen auf die Ohioer and ohiosche Ausle acceptance of the symbols. The Missouri gungen machen auf Missouri keinen Ein Synod did not demand acquiescence in the druck." 140 Ohio limited the sola gratia, inferences drawn from the symbols.13s Bente maintained.141 Deindoerfer of the Iowa Synod in 1904 There were other free conferences held after these four from 1903 to 1905. They 136 Ibid., LII (March 1906), 106-119; ibid., were relatively unin1porrant. Those be LII (April 1906), 160-173; ibid., LII (May tween the Missouri Synod pastors and the 1906), 193-211. Also see F. B[ente}, "Ohio· sche Entstellungen und Verleumdungen," ibid., General Council pastors in the New York LII (May 1906), 226-228. City area around 1909 died out, although 137 G. St[oeckhardt}, "Zum Schriftbeweis the Missouri Synod pastors declared their fUr die Lehre von der Gnadenwahl," ibid., LII (July 1906), 289-303; ibid., LII (August 1906), 337-345; idem, "Ein Nachtrag zum 139 G. St[oeckhardt}, "Die Lehrdifferenzen Dogmengeschichtlichen liber die Lehre von der zwischen Missouri und Iowa," ibid., L (October Gnadenwahl," ibid., LII (September 1906), 385 1904), 439-450; ibid., L (November 1904), to 399; ibid., LII (October 1906),433-446; 488-497; ibid., L (December 1904), 533 to [Th.} G[raebner}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht 546; with reference to Stellhorn's "Weshalb liches," ibid., LX (February 1914), 79-80. versagt die lutherische Synode von Missouri 13S F. B{ ente} , "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht ( und ihre Bundesgenossen) der lutherischen liches," ibid., XLIX (October 1903), 305,306. Synode von Iowa die Kirchengemeinschaft?" in He says, p. 306: "Die Missouri-Synode· forden the 1904 Kirchliche Zeitschrift. keine Zustimmung zu bloszen Schluszfolge 140 F. B[enteJ, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht- rungen, sondern ausgeprochenermaszen nur zu liches," Lehre und Wehre, LVI (May 1910), solchen Lehren, von welchen sie bewiesen hat, 226. dasz sie ausdriicklich, expressis verbis, in Gottes 141 Idem, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches," Wort gelehrt werden." ibid., LVI (July 1910), 315, 316. 530 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" willingness to further them.142 The ques The doctrines of conversion and election tion of unity preoccupied the Synodical were the topics of conversation. The theses Conference in these years,143 without, how presented there, it was declared, were not, ever, bringing about steps toward union. like the Norwegian Opgjoer, a compro During the period between the close of mise.145 Yet the conferees did not arrive the Fort Wayne free conference (1905) at a conclusive formulation (abschliessende and the convention of the Missouri Synod Formulierung) of the doctrinal differ in 1917 the conviction came to the leaders ences.146 Again in 1917 a free conference of the Missouri Synod that free conferences was held in St. Paul; 147 in that year other and doctrinal essays at conventions would conferences were held in Kansas 148 and not be enough to further the cause of N ebraska.149 In the midst of these con- Lutheran union. The free conferences, however, were by 145 [Th.] G[raebner], "Kirchlich-Zeitge schichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LXII (Sep no means abandoned. Between 1914 and tember 1916), 423-426. 1917 such conferences were held in widely 146 F. Pieper, "Die St. Pauler Vereinigungs separated places, seemingly without any thesen," ibid., LXIII (January 1917), 1-6; idem, "Weitere Verhandlungen iiber Vereini concerted efforts to promote or co-ordinate gungsthesen," ibid., LXIII (March 1917), 97 their efforts. On June 25, 1914 (the 384th to 102. anniversary of the Augsburg Confession), They were found defective, too, by the Ohio Synod Theologische Zeit blatter, December 1916, a free conference was held in Baltimore. according to [Th.] G[raebner], "Kirchlich-Zeit Lutheran pastors in and around Baltimore geschichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LXIII (Jan from the Synodical Conference, the Ohio uary 1917), 40. Zur Einigung: Leitsatze, die auf der inter Synod, and the General Synod were present synodalen Konferenz in der ev. luth. Dreifaltig for a discussion of Art. VII of the Augs keits-Kirche zu St. Paul, Minn., am 3. und 4. burg Confession.144 In May 1916 an im Mai 1916 angenommen wurden (publisher and portant conversation was held between date not given) has a roster of 555 names of men who subscribed to the "St. Paul Theses," pastors of the Ohio and Iowa synods and distributed among the synods as follows: Iowa of the Synodical Conference in St. Paul. (167), Missouri (163), Minnesota (81), Ohio (65), Wisconsin (50), Michigan (6), Ne braska ( 3 ), and others whose affiliation is not 142 Ibid., LV (January 1909), 32; ibid., LV identified. (April 1909), 178. 