Stoughton, Wisconsin

June 3 - 9, 1887

To the esteemed Synod of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Dear brothers in the ministry and representatives of the congregations! Grace and peace be yours abundantly in the acknowledgement of God, and Jesus Christ our Lord!

Three years have again passed and the representatives of the congregations are gathered for a meeting of the joint synod. I surely am not mistaken in saying that the doctrinal controversy within our synod is the matter which occupies our minds and which especially will be the subject of the synod’s earnest deliberations and discussions. I do not need to expound upon their great importance for our church body and for our congregations. The gravity of the moment must force itself upon every one of us. A great responsibility rests upon us over toward the congregations we represent, over toward the thousands of redeemed souls who are to be nourished in them in the pastures of the Word and upheld unto eternal life, and above all, over toward the Lord of the Church who has committed to us the ministry of the Word so that it is to be administered faithfully in accordance with his institution and for the salvation and blessedness of souls. It challenges us to approach the work with fear and trembling, to call upon the gracious assistance of him who alone can help us, so that with calmness, wisdom and love we can discuss with each other, and weigh, and conclude the important business which lies before us. So that the discussions can be carried on with the composure which is proper for Christians and redound to the glory of God and be a blessing to the congregations, so exceedingly much depends upon our not nourishing unfounded suspicions against one another or passing sentence upon one another without clear proofs, but that we speak and discuss as in the presence of God as we remember that we shall render an account before the judgment throne. Besides, my friends, the Lord has said to us that his grace is sufficient for us and that his strength is made perfect in our weakness! If we preserve his testimony unadulterated and if we hold firmly to it in genuine faith, then we are assured of possessing his grace. And if we have it, brethren, then we have enough, whatever else may happen, because then his strength is made perfect in our weakness. To that end may God help us for Jesus‘ sake!

As you know, the recent doctrinal controversy began with Professor Schmidt²⁵ making public accusations of Calvinism and Crypto-Calvinism against colleagues, although we on our part held totally to the Formula of Concord. We particularly emphasized the familiar assertion that there “is not a cause of our election in us,” likewise, that believers ought to have and can have an unfailing certainty of faith about their eternal election, which was rejected by the other side. The controversy soon prompted many subtle questions. Vehement, unfounded judgments of dissent were made, because of which many minds were confused and the tranquility of the congregations was disturbed. It was so much more likely that this was the case since the doctrine in question was never discussed publicly in our synod meetings, very seldom had been the subject for thorough discussions in sermons in the congregations, and thus was all but unknown to our laypeople, because with but few exceptions, neither had the pastors of the synod subjected it to any deeper, thorough study. It was, to be sure, not a fundamental doctrine which it was necessary to know for salvation. It therefore also became apparent at the beginning of the controversy that many people were completely in the dark and were undecided over toward the various positions and the ways in which they were stated.

Although both the Lutheran doctrine of Justification and the Lutheran doctrine of Absolution had been thoroughly discussed at our synod meetings and had been generally agreed upon within our synod, and although in doing that a Calvinistic as well as synergistic tendency and slant was strongly withstood and energetically rejected, yet it was, however, not long after the outbreak of the new controversy before new, strange ways of expressing things, which were unsafe for our circles, were put forward and the assertions defended, which led to fears that a synergistic root had attached itself to them and was growing. This prompted some people among us to request that the doctrine of conversion be made the subject for discussions in our pastoral conferences because they were convinced that if there was, as we hoped, unity of faith in the doctrine of election, disagreement in views and expressions would not be able to justify a split of the congregations and synod where unity of faith was present. The request was, however, rendered suspect. It was said to be based only on the desire to avoid discussion of the doctrine of election. It was unnecessary and unreasonable to go over to a discussion of the doctrine of conversion, since we all agreed so completely on it, and then, it was not so closely interrelated with the doctrine of election. In spite of that objection the discussions and the controversy little by little shifted involuntarily to the doctrine of conversion.

