The “Wisconsinism” of Professors Oftedal and Weenas Considered in the Light of Truth

A Rejoinder to Professor Weenaas

Wisconsinism, Illuminated by Historic Facts is the title of the long promised but recently published book in which Professor Weenaas wants to provide proof for the many false charges which were hurled against our Norwegian Synod in particular a couple of years ago by Professors Oftedal and Weenaas in "An Open Declaration." We know with what complete disapproval this Declaration was received, how both protests and disavowals were heard from the Conference's own camp. It was therefore not so surprising that while both the Conference and its president tried to renounce any connection with and responsibility for this product, the authors themselves tried to deny that it was directed against "the Norwegian Synod." Also in the article in question Mr. Weenaas shows a propensity for giving it such an appearance. Yet since his book discusses our synod’s history exclusively and things that happened in connection with it, the professor himself provides clear proof that with all this talk about "Wisconsinism" as "a spirit, a principle, an organization" which is both "unchristian" and "anti-christian," our synod is meant and that everything else has just been a subterfuge.

In this book the author now thinks he has provided proof of "actual, historic, and thus incontrovertible facts" that our synod fits the ugly caricature which is given it in the "Open Declaration." Those of our readers who have themselves lived through the history of our young church body with ears and hearts open to the truth, will surely at the outset see only the evidence which the professor has given of himself for modesty and love for the truth since his first appearance among us, even further established in such a protestation. And a calm reading of Mr. Weenaas' book will not change this conviction of theirs in the slightest way, even if they will not be able to deny Mr. Weenaas the peculiar coloring which gives them just the picture he wants to provide, and that next, with the so highly praised spirit of freedom, he knows how to make "incontrovertible" assertions without any proof whatsoever and to draw strange conclusions without a logical connection with premises and thus to base his infallible conclusion that the Norwegian Synod is an antichristian, etc. organization, a monster of "Wisconsinism" which must be fought and destroyed as a matter of life and death. It is no small thing just to read through such a book and not want to lay it aside with disgust, and there must be valid reasons to prompt a person to deal with it further. Only regard for the many brethren in faith who have come over here in the later years and know little or nothing of our synod's true history and who therefore can easily be ensnared by such a slyly drawn up presentation as Professor Weenaas' has been able to induce me, in spite of my sincere reluctance, to deal with this book further and to put its handling of our synod's history in the correct light.

“Grundtvigianism in America”

That is the heading over the first part of the book in which the professor comes forward with the old, stale accusation of "Grundtvigianism" against our synod. According to him our synod is supposed to be the growth of a Grundtvigian root, and that in its most Romanistically accepted meaning. In order to prove this the professor rehashes the most important things which our opponents furnished at the time twenty-five years ago, and constantly gives them an interpretation which can make them more than engaging for the inexperienced reader. It stems from a not so little unfamiliarity with our synod's history or a considerable degree of effrontery, not to say audacity, to dredge up again an accusation which history itself has judged as unreliable, which impartial friends here as well as in the fatherland have never sanctioned, and opponents have long since had to drop. Because if there is any characteristic stamp which from its very beginning our synod's own history has instilled in the consciousness of its contemporaries it is just its -- under much frailty and unclarity at times -- fixed and proven opposition to and fight against “Grundtvigianism.” To want to skip over, deny or misrepresent this fact is throwing all historic truth to the wind. But such a thing always falls back heavily upon the one who wants to do it.

Professor Weenaas goes for proof for these accusations of his 1) from Pastor J.W.C. Dietrichson's own testimony, 2) from the constitution of the first synod organized here, and 3) from Pastor Rasmussen's controversy with the pastors in our synod.

So far as Pastor Dietrichson's testimony is concerned it is sufficiently clear that he once was, as he still is, a died-in-the-wool Grundtvigian, just as also that the constitution, the outline of which at any rate was provided by him and which was proposed and adopted by the constituting convention of The Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on January 6, 1851 at Rock Prairie, was Grundtvigian in its doctrinal paragraph whether this was known to the constituents at the time or not. But when Professor Weenaas wants to prove the correctness of his charge from this, then judging from the documents he has studied, he must make himself guilty of a proven untruth, because an honest inquirer, even if he is himself an adversary, must know from these documents that our synod which was finally organized with the adoption of its constitution in 1853 at the meeting at Koshkonong after a preliminary meeting in Muskego in 1852, was established in the most decided opposition to Grundtvigianism and the elimination of the Grundtvigianism authored by Pastor Dietrichson and adopted in the doctrinal paragraph of the 1851 convention. These documents show 1) that the synod formed in 1851 at Rock Prairie, which consisted of only three pastors and six congregations, was already dissolved by the assembling of the convention in Muskego in January, 1852, 2) that now for the first time the three newly-arrived pastors, together with representatives from fifteen congregations, together with the members of the defunct synod, organized at a preliminary meeting and adopted in their constitution a doctrinal paragraph which was in diametric opposition to Grundtvigianism, and therefore was not acceptable to Pastor C.L. Clausen who was then a Grundtvigian, and 3) that the reason for the newly formed synod becoming defunct and an anti-Grundtvigian doctrinal paragraph adopted at the preliminary meeting of our synod, was none other than this that several of both the pastors and congregations saw that the doctrinal paragraph was Grundtvigian, and that besides, it was one of the "unalterable" articles, so that the synod had to dissolve if its members were going to be able to join with us who under no circumstances would join a church body with such a Grundtvigian doctrinal paragraph. And just as the dissolution was adopted unanimously, so do I dare say it was done with general joy and heartfelt conviction, because with the adoption of the doctrinal paragraph hardly any other of the synod's members than Pastor Clausen were Grundtvigians.