147 Der Lutheraner, LXXIII (April 24, 143 In 1908 Francis Pieper read the essay at 1917), 138; a notice to meet on May 9, 10. the Synodical Conference convention on "Das 148 Ibid., LXXIII (Aug. 28, 1917), 284; herrliche Gut de! glaubensbriiderlichen Ge the notice was a call for the "second intersynod meinschaft," Proceedings, Synodical Conference, ical conference in Kansas" to meet at Ellinwood, 1908, pp. 5-38; the essay in 1906, by J. Koeh Sept. 11, 12. Another notice, almost a year later, ler, dealt with the theme, "Seid fleissig zu halten called for the "second intersynodical conference die Einigkeit im Geist," Proceedings, Synodical of Kansas" to meet in Ellinwood from July 31 Conference, 1906, pp. 5-40; in 1912 the open to Aug. 1, 1918. The discussion on the ques ing sermon was delivered by Franz Pieper on tion, "Who are the elect according to the For Rom. 16:16, 17, on the theme "Des Apostels mula of Concord?" was to be continued accord Paulus Unterricht iiber die Trennung in der ing to the notice. christlichen Kirche," Proceedings, Synodical Con 149 Ibid., LXXIII (Oct. 23, 1917), 360; ference, 1912, pp.7-14. the notice stated that the "next inter synodical 144 Lutheran Witness, XXXIII (July 28, conference" would be held on Nov. 6 and 7, in 1914), 126. Sterling, according to a resolution passed in THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 531 ferences Missouri's leading spokesman de V ereinigtmg der lutherische1z Synoden clared that setting aside the differences Amerikas im Wege? 153 He surveyed the between the Synodical Conference on the various Lutheran church bodies in America one hand and the Ohio, Iowa, and other in their historical development and detailed synods on the other hand ought to be easy the points of difference between each and if only the latter would acknowledge that the Missouri Synod. Bente's book caused nothing in man is responsible for his con a minor controversy, an editorial give-and version.150 He feared that these conferences take between church papers of the Ohio tended to discuss so many theological ques Synod and the Missouri Synod.l54 tions extensively that the real issue, as he The controversy was not of such a nature saw it, was at times obscured. The issue? as to disrupt the steps toward formal union The grace of God in conversion.151 negotiations between Missouri and Wis For all that, the thought that the Mis consin on the one hand and Ohio and Iowa souri Synod and the Ohio-Iowa groups on the other. The free conferences that would unite was not a foreign one in 1917; were being held, especially in 1916 and it was bruited about in wider circles. The 1917, exercised a strong influence, it may intersynodical conferences between 1914 safely be said, in bringing about more and 1917 were regarded as being fruit official negotiations among the synods. ful. 152 It was then that Friedrich Bente Especially the intersynodical conferences in asked the question, and the question be the Northwest (e. g., St. Paul on May 9, came the title of a book, Was steht der 1917) brought pressure on the Missouri Synod to elect an intersynodical committee Fremont. The meeting was to be held in an Iowa to Synod church (H. E. Wunderlich, pastor). Three examine the theses proposed by such papers were scheduled on the topic "Who are an intersynodical conference.155 Thus, in the elect according to the Formula of Concord?" 1917, the year of the Norwegian merger, 150 F. P [ieper], "Eine dreifache Frage und two years before the Wisconsin Synod for eine dreifache Antwort," Lehre U1zd Wehre, LXII (November 1916), 481-484. mally consolidated its forces, the year be 151 Idem, "Zur Einigung," ibid., LXII (April fore the organization of the United Lu 1916), 150; see pp. 145-150 for the discussion theran Church in America, the year in of Thesis XII of the Ohio Synod's Zeugnisse zur which union plans among the Lutherans Einigung. in America were more prominent than in 152 [Th.] G [raebnerJ, "Kirchlich·Zeitge schichtliches," Lehre und Wehre, LXIII (No vember 1917),517-520. In the report of the 153 Published by Concordia Publishing 1917 convention of the Missouri Synod pub House, St. Louis, in 1917; 110 pages. lished in Der Lutheraner, LXXIII (July 3, 154 (M.