In the presentation of this doctrine expressions and ways of saying things which had to shock a Lutheran ear very much were also being used now more and more, which long before the controversy we all wanted to be agreed on rejecting or advising against their use as questionable. It is otherwise well worth calling attention to how these things increased as everything which the controversy pushed forward and people’s ears became accustomed to the new ways of saying things. It was as though people were becoming more bold. Assertions were now made. Doctrines were rejected. And the question made the subject for discussion about which we would earlier never have talked.

Thus, for example, that “in a certain sense salvation does not depend on God alone,” that “our salvation does not lie in God’s hand alone but that it is put into people’s hands,” that “ God has decided to do it (namely, to save us) because of our attitude,” that “since God works on a person through his Word and his Spirit to convert him, then a person’s conversion will depend on his own choice, on the attitude in which he places himself toward the operation of God’s grace” (K.R. Forh., p. 31), that “when God calls to people through his Word, then, through his Word he works in everyone so that he can “want to convert himself,” that “the Word of God cannot come to a person without something new coming into him,” that “the natural man receives some powers from God with which he can cooperate in his conversion” (K.R. Forh., p. 29), that through the call a person receives “abilities and powers by the grace of God with which in full freedom of choice he can himself decide to convert himself to God” (Eastern District annual report, 1885, p. 36), that “through prefatory grace God gives a person the ability to convert himself, and a person’s conversion will then depend on his using the ability which God gives him,” that when God works on them, people’s future salvation “does not depend on God but on themselves” (Luth. B. 1884, p. 453), that a person’s conversion depends on the unregenerate person using the power which he receives in the Gospel to convert himself and that the unregenerate person who uses this power which he receives through the Word cooperates with the carrying out of God’s plan of salvation, concerning himself” (Norden, 22 April, 1885), that “the omission of willful resistance is what the act of conversion is about, not grace, that there is a middle-state between being spiritually dead or alive (K.R. Forh. P. 29), that it shall be correct to say that a person “builds his hope of salvation on his having allowed himself to be brought into the plan of salvation and that his attitude in this regard had been as it ought to be” (Luth. B., 1886, p. 117), “that with our prayer we can in a way bring God to decide to, we can move God to hear us, or thereby, that we forsake our other transgressions and can bring him to do what he has promised to do in such a case, namely, forgive us our transgressions” (Luth. B. 1886, p. 210). “If people want to have us believe, it is absolutely certain that we should once be saved. Then we know also that we will have something to do with procuring such a faith, because we know that it is just as certain that we can one day enter hell, namely, if we fall from our baptismal covenant, and being fallen, as it is certain that we can be saved, namely, if we are found in faith in Jesus Christ to our lives’ end” (Minnesota District annual report, 1880, p. 14). I cannot see otherwise than that with such talk people contradict several fundamental doctrines of Scripture, namely, that the unregenerate person does not possess a free will or a power with which he can cooperate in his conversion, that our salvation is effected and is dependent upon God alone and lies in God’s hand, that we are justified by faith alone without the deeds of the Law, and that therefore works must not be intermingled in the article of justification, that “he who works prayer in us is the Holy Ghost,” and that “consequently no one except a true Christian can pray” (Muus, Synod Report 1877, p. 15), and that “where faith is lacking, prayer to God is an abomination” (Synod Report 1877, p. 25), and that God “will forgive us it (sin) entirely by grace (Small Catechism, 5^th Petition), that there are but two classes of people, believers and unbelievers; so that I shall not doubt but believe that God “shall give me and all believers eternal life.”

That there is, however, obvious disunity in essential points of doctrine among those who follow Prof. Schmidt’s and Pastor Muus’s²⁶ direction in this controversy I have recently called attention to in an open letter to Pastor Muus which was published in Evangelisk Luthersk Kirketidende, number 21 for this year, and which is appended to my report. I therefore do not doubt either that several people on the other side disapprove of expressions such as those I have quoted, although no public protest against them has come to my attention. However, even if one does not think that he can attach a completely different meaning to them than the word says, yet, however, the synod will not possibly be able to tolerate that a way of saying things is used by its pastors which must confuse and mislead people, and even rightly stamp the synod’s doctrine in this matter as good Catholic doctrine.