Therefore when Professor Weenaas, in all probability to make his assertion more acceptable, says that that synod was rebaptized "The Synod of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America," then again he furnishes another untruth, because, as is made clear from the above, that church body was not rebaptized but was completely dissolved and preparations were made for the formation of our synod. And a doctrinal paragraph was adopted which was in fixed and conscious opposition to the Grundtvigian doctrinal paragraph of the former church body.

Nor does it agree with the truth when Professor Weenaas says that "the Norwegian Synod" arranged for a 25th Jubilee at Koshkonong in 1869, and from this wants to prove for the confirmation of his claim, that it properly dates its coming into existence as a church body from the year 1844 when Pastor Dietrichson came over here from Norway for the first time, and when he again says that "the Norwegian Synod" held its 25th Jubilee in the fall of 1869. It was the Norwegian Lutheran congregation at Koshkonong, not the Norwegian Lutheran Synod, which held its 25th jubilee there in 1869. Professor Weenaas knows this very well. "The Norwegian Synod" will first be able to hold its twenty-fifth jubilee as a church body in 1878. It is however sad that Professor Weenaas must resort to such erroneous means in order to support his case!

Professor Weenaas says that Grundtvigianism was "rampant" in the first synod. I shall only call attention to the fact that of its three pastors, neither Pastor A.C. Preus nor Pastor H.A. Stub were Grundtvigians, even if at the time they were unclear, as so many non-Grundtvigians then and in more recent times also within The Conference were using ambiguous expressions and were guilty of errors which the Grundtvigians also shared. But when Professor Weenaas again drags out Pastor A.C. Preus's essay on "The Church" as proof that "Grundtvigianism with some of its distinctive doctrines was held by individuals and the leading men within the synod," then Professor Weenaas himself knows: 1) that Pastor Preus wrote the article in the spring of 1851, two years therefore before our synod was founded, 2) that later at the synod meeting in the Little Iowa congregation he repented of it, and 3) that the "distinctive doctrines" which he presented in his article were hardly characteristic of the Grundtvigians, but which unfortunately are also held today by anti-Grundtvigians both in Germany, Norway and America.

Among those who have accused our synod of Grundtvigianism for years was also the former pastor in Chicago, Paul Anderson of the Augustana Synod. When this charge also came out in a speech at the Scandinavian Conference in Chicago in 1859 and was looked into, our old adversary, P. Anderson, declared that he “admitted that he had erred in what he had written about them on this matter, that he had not known of their unconditioned rejection of those doctrinal concepts.”

Mr. Weenaas also says, in order to make capital of it, that my Call was drawn up by Pastor W. Dietrichson in association with Pastors Wexels and Stensrud. I am in the fortunate position of being able to point out that the Call was sent to me not because I was a Grundtvigian but in spite of the fact that I was not. At my first meeting with Pastor Dietrichson in Christiania in the summer of 1850 we disagreed precisely about Grundtvigianism. I told him frankly that I would get the doctrinal articles in the congregation's constitution, whose Grundtvigian sense he admitted the congregation did not understand, changed. This was probably why I was not called by him then, but not until the New Year, 1851, without the aforenamed pastors, after Councillor Riddervold advised calling me. The minutes of my congregation prove that I was faithful to my promise.

That Professor Weenaas would shrewdly want to use many of Pastor Rasmussen's statements during his controversy with us was only to be expected. On the other hand, it was not to be expected that he should applaud the outcome which our controversy with Pastor Rasmussen had. Mr. Weenaas can however in spite of his bitter sortie against Pastor Rasmussen rest assured that this has not united him with us, if after the more precise discussions he had believed, let alone found it proven that we held to Grundtvigianism, or as though it has been for him as for Pastor Weenaas, a necessity because of factiousness to find a case against us. However, we will let Professor Weenaas pour out his gall over this union, as our synod and the brethren in Norway have praised God now for thirteen years as one of his most gracious dispensations toward his Norwegian church people over here.

In 1870 Professor Weenaas also came forward in the Luthersk Kirketidende in Christiania with a long list of charges of Grundtvigianism against our synod. In an article in the same Tidende for July 11 of that year which was printed in our Kirkelig Maanedstidende’s number 16 for 1870, Pastor Rasmussen opposed Professor Weenaas and proved by many quotations and "facts," that Professor Weenaas' article was full of absurd slanders against the Norwegian Synod. Even The Lutheran Observer, the General Synod's newspaper, acknowledged that Pastor Rasmussen had completely proven the injustice of accusing us of Grundtvigianism. But instead of Professor Weenaas refuting these proofs, whose weight he feels, he again hurls the same charges against us and even appeals to Pastor Rasmussen as a witness. This however is an impudence which will hardly find its match. Pious phrases in the man's mouth who can stoop to this only become an abomination!

Thus we have now seen that Professor Weenaas' proofs for his charges that our synod was Grundtvigian in its roots are just improperly applied and that not so seldom has he had to help the matter along by means of false witness. Professor Weenaas himself needs to concede that our synod's later direction has been anti-Grundtvigian.