} S(ommer], "One Preventive of 1917), 217, it was stated: "In den letzten Union," Lutheran Witness, XXXVI (May 29, Jahren sind besonders im Nordwesten auf 1917), 158, 159. privatem Wege Verhandlungen mit Gliedern Not part of the controversy bnt of some in der Iowasynode und Ohiosynode begonnen wor den, die darauf abzielen, die bestehenden Lehr terest is the fact that J. Schaller of the Wiscon differenzen zu beseitigen. Diese Verhandlungen sin Synod stated that he did not agree with all haben einen loblichen Zweck und sind auch of Bente's conclusions, but did not detail his bisher night ganz erfolglos gewesen. Sie haben points of disagreement. Theologische QuartaZ aber einen solchen Umfang angenommen, dasz schrift, XIV (April 1917), 17l. sie nicht liinger als Privatsache behandelt werden 155 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1917, Germ. sollten." ed., pp.153, 154; Eng!. ed., pp.76, 77. 532 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"
any year before 1959, the Missouri Synod committees of the Ohio Synod and of the had its first unity or union committee. Iowa Synod, and that agreement in the The committee was named by that name; doctrine of conversion had been reached. it was regarded, if not so named, as the This report was received with joy, and it Committee on Intersynodical Matters. Geo. was voted that the discussions be contin ued on such other points of doctrine as are Mezger, G. F. Kleinhans, and o. L. Ho J. still in controversy.159 henstein were elected (by ballot) to the committee. They were instructed to "be Synod resolved also that the theses were prepared to treat with similar committees to be printed and discussed in the confer representing other Lutheran Synods." 156 ences of the Synod. The same committee It may be noted that Pieper was not elected was re-elected to carryon the negotiations 160 to this committee nor was any member of with the other synods. The Ohio Synod, the Springfield faculty. too, expressed its joy over the progress The other synods also elected or ap made and resolved to spread the theses on pointed committees for intersynodical re which agreement had been reached on its 161 lations. The committees of the respective minutes. Optimism, therefore, in 1920, synods (Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, and Wis was not altogether out of order. Buffalo consin) held a meeting in St. Paul on and Iowa had reached agreement; Iowa and Feb. 6, 7, 1918, and agreed to meet again Ohio had arrived at that point earlier; from July 23 to 25 in Milwaukee.157 Missouri and Wisconsin had reached ac A series of six meetings was held between cord with Ohio and Iowa on the doctrine 1917 and the 1920 Detroit convention of of conversion. "Are we too sanguine if the Missouri Synod. The Intersynodical we hope that, the better our position is Board (Intersynodale Kommission) -the known," it was said, "the greater the num official title of the committee elected in ber of our friends will become? - that in 1917 - reported that ten theses on con the end a majority of all Lutherans will version had been agreed on. Progress was enter into relations of fellowship with us being made toward agreement in the doc on the basis of the Lutheran Confes trine of election, but agreement had not sions?" 162 yet been achieved. The Synod was ready Between 1920 and 1923 three or four to continue these meetings and expressed meetings were held annually by the repre a prayer for unity with the Ohio and Iowa sentatives of the five synods (Wisconsin, synods.158 Iowa, Ohio, Buffalo, and Missouri). Their work was slow; no attempt was made to The Committee on Intersynodical Matters reported that our committee and the com mittee of the Wisconsin Synod has since 159 [Th.] G[raebner], "The Story of the Convention," Lutheran Witness, XXXIX 1918 carried on doctrinal discussions with (July 6, 1920),213. 160 E. E., "Bericht liber unsere Delegaten 156 Ibid. synode," Der Lutheraner, LXXVI (July 13, 157 Der Lutheraner, LXXIV (Feb. 26, 1920),233. 1918),84. 161 Ibid., LXXVI (Sept. 21,1920),312. 1,,8 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1920, Germ. 162 [Th.} G[raebner], "Prospects for Lu ed., pp.239-241 (the report of the committee theran Church Union," Lutheran Witness, in full); Eng!. ed., pp. 83, 84. XXXIX (Sept. 14, 1920),294. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 533 gloss over doctrinal differences. The doc Church is found in false doctrine and harm trines of conversion and election were at ful, destructive practices based upon this the center of the discussions. false teaching." 