But unfortunately it become more and more clear that we could not speak here for everyone about awkward or incorrect ways of saying things.

At the pastoral conference in Decorah in the fall of 1884 some of the members held special meetings and drew up a “Confession Concerning Some Disputed Points of Doctrine.” The other members of the pastoral conference saw it as their excuse to give the synod’s congregations an accounting of their faith. They did it in “An Accounting to the Congregations of the Norwegian Synod.” The majority of those who had subscribed to the “Confession” then held a special meeting in Red Wing (Minnesota) in the fall of 1885. They came to the conclusion that those men who had subscribed to the “Accounting” ought to be deposed, likewise a couple of district presidents. They also took various steps in order to form a more distinct organization as a separate faction within the synod.

The work and the defense on behalf of the new position about the spiritual freedom of the unregenerate person and his ability to cooperate in his conversion became more determined and more persistent, and the old ways of stating it, to be rejected even more. Thus they said, for example: “Scripture expresses itself in several places in this way, that people’s predisposition, speech and deeds, or attitude, are causes for their conversion and salvation” (at the conference in Zumbrota [MN]); and: “in this passage (Mt. 25:34 ff.) the Savior cites people’s attitude as the reason that they are given eternal life (at the conference in Zumbrota); it is taught also that the unregenerate person can pray in a God-pleasing manner about those things to which God himself leads him and prompts him to sigh about (Luth. B., 1887, p. 201), and that God promises that he will take into consideration the fact “that an ungodly person is calling upon him” and will be merciful to him and forgive him (Luth. B., 1887, p. 199); likewise, “Therefore it will happen that a (spiritually) dead person does a good work, and I do not know how it will happen, but God does; for me it is enough that it can happen, and that I do it” (to the Norwegian Lutheran congregations in Manitowoc [WI], etc., by Bjorn, p. 19).

Meanwhile, a so-called “Peace Committee” of three members from each side was appointed with the right to choose a seventh member, such a man as people generally regarded as the most moderate.

Most people’s expectations were made brighter that unity would still be achieved through the work of this committee. These expectations had to be strengthened by the result of the discussions in the Minnesota District in 1885 where it became apparent that Pastor Muus stood quite alone with his error in a fundamental point of doctrine. The bright expectation, however, received a serious setback through the Red Wing resolutions. At the same time, a colloquy was arranged in Lacrosse (WI), and the result exceeded expectations. The colloquy resolved to continue, and strong encouragement for that came from the Eastern District meeting the previous year. However, now there was as hasty an end to all discussions as it was tragic. Except that the Iowa District’s meeting concluded that no change whatever had occurred in the doctrinal position. Among other things there was the provisional establishment of a theological seminary in Northfield, Minnesota, and Pastor Muus allowed an immediate appeal to go out to the congregations. Since in doing that he placed himself in open opposition to the synod’s schools, completely broke with its regulations, and against the synodical constitution took it upon himself to want to train, examine and send out pastors within the synod as a separate synod within the synod, there surely could no longer be talk about the continuation of the colloquy about which people previously were agreed. The discussions in the newspapers have also fallen upon a dead calm and instead have been geared to making even more clear what the real point of the controversy is.

I am convinced that the question is whether the unregenerate person can possess the ability or the power to decide for grace on his own and thus add something of his own, and cooperate in his conversion. This was the point of disagreement during the discussions of the Church Council in Minneapolis. It is basically around this point that the discussions at the synod meetings have revolved even if it has not explicitly been set up as the theme for the discussions. There is certainly no disagreement that this question is also an important point in the doctrine of conversion because whether the truth is going to be preserved among us that we are saved by grace and that we are justified by faith alone without the deeds of the Law, depends on its preservation. I was convinced that the doctrine of conversion had to be the topic for the synod’s doctrinal discussions and have therefore specified it as the topic for discussion in the notification of this meeting. As I said, I have believed that that one mentioned above was the most important of the various points in the doctrine of conversion, and that it would be the most useful for the synod to use in the form in which it has twice been discussed at the Iowa District’s meetings, as the basis for the discussions. Toward that end I have left a brief report be published and I have appointed a couple of reporters.