Although Professor Weenaas must concede that our synod's later direction has been anti-Grundtvigian, his sharp eyes have however discovered "the red thread which knits the earlier Grundtvigian-Romanizing high-churchliness to the later orthodoxistic Wisconsinism," and this "red thread" is our doctrine of the necessity of a Call before teaching publicly in the church when there is no emergency, in conformity with the 14th Article of the Augsburg Confession. Because in "the result which the discussion of this question finally had" during the controversy with Pastor Rasmussen, Professor Weenaas finds his justification "for pointing out the high-churchliness and the objectionableness of the later, more marked root of 'Wisconsinism.'" He finds here the proof for his claim "that 'Wisconsinism' is produced by Grundtvigianism not only historically but also organically." Professor Weenaas must however certainly admit himself that this is pure cant, just throwing sand in people's eyes. Because this claim of his is surely unreasonable in itself, yes, an impossibility, in a twofold way. Let us see: Professor Weenaas actually claims, speaking simply, that Grundtvigianism, and that in its most Romanistically accepted meaning, is the root of our church body and was rampant in it for a while. Further, that our doctrine of lay preaching has grown from this Grundtvigian root, and that finally the dreadful Wisconsinism is the flower on that shoot. In the foregoing we have shown that Grundtvigianism has neither been the root of our synod nor was it uncontrolled in it, but that since the beginning it was fought and rooted out as a matter of life and death, and that this charge of Weenaas' is a pure lie. But now, if there has been no Grundtvigian root of our synod then it cannot possibly have produced other shoots, and then neither has this shoot marched through our synod like a "red thread" or produced so dreadful a flower as "Wisconsinism." In addition: Suppose it had been so that our synod did grow from a Grundtvigian root, how then can our teaching on lay preaching take its rise from this root, when Grundtvigians however as a rule reject this doctrine? People otherwise though are not used to picking figs from thistles! Or, will Professor Weenaas perhaps show us that the Grundtvigians teach as we do on this point?

Here it would be completely wrong to link me with Professor Weenaas on the facts of this doctrinal question of the proper understanding of Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession. Because 1) the professor distorts and misrepresents our position in many places, 2) he does not disprove it from the Word of God, 3) nowhere does he clearly set forth his own doctrine, and 4) he proves the correctness of his doctrine even less from the Word of God. One must conclude from his polemic that exactly like Elling Eielsen he rejects the outward Call and thinks that every Christian can teach and preach publicly where and when he pleases, just as it surely is generally known that he and many of The Conference's pastors have not troubled themselves in the least whether they had a proper Call or not, but have intruded into another's congregation and the ministry without it. Indeed, the professor thereby contradicts individuals of his ministerial brethren, yes, also his own earlier statements on the subject. Because when Professor Weenaas declared at the meeting in St. Ansgar that "when one went around in order to preach, then it was done publicly, and not permitted, and he even agreed to a thesis there which says: "The public activity of laymen ... can only be justified on the basis of a necessity found in that place." Pastor C.L. Clausen, who had been The Conference's president and is still one of its members, has agreed with all our theses about this question. In his time he expressed himself concerning public prayer like this: "Because praying then, surely was a supplication to God on behalf of everyone, and therefore when one person stepped forward to speak for everyone, and said, Let us all pray, and then offered a prayer to God in the name of everyone, then there could never be talk of a reciprocal conversation. If one person took the lead in praying, then he was in fact the leader or the mouth of everyone." But what difference does it make whether Professor Weenaas should contradict himself or his brethren if he can just succeed in getting the hated Norwegian Synod presented in an unfavorable light? We surely have not been accustomed to hearing the trumpet giving any clear and distinct sound from The Conference's camp as little in this question as in the others over which there has been controversy; the one blows one tune, the second another if it can chime in and please the people who are listening. Examine, for example, the varying statements at the meeting in St. Ansgar in August of 1870 [Kirkelig Maanedstidende numbers 19 and 20, volume 15].

Before I leave this point though, I'm going to permit myself to call attention to the following because of various remarks the professor drops. This question came up at the meeting of the Luther Institute in Christiania in 1867, and Professor Gisle Johnson expressed himself as agreeing fully with what we have publicly taught and written about it. I was present at that meeting and permitted myself to expand further upon a point which Professor Johnson had only touched on superficially in his presentation, namely, the concept of necessity. When Professor Johnson got the floor later he declared that he did not need to go into this point more precisely now since he agreed entirely with my remarks about it. I was pleased that this doctrine and explanation of ours of the 14th Article of the Augsburg Confession found general agreement within the assembly. I do not believe therefore that Professor Weenaas is going to be able to appeal to Professor Johnson or "the mother church" in this question. However, he does as he wants in this matter and declares clearly enough that the teaching of the Word of God is "slavery of the spirit." He is in open controversy with the Augsburg Confession and the Holy Scriptures when he attacks our teaching on this, because it is firmly grounded in the Word of God. That in many instances the concept of necessity calls for a different application in the state church than in the non-state church is something with which we are well acquainted. But the Word of God teaches the same thing for everyone as we confess in the Augsburg Confession's 14th Article, and it is equally binding for everyone.

I consider it superfluous to follow Professor Weenaas in his presentation of the discussions and battles which were held on this question from our synod's side over the course of the years. Our reports are matters of public record so that anyone who wants to can obtain reliable knowledge of the matters. So that everyone can see however how the professor has taken many things in the worst sense also in this part of his book and has interpreted them in the worst way and through various catchwords, omissions and distortions ascribed false assertions to us, I will here quote individual bits of his presentation.