166 Wir konnen die Sachlage so zusammen The Intersynodical Committee with the fassen: Zu wahrer Einigung in der corresponding committees of the other christlichen Lehre von der Bekehrung und synods, in the meanwhile, agreed on theses Gnadenwahl gehort unzweideutig fest and antitheses regarding the doctrines of zustellen, ob man in dem Satz von der conversion and election. However, a num "gleichen Schuld" und dem "gleich iiblen ber of protests were lodged against them Verhalten" einig ist, wenn die Menschen, weIche bekehrt und selig werden, mit den at the convention of the Missouri Synod Menschen, weIche unbekehrt bleiben und in 1923. A Prufungskommission, so desig verloren gehen, verglichen werde. . . . nated by the Synod, was elected and was Wenn man diese beiden Menschenklassen given until the end of 1925 to examine miteinander vergleiche, musse man ganz and judge these theses and antitheses. In notwendig lehren, dass Bekehrung und the meanwhile the Intersynodical Com Seligkeit nicht allein von Gottes Gnade, mitee was to continue its discussions with sondern auch von seinem "verschiedenen the other synods.167 Th. Graebner replaced Verhalten," seiner Selbsrbestimmung, sei Hohenstein on this committee; Kleinhans ner Selbstsetzung, seiner geringeren continued to serve.16S Mezger, although Schuld, seiner Unterlassung des mutwil reappointed to this committee, could not ligen 'widerstrebens usw. abhange.163 serve because of his transfer to Germany Earlier, unionistic practices were regarded and was replaced by Wm. Arndt.169 Th. as "the chief hindrance to unity among Lu Engelder, R. Neitzel, professors at Concor therans in America." 164 Now also it was dia Theological Seminary in Springfield, said, "No union without unity." 165 Again: and Pastor P. Schulz of Springfield were "The cause for disunion in the Lutheran elected to the Prufungskommission.l7° Discussion of the differences was re 163 F. P[ieper}, "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht liches," Lehre und Wehre, LXVII (July 1921), garded as the only way in which agree 214. ment between Lutheran bodies could be 164 [Th.} G[raebner}, "Why Lutherans Can achieved. The Intersynodical Committee not Unite," Lutheran Witness, XXXVI (Jan. 9, and unofficial conferences were helpful 1917), 6; idem, "The Greatest Hindrance to Lu theran Unity," ibid., XXXVI (Feb. 20, 1917), toward this end. In 1923 a note of quiet 54 f.; idem, "Why Lutherans Cannot Unite," but genuine optimism was still discernible ibid., XXXVI (Aug. 21, 1917),263 ("Union ism is a bar to true unity"); idem, "Unionism Defined," ibid., XXXVII (Oct. 29, 1918), 346 166 [M.) S[ommer}, "Who Is Guilty of Keeping Lutherans Apart?" ibid., XLII (Jan. 2, ("It [unionism) lays the ax at the root of Lu 1923), 5. theran church life") . 167 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1923, Germ. 165 [M.} S[ommer}, "Union Without Unity," ed., pp.227-229; EngL ed., p.92. ibid., XXXVI (Dec. 25, 1917), 406; [Th.} G[raebner}, "Unionism Without Unity Is Trea 168 Ibid. Germ. ed., p. 240; Engl. ed., p. 92. son," ibid., XL (March 29,1921),104; [Wm.) 169 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1926, Germ. A [rndt} , "The Aim of the Synodical Confer ed., p.223; Engl. ed., p. 136. ence: Unity Rather than Union," ibid., XLI 170 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1923, Germ. (July 4,1922),216. ed., p.229. 534 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT"
- agreement might be reached between a home within the Lutheran Church.... "174 the Ohio and Iowa synods and the Synod He said that "certain elements within the ical Conference.171 There was a readiness American Lutheran Church espouse this even to stress the fact that doctrinal dif error [that the conversion of man is not ferences still existed. A "Lutheran Forum," brought about solely by the gracious opera for instance, in Chicago heard William tion of God, but that the co-operation of Dallmann speak on "Things Which Dis man is essential} with such determination unite" in October 1924.172 In this same that they have not refrained from branding year Pieper delivered an essay at the Ore the Missouri Synod and affiliated synods gon and Washington District of the Mis Calvinists.... " 175 souri Synod on "Unionism." He said: The question of church union was aired Holy Scriptures teach very emphatically also from the pulpits of the Missouri Synod and in manifold ways that all fellow-ship during this period (1917-1932). Paul {sic} with false doctrine is forbidden of Lindemann, for instance, wrote: God and detrimental to the Church.173 The wave of unionistic tendencies which In applying this proposition he rejected has swept over our country and over the union with the Reformed denominations, world is plainly of satanic origin. It is one "both such as teach that God does not de of the two methods of Satan to despoil the sire the salvation of all men, as well as Church of Christ. . . . Every union that is not based on a unity of faith has in those that maintain that God does not by every case proved disastrous, and all its grace alone wish to save and convert men." splendid promises have turned out to be Then he added: "It is a regrettable fact vain delusions.176 that the latter false doctrine has found Unionism, Theo. Graebner wrote, violates the clearness of Scripture. unionistic 171 [Th.