I mentioned the theological seminary in Northfield a moment ago and touched on the significance which the establishing of this opposition-institution has had for the course of the controversy as well as with regard to the position which a portion of the synod’s members have taken over toward the synod.

Certainly a great many things have occurred during the controversy which were contrary to the synod’s constitution and to good church order and which were well suited for giving offence to hearts, loosening synodical ties and bringing on discord in the synod and in the congregations. Thus, congregations in the synod have adopted new confessions without its approval and given them such an importance that a pastor’s refusal to sign his name to them has been stated as the only reason for his removal. Pastors and laypeople have not merely sent their appeals and circulars around to members of other congregations but also forced themselves into them and have accepted larger or small numbers of congregations’ members into their services who have deposed their pastors or separated themselves from the congregation, contrary to the Word of God. Students have been encouraged to pursue their theological studies at the Ohio Synod’s seminary and have received assistance for this from members of the synod. After having completed their course there, some of them have been called by congregations in the synod without having submitted to the testing prescribed in the synodical constitution, and with the bypassing of those properly concerned, been ordained by pastors in the synod or by others who had no authorization whatever for it from the synod or its officers. Yes, there are even instances where pastors in the synod, without any authorization whatever, have laid hands on and ordained such as have not passed the prescribed examinations, but for good reasons meanwhile have been denied ordination by the ordinators authorized by the synod, the district presidents. It is not necessary to point out at greater length what a debilitating influence such conduct must have upon pastors and congregations, and how destructive and divisive they must be for the entire church body.

However, none of that, and not all of it combined either, is of as far-reaching significance as is the establishing of the Northfield seminary. This action, together with the existing facts in connection with it, is not merely a breach of good church order, a breach of faith and of laws, a violation of the synodical constitution, but a declaration in action by the participants concerned, that they no longer will submit to the synod, its constitution and authorities to which they pledged themselves through their voluntarily joining the synod, that they will no longer work for and support the synod’s various institutions, but will undermine and work against them as far as their abilities and powers reach.

This is evident already from the appeal of Pastor Muus “to the Lutheran pastors in the Norwegian Synod” (Lutheran Testimony, V, p. 363). He says: “During the last meeting of the Iowa District I had summoned the counselors whom the pastoral conference in Red Wing had chosen in order to consider what could be done under the existing circumstances. Some of the pastors and laypeople of our faith also gathered several times during the synod meeting in order to consult with each other. Withdrawal from the synod was then discussed and passages from Scripture quoted in support of doing that, but it was decided that it required ’only a spiritual separation’ not a ’physical’ separation, and that no ’joint church work’ remained ’when they carried on a dogged and unceasing fight’ against the others in the synod who in their opinion were teaching falsely. Therefore they decided, he says, to ’attempt to establish a private seminary’ in Northfield, Minnesota, and to put the first-year class upstairs at the St. Olaf’s school there.”

That it was not the intention of this “private” institution to work with and to support the synod’s instituitions is even more clearly evident from the statements in the appeal: “We have no obligation to support the synod’s institutions as we have in the past,” “since the synod’s institutions now insist upon a doctrine which is different from the one the synod’s constitution dictates. Thus they have broken the covenant which was established with us through the constitution.” “It is presumed that not even the consideration of fairness can justly be cited as reason for supporting the synod’s institutions such as it was in the past.”

In the address with which the new “private” seminary was dedicated, it says: “And now we are, however, gathered here today in order to open our own private school for pastors, which by the nature of the matter must stand in distinct opposition to the seminary of the church body to which we either have belonged or still belong.” And again, “namely, it is, and with the help of God always will be, a vigorous, strong and successful opposition-institution.”