Thus the professor states that the professors and pastors of the Missouri Synod have "faithfully stood by the synod in its work in order to get Pastor Rasmussen pressed into the fully 'orthodox' mold and to get the impression fully stamped" and that we have conspired with Professor Walther in order to be able to bring Pastor Rasmussen "under the necessary press." Naturally it does not once occur to Professor Weenaas that any of the parties to these discussions can have thought of or worked for the victory of the truth to the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

The professor tells us further that our pastoral conferences "distinguish between public reading-services and other public gatherings, the former as natural in their arrangement, the latter as contradictory to the order of God"; that we should have dropped the correct concept of the expression "public" which our synod insisted on, namely: "Gatherings to which anyone who wishes can come and which take place on behalf of the congregation"; that we should have taught that "when strangers come together to discuss the concerns of their souls in order to encourage and to stir up each other to jump on the bandwagon, and an older, more gifted Christian instructs, admonishes and prays as the one who brings the Word, then that goes against the Word of God"; furthermore, that "divine gatherings which are arranged in advance and where everyone can be present, are sin"; that "gatherings of Christians are contrary to the Confessions of the church, against the Word of God, thus sin when they overstep certain bounds set by the synod," and that "Christian gatherings where as many as want to can be present, are sin." We should have given "a clarification of the concept 'public' by means of which each and all of the edifying gatherings which have been held by Christian laypeople at home and here, are branded as sin."

The statements quoted here are enough to show how far the professor follows the apostle's admonition to be "faithful to the truth in love." In order just to touch on the one point about the significance of the word "public" I will merely remind you that already as far back as the meeting in Chicago in 1860 we have declared: "By 'public' is to be understood, then: Not merely in church or in gatherings where everyone who wishes can come, but that it takes place publicly on behalf of the whole congregation and also on behalf of God."

Finally, when the professor finds it so extremely laughable that on this matter we have placed "a conversation for mutual support" and "a doctrinal paper as the teacher of everyone, in every place and on behalf of all," in contradiction to each other and has no objection to bring against it than that he has in his "simplicity always believed that the public preaching was also a reciprocal performance with questions and answers (albeit silent)," then an understanding reader will know what he is to judge of such. However, Professor Weenaas even agreed with Thesis 2 of a report at the meeting in St. Ansgar, which says: “The public activity of a layman which must not be confused with the mutual edifying in the congregation, etc.”

As I conclude my response to the first section I ask the readers to remember the result we have won. We have seen that Professor Weenaas' claim that Grundtvigianism is the root of our synod from which our doctrine of the public preaching of laymen is supposed to have sprung and which forms the basis of the "Wisconsinism" of which we are accused, is untrue. Likewise, that the professor has not once attempted to prove that our doctrine of the public preaching of laymen conflicts with the Word of God and the 14th Article of the Augsburg Confession, and that also the charges against our synod of "high-churchliness" and "aristocracy of the ministry" which he based on it, likewise are untrue. But everyone will see with that that the lord professors' building, "Wisconsinism," is lacking a foundation and is swaying in the air, in other words, that Professor Weenaas' "historic facts" often are not facts but pure fabrications of his own fantasy and that the actual "historic facts" do not prove what they are supposed to prove, namely, his charges against our synod of "Grundtvigianism" and the aristocracy of the ministry and high churchliness and - the 'Wisconsinism which follows from them.

"Missourianism"

This is the heading over the second section in Professor Weenaas' book. "Missourianism" occupies a prominent place in this "spiritual phenomenon," this antichristian tendency which the professor has given the name "Wisconsinism" and which he and Professor Oftedal have attributed to our synod in the "Open Declaration."

According to Professor Weenaas' claim "Missourianism" is a marked spiritual characteristic which is found in the Missouri Synod, from whence the name. This characteristic is supposed to be "orthodoxism," "doctrinal aristocracy." Through the connection between our synod and the Missouri Synod this orthodoxism is alleged to have united with the "high-churchliness" and "ministerial aristocracy" developed from Grundtvigianism, and in our synod has moulded "Wisconsinism" with all the dreadful "isms" it is alleged to contain.

Thus it is up to Professor Weenaas to prove: 1) that this doctrinal aristocracy, this orthodoxism which in part demands unconditioned submission to the fixed form of doctrine without regard to whether its correctness can be proven adequately from the Word of God or not, in part emphasizes "pure doctrine" at the expense of "life" and looks upon everyone's agreement to it as the one thing needful, as equal with saving faith and a Christian life, has saturated the Missouri Synod and revealed itself in its confession and practice; 2) that the Missouri Synod has exerted such an influence upon our synod that because of it orthodoxism, etc., has also won general acceptance and mastery in it; 3) that this "orthodoxism" transplanted from the Missouri Synod fell in with the Grundtvigian shoot, the "Norwegian high-churchliness" we dis cussed earlier; and 4) that finally "Wisconsinism" is the fruit of this union between "German orthodoxism" and "Norwegian high-churchliness."

Now do we find that the professor has provided these proofs satisfactorily? I think not. Yes, he has in part not even tried to prove them, just as little as the charges of "Grundtvigianism" and "high-churchliness" in the previous section. The "historic facts" cited by the professor are in part not "facts" but fabrications and lies, at times "historic" lies. Insofar as they are "historic facts," they do not prove what Professor Weenaas wants them to prove. The conclusion which the professor comes to in this way, namely, that our synod especially is permeated by this monstrous "Wisconsinsim" is therefore not one of "the historic facts" proven and the conclusion not rightly drawn, that is, it is itself not an "historic fact" but on the contrary an invention of the lord professors Oftedal's and Weenaas' inventive brains. We hope to make this even more obvious to the readers in the following refutation of this section than it might already have become by reading through the foregoing section where the professors' charges of "Grundtvigianism" and "high-churchliness" against our synod are adequately proven to be unjust and untrue.

We consider first then the professors' misrepresentation of the Missouri Synod.