} G[raebner}, "Lutheran Union," A Lutheran Witness, XLII (Aug. 14, 1923), 263. Lutheran makes of Lutheranism a sect.177 He said: "For this purpose [to bring about Unionism was condemned in an article agreement} our Synod has an Intersynodical Committee. For this purpose, too, unofficial con in THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY by William ferences between our men and the representa Arndt.178 He pointed out: "That the ques tives of other bodies have been held and are tion of unionism has been one of the chief being held. These negotiations have not been without blessed result, and the hope is bright for the removal of dillerences which have been 174 Ibid., p. 10. In italics in the original. a cause of schism and disunion." 175 Ibid., p. 19. Also see [M.} S[ommer}, "'Ohio,' 'Iowa,' 176 Paul Lindemann, "Church 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, 1920, at Minneapolis, achieved, because all the points of controversy Minn., on John 10:16, Magazin fUr Bvang.-Iuth. have not been fully discussed, but progress has Homiletik und Pastoraltheologie, XLIV (Octo been made, and the effort will be continued." ber 1920), 465 f. 172 Ibid., XLIII (Nov. 18, 1924), 420. 177 [Th.} G[raebner}, "Letters to a Young 173 F. Pieper, Unionism: What Does the Preacher," Tenth Letter, Magazin fUr evang. Bible Say about Church-Union? trans. ]. A. Rim luth. Homiletik und PastoraltheologiB, XLIV bach and E. H. Brandt (Oregon City, Oreg.: (December 1920), 566. Oregon City Enterprise for the Oregon and 178 W. Arndt, "The Lutheran Church and Washington District of the Missouri Synod, Unionism," Theological Monthly, VI (Novem [1925} ), p. 5. In italics in the original. ber 1926), 321-328. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 535 rocks on which the past hopes for unifi The Missouri Synod leaders were more cation of the Lutheran Church in America concerned, however, by the fact that these came to grief is well known." 179 "Union synods were negotiating with the Norwe ism is not only one of the chief obstacles gian Lutheran Church and had agreed on to Lutheran harmony, it is one of the the Minneapolis Theses in 1925. These greatest evils that are harassing the body theses dealt with the following topics: the of Christ these days." 180 Scriptures; the Lutheran Symbols; Church Just at this time, between 1923 and Fellowship; the Chicago Theses of 1919 1926, the Ohio and Iowa Synods advanced (the work of Christ, the Gospel, absolu toward organic union - a union that was tion, Baptism, justification, faith, conver consummated also with the Buffalo Synod sion, and election); the lodge question; in the formation of the American Lutheran and a declaration of mutual recognition.183 Church in 1930. The initiative had come Meetings were continued also between from the Iowa Synod in 1919. A year the representatives of the Synodical Con later a joint committee got to work; in ference and of the Ohio and Iowa Synods 1922 a larger conm1ittee came into being, (but not the Norwegian Lutheran Church). which drew up detailed plans for an or When the Missouri Synod committee re gallic union. The recommendation for ported to the convention in St. Louis in such a merger came in 1924. In 1925 1926 it could state that agreement had the Buffalo Synod voiced a readiness to been reached with the committees of these join with Iowa and Ohio. In 1926, how synods on many points: the doctrines ot ever, the demands of the Iowa Synod for the Scriptures (deemed necessary because a change in wording of the confessional of its importance for unity, although no paragraph caused a delay in effecting the controversy had raged on this point except union.181 on the question of analo gia fidei), at Some good might come out of the efforts titude toward the Confessions, church fel to unite the Iowa and the Ohio synods, lowship, the church, the spiritual priest Pieper declared, after the Ohio Synod had hood, the ministry, Antichrist, chiliasm, rejected this proposed amendment to the Sunday, and open questions. The adequacy doctrinal paragraph of the proposed con of these theses was to be Synod's decision stitution. on the basis of the report of the Examin Aus den neuen Vereinigungsbestrebungen kann etwas Gutes kommen, wenn sie er ing Committee. In any eventuality con neute Untersuchungen dariiber veranlassen, tinued discussions with the other Synods was wirklich lutherische Lehre ist und was were urged.184 bisher noch immer filschlich dafiir ausge The convention rejoiced over the prog- geben wurde. 