Therefore, according to the public declarations of the founders, the purpose of the new “private” seminary in Northfield is to work against, and if possible, to destroy the institutions of the synod. It will happen by drawing students and the support of congregations away from the synod’s institutions to the new institution, by graduating and sending out ordained pastors from it into the synod’s congregations. And they have truly worked toward this goal. The synod’s seminary is presented as a nursery of errors; those of the synod’s pastors and members who wanted to have nothing to do with either the new doctrine or the new private seminary, but held to the old doctrine and to the synod’s seminary, are accused of laying another foundation than that which is laid through God’s universal grace in Christ Jesus (Luth. Vidne., V, p. 460). Yes, it is called an unfruitful fig tree on which they will not waste more vigorous effort, but which they must “let go.”

Special pastoral conferences and meetings are held, appeals and circulars are being sent out, and collections taken in the congregations for these private institutions and missions.

It cannot be necessary to point out more clearly that the establishing of a theological seminary with this goal, and that a union and organization of a portion of the members of the synod with its own government, own treasury and own teachers working for the furtherance of this goal, is contrary to all church order, and is an organization of a synod within the synod and is an act of dissension, which if it succeeds, must lead to the breaking up of the synod. A church body cannot tolerate such conduct without working toward its own dissolution.

That it is also an obvious breach of faith and laws, a breach of the synodical constitution, should not need any proof either.

Every congregation which joins the synod had made the statement that “the constitution of the Synod was adopted in a public meeting of the congregation,” and every permanent member declares at his acceptance into the synod that he “submits to its constitution.” They have therefore pledged themselves as long as they belong to the synod to cooperate toward furthering its goals, supporting its institutions, maintaining its establishments, etc. If someone believes, with or without reason, that he can no longer do that with a good conscience and if he finds that his efforts for correcting in a constitutional manner something which he regards as wrong, are fruitless, then there is nothing else for him to do than to separate himself from the synod. He can no longer work together with it in agreement with the obligations assumed. But to remain a member and to use his rights as such, incessantly to make a breach against the synod’s regulations in the teeth of his obligation, to set himself up against its authorities and to undermine and to destroy instead of supporting and upholding its schools and organizations is no Christian, no honorable method of proceeding.

On the next page of his report President Preus cites the synod’s constitution point for point regarding the several matters he has been discussing.

With what reasons are people trying to defend such a method of proceeding? They have called the new seminary a “private” seminary. But if it can be called “private” in any sense, the synod cannot allow a private opposition-institution for the training of pastors. It is contrary to the synodical constitution. The real reason, though, is the one which is stated in Pastor Muus’s appeal when he says: “Since the synod’s administration is now insisting upon a doctrine in its institutions which is different from the one the synod’s constitution prescribes, it has broken the contract which is established with us through the constitution.”

The reason, therefore, is this that according to them the teachers at the synod’s institutions, with the aid of the synod’s administration, are insisting upon a doctrine which is alleged to be contrary to the doctrine which the synod confesses in its constitution. They are certainly not stating more precisely at this time what this false doctrine is, much less do they prove from the Word of God and the Confessions that the teachers at the synod’s institutions are teaching any false doctrine. But we are not in doubt as to which doctrine is referred to, nor of the particular point in this doctrine from which people have especially taken offence.

Among other resolutions to which I want to direct the esteemed synod’s attention, some of the pastors who have participated in the establishing of the seminary in Northfield have also drawn up a so-called “Accounting,” namely, at the private pastoral conference in Red Wing, which does contain false and soul-destroying doctrine, for example, section III, paragraphs 15 and 21, under the heading “Theses Which Are Rejected.” The doctrine that a person’s conversion, then, when it is effected by God’s grace in the call, in no sense whatsoever depends upon man, is false and soul-destroying. The “Accounting,” section III, paragraph 15 which is complained against, reads like this: “The cause of the election of grace is solely the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, and there is in us no cause for the sake of which God has elected us unto eternal life.” (Cf. Formula of Concord, Epitome, XI, 20; Ep. 1:4-5; Ti. 3:4-7).