We must notice first that in his representation of the Missouri Synod and in his judgment of it the professor relies mainly on the statements of the Missouri Synod's bitter adversaries, Pastor Loehe in Bavaria and the professors Fritschel of the Iowa Synod. We cannot be surprised then that his description both of the synod and its president, Dr. Walther, becomes very harsh and that he hurts his cause in not only repeating the earlier false charges and unfounded judgments of them by adversaries, but also in coming with new ones of the same kind.

A second circumstance which also must necessarily contribute to the professor's representation of the Missouri Synod, its battles and its doctrinal standpoint having to be colored considerably, is the position which he himself has taken on the chief question in the controversy between Iowa and Missouri, namely, "open questions."

It is of course not our synod's orthodoxism (pure doctrine) but orthodoxy (true faith) and staunch adherence to the teaching of the Word of God in all its parts which has been a stumbling stone for Professor Weenaas. He wants to have "freedom" and "progress" also in doctrine. He felt himself drawn immediately to the Iowa Synod which pledged itself to the direction it has set as its goal, to lead the doctrine of the Lutheran Church further along in the points in which it itself could not agree with the Confessions of the church or of which they contain nothing.

When the Iowans, most likely so that they could pursue their plans for progress and plans for growth so much more unhindered, put forth their doctrine of “open questions” and understood by that term such things of which nothing was found expressed in the Confessions and of which therefore everyone could presumably believe as he pleased without the right to the Lutheran name being denied him, then we surely know how Professor Weenaas became interested in this same teaching. But when attention was called to it at the Free Conference in Decorah in 1871, people became angry and threatened to leave the meeting if all further discussion of it was not cut off. But Professor Weenaas has never later retracted this false doctrine nor did he respond to the appeal at the time. Nor has The Conference disavowed this doctrine or publicly chastised its professor for it. Now when the professor on page 33 is seen to have come to the conviction that this doctrine, which he together with the Iowans has taught publicly, is "a completely Roman concept" and that it conflicts altogether with the evangelical faith, it makes us happy that he has now gotten away from his earlier errors, very likely through our attacks and instruction. But it is unjust of him, as it is of the Iowans, when he will not admit publicly that he was ensnared in this error and on the contrary lets it appear as though he has always rejected it. We beg Weenaas to take to heart what the Iowa Kirchenblatt says in one place but does not itself follow: "People set up theses which they cannot defend, but instead of honorably and manfully retracting the untruth, little by little they go on to other things. We Lutherans have no right to walk away from errors silently like this, but should and must repent sincerely."

But even if this view of Professor Weenaas' and his position on open questions might have an influence on his presentation yet there is still no excuse here for the one-sidedness and the partisanship on the one hand and the bitterness and gall on the other, which this portion of his book exhibits. For a better understanding we will take a look at the attitude of the Missouri Synod to Loehe and Iowa.

Earlier the Missouri Synod was closely associated with Pastor Loehe in Bavaria, the founder of its practical seminary, but severed itself from him completely because of his Catholic tendency in the doctrine of the ministry, his chiliastic errors, his doctrine of "open questions" and his loose view of the binding significance of the Confessions.

When the Missouri Synod turned its back on Pastor Loehe the Iowa Synod was founded in this part of the world to be the bearer of his erroneous views. Through its most prominent members, the professors Fritschel, it was that and was also acknowledged as that publicly for a long time. A violent battle therefore also soon erupted between these synods, especially after the Missouri Synod's old adversary, the Catholicizing Buffalo Synod had been dissolved and most of its members had joined the Missouri Synod, and also after the remaining German Lutheran synods of Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota were led by the conflict to take a more decided, faithful Lutheran stand and had joined with their earlier common adversary, the Missouri Synod, in the Synodical Conference. Besides chiliasm this controversy has especially revolved around "open questions." That because of his unionistic spiritual tendency Professor Weenaas had to ally himself with Iowa here, was natural. But we cannot therefore be surprised that his representation of this point of controversy on which he especially dwells in order to characterize the Missouri Synod, must be false and misleading. Professor Weenaas asserts especially that the Iowans have used the expression "open questions" to mean the same thing as "a question not divisive of the church." But this was not the case when the controversy began. Professor Weenaas must know that they then understood by such questions those which were not yet settled and defended by the church and about which everyone therefore could have his own opinion until the church had spoken. Professor Schmidt has provided incontestable proofs for the correctness of this in der Lutheraner for April and May of this year. This also agrees completely with the confession the Iowa Synod gave as soon as it was founded and in which it states its own position and its supposed calling. It says: "We dedicate ourselves to the point of view in the Lutheran Church which aspires to a greater completion of the evangelical Lutheran Church by way of the Symbols by the hand of the Word of God." But that the meaning of this was that the Lutheran Church is in need of a development of doctrine and that the synod considered it as its task to work toward it, appears in the synod report of the Iowans for 1858. That the Iowa Synod also actually took the lead in such a "development" of the doctrine of "the last things," of the church and the ministry, of the office of the keys, which it considered "open questions," we have been witnesses to, and its own synodical reports and periodicals contain clear proofs of it. And it is likewise true that because of these attempts, notably at the colloquy with the Missouri Synod in Milwaukee, the Iowa Synod had to retreat point for point and produce statements which placed it in ever sharper contradiction to the direction it earlier had publicly acknowledged as its own, and to the obligations it had over toward Pastor Loehe. However, it never acknowledged publicly that it had erred earlier, and now took a more orthodox stand. On the contrary, the brothers Fritschel denied it and tried to cover its retreat and their self-contradictions through untruths, distortions and constant talk about "misunderstandings." Thus, on the point of "open questions," they, on the contrary, accused the Missourians of having forsaken their earlier stand and declared that they themselves had never meant by this questions which were not decided and defended, but all the while “questions not divisive of the church.” Professor Weenaas now makes himself an accomplice in this lie and slander because he repeats and defends it in his book. Yet, however much the good sirs shrink from admitting it, the matter is clear. No better proof for this has been sent to the Iowa Synod than in the article in which Pastor Loehe's successor, Inspector Bauer, unequivocally reproves it for the contradiction into which it has come with itself and exhorts it to an honorable settlement, either to make the step to Missouri completely or to return to the stand it had abandoned. It is certainly also this article in combination with Professor Schmidt's articles which have opened the eyes of so many pastors in the Iowa Synod who at its last meeting in Madison chastised the leaders' dishonesty in the sharpest expressions, lodged the most determined protest against such conduct, and left the synod since all their testimony was in vain. A more detailed presentation of the Iowa Synod's position is found in number 45 and other issues of our Kirketidende. Readers will have been convinced from this of how unreliable and untrue Professor Weenaas' historic facts are, how unjust his judgments of the Missouri Synod are, together with what kind of synod the Iowa Synod is, which he praises to the skies and at the same time supports and is himself supported by. But although the professor must understand both what a foolish cause the Iowa Synod has had to conduct and with what carnal weapons and in what a dishonest way it has carried on the fight against the Missourians, yet it is only the latter the professor has to censure and upbraid for "bitterness, sharpness, passionate vehemence, and personal recklessness."