182 1926), 310, Cf. ibid" LXXII (November 179 Ibid., p. 322. 1926), 342, 343 re these differences. 180 Ibid., p. 327. 183 Doctrinal Declarations, pp, 20-23; Bruce, 181 Wentz, Lutheranism in America, pp. 298, pp.81-83; Theological Monthly, VII (April 299, 1927), 112-117. 182 F. P[ieperJ in "Kirchlich-Zeitgeschicht 184 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1926, Germ, liches," Lehre und Wehre, LXXII (October ed., pp. 223, 224. 536 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" ress which had been made. It found that synods, and revised and formally adopted "the Lutheran doctrine has not yet in all on Aug. 2, 1928, in St. Paup88 points received such expression as is clear, Dissatisfaction with the Chicago Theses precise, adequate, and exclusive of all developed within the Missouri Synod. Pie error." Pastoral conferences were to study per feared that they harbored "verschie them. It re-elected the personnel of the denes Verhalten," i. e., that the difference Intersynodical Committee, with instruc in conversion can be accounted for by the tions to remove other obstacles toward variant dispositions in different people.189 unity and union, among them the differing Other voices were raised in more decided concept of Christian fellowship.185 This disagreement. convention also heard the report of the When the Intersynodical Committee re Examining Committee, which had been ported to the Missouri Synod convention appointed to review the products of the in 1929 it made no specific recommenda Intersynodical Committee. It recommended tion for adoption or rejection of the Chi about 24 changes, both in the theses on cago Theses. It did recommend that the conversion and election submitted in 1923 action on the theses be separated from the and the additional theses agreed on be question of fraternal relations with Iowa, tween 1923 and 1926. It found these Ohio, and Buffalo, because of the ties the changes "necessary" (iZotig).186 latter had made mit nicht bekemztnistreuen 190 With the encouragement of the conven Lutheranem. tion the Missouri Synod Intersynodical So, too, in spite of the declaration of Committee (Th. Engelder had replaced altar and pulpit fellowship by the Ohio Th. Graebner) continued meeting with and Norwegian synods on the basis of the the committees of the other synods. The Minneapolis Theses, John Meyer of the revisions of the Missouri Synod Prufungs 188 A. C. Haase, secretary, "Schlussbericht komitee were presented to this joint com des Intersynodalkomitees," Theologische Quar mittee. Most of them were accepted; none talschrift, XXV (October 1928), 266; see pp. were rejected for doctrinal reasons. Im 266-288. The English version is ibid., XXVI (October 1929), 250-273. The Ger portant additions were made, especially man text was declared the official text. They a section treating election intuitu fidei, and were reprinted separately in both the German 187 and the English. The English version can be one expanding the section on chiliasm. found conveniently in Doctrinal Declarations, The final formation was the well-known pp.24-59. "Chicago Theses Concerning Conversion, 189 F. P[ieperJ, "Vorwort," Lehre und Predestination, and Other Doctrines," Wehre, LXXIII (January and February, 1927), 3: "Bin Versuch zur Beseitigung dieser Plage ist adopted by representatives of the Buffalo, in der jiingsten Zeit wieder in den sogenannten Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin 'Intersynodalen Thesen' gemacht worden, die von den Vertretern der Synodalkonferenz einer seits und von Vertretern der Synoden von Iowa, 185 Ibid., pp.227-229; Engl. ed., pp. 140 f. Ohio und Buffalo anderseits zusammengestellt 186 Ibid., Germ. ed., pp. 225, 226; Engl. ed., sind. Sie sind zu genauer Priifung an die ge pp.135-137. nannten Kirchenkorper verwiesen worden." 187 Reports tmd Memorials, Mo. Synod, 190 Reports and Memorials, Mo. Synod, 1929, pp. 130, 131. 1929, p. 131. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 537