“We reject the synergistic doctrine that in electing a person God has been ‘influenced by’ or has ‘taken into consideration’ or has ‘been guided by’ a person’s conduct. For a person’s (good) conduct denotes something which he ‘does or omits doing,’ in other words a work of the law; and when one refers to election unto salvation and the attainment of salvation we confess that ‘our best works are of no value whatever to that end’ (Cp. Pontoppidan, Sandheten til gudfryktighet, [Truth unto Godliness] Q, 325 (323.327); Epitome, Q. 215. 217). On the other hand, when one refers to damnation, then we confess that a person’s (evil) conduct is the cause of it. Ep. 2:4-5, 8-9; Mt. 22:5-8; 1 Co. 4:7; Jo. 3:27; 1:17.”

Paragraph 21 in “An Accounting” reads like this:

“According to Scripture it belongs to the essence of grace to be free; for if grace is not free, i.e. undeserved by any kind of merit whatsoever in the one who is favored by it, then ‘grace is no more grace’ (Ro. 11:6), and a person cannot then trust in the grace of God alone. Ro. 3:23-24,27-28; Ep. 2:8-10. We reject the synergistic doctrine that the election in Christ has not taken place in accordance with a free purpose of grace by God and that ‘salvation in a certain sense does not depend on God alone.’ Ep. 1:11.” (Translated in Grace for Grace, Brief History of the Norwegian Synod, Lutheran Synod Book Company, Mankato, MN, 1943, pages 184-185).

It is naturally not my intention here to enter into any proof of the error in this charge or of the agreement of the doctrine which is attacked, with Scripture and the Symbols. It will, of course, become the primary subject for the synod’s discussions and judgments if the point of doctrine which I proposed above underlies the doctrinal discussions. I believe, however, that I ought to make the synod aware of simple facts which can serve to putting this accusation against the synod’s pastors in the right light.

It was in November 1885 that the sentence of removal from office for “false and soul-destroying” doctrine fell upon the subscribers of “An Accounting” from that private pastoral conference in Red Wing. We had heard that the Peace Committee inaugurated at the Minnesota District’s meeting, which consisted of the leading men from both sides, had reached agreement on a number of theses (28 in all) in which the essential points of difference in the doctrine of conversion were discussed. The fifth additional thesis reads like this: “Before regeneration God does not give a person a power which he now possesses as his own, organically united with him, so that he has free command and ability to use it, a power with which in full freedom of choice he himself can now decide for his conversion. God does not give a person such a power before the very moment in which he regenerates him.”

In opposition to this thesis, Pastor Muus, who took part in the meeting of the Peace Committee in Zumbrota, set up the following counter-thesis: “A person who is being called by God is under the effect of God’s prefatory grace and by God’s grace receives then abilities and powers which he then has and can use with free command, and an ability of disposition to use them, the abilities and powers with which in full freedom of choice he himself can decide to convert himself to God.” This thesis was rejected uanimously by the members of the Peace Committee, also by his fellow believers. (See the Eastern District report, 1885, p. 36). At the 1885 Minnesota District meeting the fifth additional thesis mentioned was adopted by a vote of 94 for and 35 against, after Pastor Bockman had explained it on behalf of the Peace Committee. During the discussion Pastor Muus declared that the thesis contained false doctrine. In this cardinal point it therefore became evident that there was a basic difference of belief within the faction itself and that the great majority of them were in full agreement with those who in Red Wing sentenced the subscribers to “An Accounting” to removal from office, and with whom by the establishing of the seminary in Northfield they declared that they could no longer have any cooperation and fellowship of faith.

Furthermore, Professor Schmidt, who was recognized as one of the faction’s leaders, declared at the meeting of the Eastern District in June 1886:

I now have more good hope for peace than ever before. I believe there is a good wind blowing from our Lord and that there has not been the equal of the prospect we now have of being able to hold out our hands to each other. The colloquy in LaCrosse gave good hope that through continued discussions with each other about the doctrine, we can come to a good understanding. And already last year the doctrinal discussions at our synod’s district meetings, as well as the discussions in the meeting of the Church Council in Madison gave good hope for it … My position with regard to the criticism of “An Accounting’s” third chapter, paragraphs 15 and 21 (the antitheses) is in so far as it is concerned, not the same as before, as I am not now so sure that the opposition party, at any rate in the future will acknowledge the doctrine which I have found expressed in it, etc. … I would therefore not now be for such resolutions as they passed in Red Wing (Eastern District report for 1886, pages 71 and 73).