That the "old orthodoxism" has gained mastery in the Missouri Synod and that "orthodoxism" is characteristic of "Wisconsinism" is of course Professor Weenaas' claim which it is especially up to him to prove. Nor is there any lack of his continuing to lash out with charges of "orthodoxism," yes, so often that he may finally believe them himself; but proof proof! Yes, a person has to look in vain for it.

When the Missouri Synod attacks the Iowa Synod's catholicizing doctrine of the "church and ministry," its "chiliastic" errors which the Augsburg Confession has condemned, its semipelagian views on "free will," its unionistic interpretation of "the importance of the Symbols" and "open questions," with zeal and sharpness, and when it proves the false-Lutheran stand of the Iowa Synod from the Word of God, then Professor Weenaas hurls charges against the Missouri Synod of "hyper Lutheranism" (i.e. forcing Lutheranism too far) and "orthodoxism." When the Iowa Synod retreats but tries to cover it through distortions of facts and through the false claim: "We have surely always taught this," yes, with the lie: "Missouri has abandoned its earlier stand," and through continual cries of "misunderstandings," and: "we are surely essentially one," and then when the Missouri Synod exposes such dishonesty and rejects such unity which says yes today and no tomorrow, which says one thing to Missouri and another thing to friends in Bavaria, as condemnable in the eyes of God, then Professor Weenaas screams about "Missourian zealousness" which refuses the extended hand of a brother which is offered it by “such as stand with it on the foundation of the same Lutheran Confessions but cannot agree with some subordinate points of the Missourian orthodoxy.“ Obviously on the one hand more gross errors should therefore be "subordinate points," and those who espouse them, stand on the foundation of the Lutheran Confessions." On the other hand, to contend against and to overcome them with the Word of God is "orthodoxism" according to Weenaas' concept. (See p.28 of his book).

Furthermore, when Professor Walther declares straightforwardly at the colloquy in Milwaukee that "only a problem is an "open question" "because the Word of God has not expressed itself so clearly about it that it has found its key," and when he says: "I know that in this life we cannot achieve more than a fundamental unity," then Professor Weenaas finds, however, that also here "Missourianism" (i.e. "orthodoxism") "sticks out." And on what does he base this claim of his? Surely on this, that Walther teaches that only "problems" are "open questions" (Weenaas then wants to have some more considered as that) and by attributing to Professor Walther the very ambiguously expressed assertion that "the question of the excommunication of heretics finally becomes settled on whether the party concerned, 'in spite of repeated admonition declares obstinately that he will stick with his doctrine,' or 'wants to be taught,'" just as if Professor Walther had counseled that they who showed a willingness to be taught should be excommunicated as heretics, while on the contrary, Professor Walther declares just the opposite when he says, "In such a case I would not immediately regard even a person who was in error in the sublime article of the Trinity as a heretic, how much less one who is mistaken in a subordinate point. Only he who through his doctrine attacks fundamentum personale (Christ himself) or fundamentum dogmaticum (the sum of all the fundamental articles) or fundamentum organicum (the Holy Scriptures themselves), and in spite of repeated admonition obstinately declares that he will stick with his doctrine, do I judge as a heretic, but by no means the person who does not attack the fundamentals or who might err in other points but is willing to be taught. I know that in this life we cannot achieve more than a fundamental unity." It is to be wished that Professor Weenaas had not merely judged Professor Walther and twisted his words here, but himself stated definitely when he would excommunicate someone as a heretic! But instead of doing that and thus proving the falsity of Professor Walther's remarks Weenaas gets on his high horse and declares not merely that "Missourianism" is still sticking out but even hurls the charge against Professor Walther: "A judge is set up here besides the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures, a judge who is supposed to decide when an errorist has become genuinely ripe for excommunication," just as though no one could make himself so obvious that he could be judged by the Word of God in the matter, as surely was the case with Luther at the time of the Reformation over toward both many papists and sacramentarians.

I should be a long time finishing it if I would go through like this and illuminate with the torch of truth the many places where Professor Weenaas hurls charges of Missourianism and orthodoxism and presents seeming arguments for them, but that isn't necessary. The above example will show Weenaas' usual method and tactics in such cases.