Wisconsin Synod asked that the Chicago It would be better to discard them as Theses "be prayerfully considered on their a failure. It now seems to your Committee own merit." 191 He said of the committee's a matter of wisdom to desist from inter work: synodical conferences. By entering into In heilsamem Horror vor aller Union a closer relationship with the adherents of isterei war das Komitee stets bestrebt, the Norwegian "Opgioer," the opponents jeden Ausdruck, der etwa zweideutig er have given evidence that they do not hold scheinen konnte, zu vermeiden, so dass 01J7 position in the doctrines of conversion die resultierende These immer von allen and election. In view of this action further im gleichen Sinn verstanden wurde und in conferences would be useless and only ihrem klaren Wortlaut das Herzensbe create the impression as if (sic) we were kenntnis eines jedes Komiteegliedes ist. endeavoring to come to an understanding, Der Segen des Herrn blieb den Bemii which is not the case. hungen des Komitees nicht versagt. Das It ought now also to be apparent that lebendige Wort unsers Gottes bewies seine the manner of conducting these confer einigende Kraft. Der Heilige Geist, der ences, to wit, the exclusion of all historical die ganze Christenheit auf Erden sammelt, matters, is wrong (keine weise war). As trieb sein Werk der Einigung mit Macht a result the opponents hardly understand ~lJ. den Il,,~. 195 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1929, pp. 112, 196 Proceedings, Mo. Synod, 1932, pp. 154, 113. 155. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 539 triet conventions and in Lehre und Wehre, of 1932. Two other formulations must his shorter treatises, and then his Christ also be noted. Both are from the pen of liche Dogmatik substantiated his prestige Francis Pieper; both appeared in 1893. as a theologian. His duties as president of The one is the essay read at the convention Concordia Seminary and as President of of the Missouri Synod, giving a survey of the Missouri Synod from 1899 to 1911, his the doctrine and practice of the Synod.6 activities within the Synodical Conference, The second is in English, a contribution to his membership on various boards and a symposium on the distinctive doctrines committees made it mandatory for him to of the individual Lutheran church bodies 7 be a churchman as well as a theologian. in America. He, then, was the chief author of A Brief In his 1893 synodical essay Pieper began Statement.1 with the position of the Missouri Synod toward the Holy Scriptures. He noted the He was also the author of other doc attacks on Holy Scriptures. trinal formulations that preceded the Brief Stateme1Zt. These are "lch glattbe, darum Die heilige Schrift soU nicht mehr das unfehlbare Gotteswort sein, dem sich alles, rede ich" 2 (1897) and Was die SYlzode was Mensch heisst, im Glaubensgehorsam von Missouri, Ohio uJut (j,·ndern Staaten zu unterwerfen hat, sondern ein Buch, das wah rend ihres jU1Zftt1Zdsiebzigjahrigen Be auch irrige Menschenmeinungen enthalte, stehem gelehrt hat und 1Zoch lehrt (1922).:1 an dem daher die Menschen Kritik iiben The first of these was issued in a second kCinnten und miissten.8 unaltered edition; 4 it was translated into He called this position to the Scriptures English when first published.5 These are gottlos.9 Higher criticism was treated, in direct progenitors of A Brief Statement Pieper's own phrase, without a compli ment.10 The doctrine of God was discussed 1 L. Fuerbringer, "F. Pieper als Theolog," CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, II (October 1931), 721-729; ibid., II (Novem 6 Francis Pieper, "Dberblick iiber unsere ber 1931), 801-807; W. H. T. Dau, "Dr. Stellung in Lehre und Praxis, welche wir als Francis Pieper, the Churchman," ibid., II (Octo Synode dem uns umgebenden Irrthum und ber 1931), 729-736; T. Laetsch, "D. Pieper Misshrauch gegeniiber einnehmen," Proceedings, als Prediger," ibid., II (October 1931), 761 to Mo. Synod, 1893, pp.26-53. 771. 7 The six essays in the volume are by M. Loy 2 The subtitle is: "Eine kurze Darstellung on the Ohio Synod, M. Valentine on the General der Lehrstellung der Missouri-Synode. Zum Synod, S. Fritschel on the Iowa Synod, H. E. JubiEi.umsjahr 1897." Presumably this was pub Jacobs on the General Council, E. T. Horn on lished by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, the United Synod of the South, and F. Pieper on 1897, although these data are not given. the Synodical Conference. See F. Pieper, "The 3 St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, Synodical Conference," The Distinctive Doc 1922. trines and Usages of the General Bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church the United 4 St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, in 1903. States (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication So ciety, 1893), pp. 119-166. 