The same man gave the following testimony under oath during the Koshkonong lawsuit on July 9, 1886:

So long as the persons who have this belief do not urge it further and do not urge it to what the witness believes will be its natural consequence, acceptance of Calvinism, then this belief does not place such people outside the Norwegian Church, and thus both the parties mentioned above must be respected and be considered as Lutherans.

The Iowa District’s meeting took place in Austin (MN) on the 25^th and following days in June 1886, and Pastor Muus’ appeal is dated July 8, 1886.

Also, after the discussions which took place in the Church Council between Professor Schmidt and his colleagues following his charge against them of false doctrine because of their subscription to “An Accounting,” section III, paragraphs 15 and 21, only one member found the charge grounded; the others, of which 3 in a separate vote, did not find it proven.

I have thought that I ought to make the synod aware of the above facts and expressions in order to substantiate: a) that some of them who have separated and established their own seminary because of alleged false doctrine in the others have declared themselves agreed in several of the controverted doctrines of faith with those men from whom they have separated; b) that at the same time their leaders in the doctrinal controversy have declared that the people from whom they have separated must be considered and be respected as Lutherans; c) that in an essential point of doctrine there was mutual unity of faith between those who have separated themselves, while some of them were in unity of faith with those from whom they have separated for faith’s sake, in the same point of doctrine.

In connection with this I thought it useful that the synod be made aware of the disunity of faith which also revealed itself within the same circle at the time when the controversy revolved around the doctrine of election. Namely, while some men among them considered election as an act of judgment by the Lord on the last day, others among them insisted that it was an act of God before the foundation of the world was laid, but, while some of them made only those who endure in faith the object of God’s eternal decree of election, others extended it to all believers, others again, to all people. Only in this one thing were they all agreed, that in election God took man’s faith and conduct into consideration.

Sometime after the Appeal had gone out, the Church Council drew up the following resolution on the occasion of the establishing of the private seminary: “The Church Council disapproves most earnestly of the breach of Christian and church order which a portion of the synod’s members have committed by establishing a theological seminary in Northfield, Minnesota, in opposition to the synod’s seminary in Madison, Wisconsin.” It is true that four members did not vote, but that the matter did not find approval among them either, no doubt the talk about revolution showed sufficiently, and the fact that no one voted against against it. The sinful and ruinous things in this controversy were pointed out in several articles in the Kirketidende. I have also testified against and admonished in letters to the best of my ability to Pastor Muus as well as to the seminary’s teachers, Pastor Bockman and its directors, Professor Mohn and Pastors Bjorn and Kildahl. I consider it necessary that the synod take hold of this matter and come to a decision as quickly as possible, to which may God grant it his grace. For the synod to tolerate such a state of affairs long, is in my opinion suicide.

In the next several pages President Preus reports on the many aspects of the synod’s work, discussing in some detail the effect of the controversy upon its work, and also noting that the work had been going on in spite of the controversy.

The Lutheran Church has suffered a great loss through the death of Dr. and Professor of Theology, C.F. W. Walther. In recognition of the large debt of gratitude in which our church body stands to the Missouri Synod and especially to the deceased, the instructor of the synod’s pastors for many years, besides the undersigned, Professor Larsen and Pastors Mikkelsen and Juul,²⁷ in response to my appeal, were present at the burial of the deceased, and expressed our thanks for everything which God has done for our synod through the deceased and the Missouri Synod.

A brief paragraph reminds the convention of certain elections which will be held this year.

May the Lord through his Spirit lead the synod’s discussions and bless them for the sake of Jesus Christ, so that God’s precious truth may be preserved among us and through it we be upheld in faith unto eternal life!

Your humble colaborer and fellow combatant in Christ Jesus.

H.A. Preus

25 Friedrich August Schmidt

26 Bernt Julius Muus (1832-1900)

27 President Peder Laurentius Larsen of Luther College, Pastor Amund Mikkelsen of Our Savior’s and Pastor Ole Juul of First Lutheran, both in Chicago.