Who of us will really deny that there is a danger and temptation to fall into orthodoxism, both for the Missouri Synod and for ourselves and for all orthodox Lutherans? But that does not prove that this tendency has won mastery and has become a characteristic of our synod. That with the help of God it shall not happen either, we hope by his mercy. But we find the best defense not in forsaking "pure doctrine," the doctrine of the Word of God, and merely screaming about "life," "life," but in this that we recognize "orthodoxism" as a dangerous enemy and stand guard against it with the sword of the Word of God which we then must use chiefly in practicing discipline with ourselves and our brethren. It would be hard also in our days to find few orthodox teachers who have cautioned against "orthodoxism" with such zeal and judged it as severely as exactly the Professor Walther who is slandered by Weenaas. As a sample testimony we want to cite some remarks in the Missouri Synod's annual report for 1872 which bear a strong impression of having come from Professor Walther's own mouth, and which in any case have his, as well as the entire synod's approval. They read like this:

During the discussions one still returns at once to the express ion: ‘To hold fast to the mystery of faith in a good conscience.’ This is a biblical expression with which St. Paul admonishes Timothy [1 Ti. 3:9] that it is not enough to have the pure doctrine in the head but that when one expounds the doctrines of the faith one must also have a clear conscience. Therefore if a pastor preaches repentance, then his own attitude must not be such that his conscience says: ’Why do you want to preach repentance to other people when you do not repent yourself,’ or when he encourages someone to faith and presents it to him, his inner being must not say: ‘You have no faith yourself.‘ Or when he exhorts to sanctification, then his conscience ought not say: ‘You apply no zeal to sanctification yourself.’ A pastor who wants to have a clear conscience must daily be in a state of penitence himself or else it is said of him as of an ungodly person: ‘What good does it do you to take my covenant in your mouth, because you hate purity and reject my Word?’ Every sermon which he preaches to others must first and foremost be a proper sermon to himself. He must not hear the voice of God in his conscience: ‘Silence, you hypocrite!’ So-called dead orthodoxy is something altogether dreadful. Those who commit pure doctrine to memory manufacture it in their heads but they are as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. God does not want to know of such pastors. Pastors should not merely be light bearers, but the light. They should not be mere salt shakers, but the salt itself. A tenfold condemnation upon those who preach repentance to others but do not repent themselves.

Thus speaks the synod and the man who must be called a champion of dead orthodoxy by poor Professor Weenaas from whom the Norwegian Synod is supposed to have gotten its "rational orthodoxy.” However, the Norwegian people both here and in Norway will get an opportunity in due time to learn more about the Professor Walther who is hated and despised by Professor Weenaas and to know his doctrine more exactly from his postil which is presently being published in Norway and then naturally will also be sent over here. Then without a doubt people will come to acknowledge the truth of the judgment which Superintendent Dr. Broemel utters in the words, "Dead, sluggish orthodoxy is an abomination to him (Professor Walther)."

I must however also provide some proofs of Professor Weenaas' one-sidedness, bitterness and untruthfulness in his charges against the Missouri Synod.

He speaks of "the perversity and un-Lutheranness of Missourianism." "Their Lutheranism," he says, "has grown up to be flesh without spirit, bones without marrow, a hollow formalism without life and content." He tells us that they "are leading the church into a fossilized state," that "the fruits of such a doctrinal extravagance and highhanded restriction of the limitation which is necessary for the church's unity will either be a complete dissolution and breaking up of the church into factions, or a doctrinal hierarchy.” So he says that "Missourianism is only a new edition of the old orthodoxism" and this "orthodoxism" of the Missourians is distinguished from it by a plain and simple cry of "pure doctrine" and a working hard toward getting "hammered out, rough-hewn, coined and impressed a certain stamp which gives 'orthodoxy' its own stamp," while he however insinuates that they do not hold to the simple truth of the Catechism and do not seek to "implant the living faith which shows itself actively in a new love." Furthermore, he says: "They gradually gather the arranged truths into the synod's or the tendency's bag, show them to wondering viewers to their own self-satisfaction and think in their vain self-blindness that they have found in them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. When a spiritual tendency presses forward in this way it 'deviates' more and more from 'the sum of the commandments, which is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience and from a sincere faith,' in order to 'turn to vain talk, to learning strange doctrines and considering fables and genealogies without end, which minister questions rather than godly edifying in the faith' (1 Ti. 1:3ff.)."

But with what does the professor prove these strong charges on the basis of which he divests the synod of all its strong Christian character? His mere assertions, his falsifying of facts, and unjust judgments, for example, of Missouri's controversy with Iowa, these are to serve as proofs.

Furthermore, may Professor Weenaas be so good as to prove, for example, the following false charges which he hurls. That the Missourians "speak about the excommunication of every synod and every segment of the Lutheran Church which is not recognized by the orthodox Synodical Conference as pure in doctrine." That "the Holy Scriptures are overshadowed" by the Missourians by "Lutheran dogmaticians, even of the second and third rank." That "the Holy Scriptures are not viewed according to the analogy of faith but according to quotations."

We shall only remark to all this that if it is a manifestation of Christian love thus to present oneself as a liar fearlessly and shamelessly, then we ask God to preserve us from it.