5 Francis Pieper, A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, in the 8 Pieper, "Dberblick," Proceedings, Mo. Year of Jubilee, 1897, translated from the Ger Synod, 1893, pp. 26, 27. man by W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia 9 Ibid., p.27. Publishing House [1897]. 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 (Ve1- jections to this doctrine" and the assurance einigungsbestrebungen) of the day. He re of election.12 fered briefly to Missouri's position on The doctrine of predestination was lodges.11 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. All 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 doc 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 congre 12 Pieper, "The Synodical Conference," Dis· tinctive Doctrines and Usages, passim. 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. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" 541 Table II comes in the last paragraph. Here the TOPICS TREATED IN FIVE MISSOURI 1932 reading is different in its pruase SYNOD DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS ology throughout, noting the Unitarians 1887-1932 and the synergists specifically and con G E demning those, too, who "again mix hu 1893 1893 1897 1922 1932 man works into the article of justification Of the Holy Scriptures X X X X Of God X X X X by ascribing to man a cooperation with Of Creation X X X God in the kindling of faith ...." 15 Thus Of Man and Sin X X X in including "objective justification" and Of Redemption X X X Of Faith in Christ X X X warning against the Verschiedenheit des Of Conversion X X X X X menschlichen Verhaltens 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 X since 1887. Of the Election A Brief Statement of 1932 was not in v of Grace X ~,.. X X X Of the Church X X X X X tended to be a summary of the beliefs held Of the Public Ministry 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 appendage 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 statu controversiae. Since Of Church Discipline X the resolutions came in connection with Of Absolution X 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 suffice, that on the ment with these theses. Such was not the article on justification. The 1932 document case, however. A Brief Statement 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), "who believe that document. So, for instance, the article in Christ, that is, believe that for Christ's on the Sedptures 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 reflects opposition to believe, accept, and rely on {darin be evolutionism, the article on justification ruhen}, the fact that for Christ's sake their repudiates those who deny universalis sins are forgiven." 14 There are one or two g1"atia. other variations. The greatest variation The question remains, In how far did 14 Paragraph 17. 15 Paragraph 19. 542 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF "A BRIEF STATEMENT" A Brief Statement deal with the same the space in the Chicago Theses was oc questions with which the Chicago 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 Statement deals the doctrines of conversion and election, with topics with which the Chicago Theses are not concerned. Even more surprising, Table III 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 Brief Statement is a reaction to Chicago Brief Topic Theses Statement the total theological climate of the 1880s Of the Holy Scriptures D,1-3 1-3 to the late 1920s, particularly to the events Of God 4 in Lutheranism in America. Of Creation 5 The 1897 document spoke in more uni Of Man and of Sin A,1 6, 7 Of Redemption B, 1-4 t 8 versal tones - it does not need to be read Of Faith in Christ 9 in reverse to see the questions to which Of Conversion A,I-10 10-16 it was addressed-than did the 1932 doc Of Justification B, 1-4 t 17-19 Of Good Works 20 ument. It spoke with an evangelical, con Of Means of Grace 21-23 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 opinion of the present writer, answers the The Spiritual Priesthood D,16-17 30 Of the Public Ministry D,18-20 31-33 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,I-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 Antichrist 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 Theses Lutheran Church D,4-8 45-48 where they may have been necessary. Be quite properly, bulked largest in both doc that as it may. If the 1932 Brief State uments. Almost 50 per cent of the space ment is indeed a product of the Middle in A Brief Statement and 75 per cent of 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 "Universal Will of Grace." St. Louis, Mo.