However, I have grown weary from following the professor when obviously he is concerned with getting to cast as many slurs upon the Missouri Synod as possible in order to prove by them how bad the situation must be in our synod which has been in close association with it for so long. I know that the Missouri Synod is so well anchored on the right rock that it is not going to be harmed by such attacks. Even so decided an adversary as Inspector Bauer says: “With respect to faithfulness to the Confessions, the Missouri Synod represents the conscience of the Lutheran Church. We accord it this recognition without reservation." With his false representations and slander Professor Weenaas cannot deprive the Missouri Synod of the recognition which such honest adversaries pay it, as well as the rich blessings which the Lord has placed upon its struggle and work and which its bitter enemies over here have more than once conceded it. And even though he tries, he only makes himself laughable and contemptible in the eyes of reasonable people.

Professor Walther will also be able to disregard Professor Weenaas' attacks and rude accusations calmly. What good does the flattery, the praise, the professor strews before him, which he pays his ability, really do, if the many charges he makes against him were true, particularly this that he has been the chief leader in leading our synod in so dangerous a false spiritual direction which can only be expressed with the dreadful word "Wisconsinism"? With the help of God, Professor Walther has withstood and refuted attacks which were led by more capable men and in a more honest way. He has even gained a recognition from opponents as a Lutheran theologian and Christian as perhaps no other Lutheran teacher in our day. I could quote ever so many testimonies, partly from both friends and opponents in this country, partly from such theologians in Europe as Dr. Guericke, Licentiate Stroebel and Pastor Brunn. I will only remind you of Inspector Bauer's complaint that the Iowa Synod had requested the colloquy with “the learned, zealous and ready-for-battle Professor Walther,” and quote some remarks of Superintendent Dr. Broemel in his excellent new book, Homiletic Character Portraits. The reader will see that they go in an opposite direction from Pastor Loehe's judgments quoted by Weenaas.

"Pure doctrine," says Broemel, "also requires pure and firmly believing hearts which are prepared to give up all outward things because inwardly they have surrendered them. It requires theologians who with unshaken steadfastness of faith, not confused by a skeptical theological strife, have made the whole Word of God the light of their lives. Walther is such a theologian. What he preaches is nothing other than the old, familiar Lutheran orthodoxy. Nowhere has he added anything to it, nowhere taken anything from it. He stands exactly where the old Lutheran preachers and dogmaticians stand" (page 305). "For him, Luther and the old theologians have spoken the best words for our as well as for all times" (ibid.). "Walther knows his Luther, but also as a son coequal with his father" (p. 306). "Walther is a learned theologian, but for the most part he lives only in the doctrine which lies behind him. He is as well-versed in the church fathers, especially Luther and the reformers, as in the Bible ... But because he is a genuine Christian who is completely serious about the whole of God's Word, therefore this orthodox man makes a perfectly timely, which is to say, entirely favorable impression. He is a deep and earnest preacher who lives entirely in Jesus, his theology is thoroughly practical. He is as orthodox as John Gerhard, but also as sincere as a pietist, as correct in form as a university - or court preacher, and yet as simple as Luther himself. If the Lutheran Church wants to bring its doctrine to the people then it must be as faithful and sure in doctrine and use it in as engaging and relevant a form as Walther. Walther is a model preacher in the Lutheran Church. How entirely different the Lutheran Church in Germany would be if it contained many such preachers!" (p. 307). "Walther is filled with love of Christ and love for the brethren" (p. 307). "But the thing which makes Walther so impressive is of course not the form but the content of his sermons. As a good Lutheran he preaches all of the Word of God. He has no pet ideas. He preaches the whole content of Scripture with the greatest conviction of faithfulness ... He does not yield one tittle of Scripture" (p. 310). "Dead, sluggish orthodoxy is an abomination to him" (p. 311). "As a genuine son of the reformers Walther is a faithful friend of his new fatherland" (p. 327). "Truth, freedom and manly courage are Walther's basic elements" (ibid.).

When Professor Weenaas characterizes Walther's way of carrying on controversy in the following way: "Men such as Harless, Delitzch, Philippi, Thomasius, Kurtz, etc. are accustomed to being treated with scorn and mockery from Missouri's, i.e. Walther's exalted tribunal," then this characterization is untrue. True, Professor Walther speaks the truth openly and honestly and corrects error without respect of persons wherever he finds it, but always with modesty, politeness and recognition of the opponent's true ability. In Lehre und Wehre Professor Walther has publicly disapproved of the criticism of German theologians provided by the former professor Dr. Preuss for the tone and the judgment of the state of heart which it showed. When we acknowledge and accept with thanks to God the gifts God has given his church in such a man as Professor Walther, then we do not rob but only give God the glory he has coming and in no way does this entitle Professor Weenaas to accuse us of "clinging to personalities" which is said to be characteristic of the mind and spirit he ascribes to us and the Missouri Synod. I dare say that a church body is not to be found in our days which carries on such a life and death struggle against all faith in and idolizing of authority as the Missouri Synod with Professor Walther in the lead; and a person is going to look long for as excellent and courageous a testimony in this regard as that which the venerable old Pastor Wyneken recently displayed over against Pastor Harms.

Because of Professor Weenaas' sortie against our synod and its members in this section, there are not many points we should pass up. It is surely in order that Professor Schmidt should be tarred with the same stick. Through the doctrinal discussions within our synod he has taken a far too prominent position so that he could be overlooked when these doctrinal discussions should be presented in an abominable light. He is not actually named by Pastor Lars Oftedal in his travelogue, "A German Professor," but when Weenaas mentions with a certain shrugging of his shoulders that Professor Schmidt, "although a comparatively young man, has been accepted as a member of the theological faculty at the St. Louis seminary," then a person cannot think other than with a smile of the ripe ages the members of the faculty in Minneapolis have reached.

On page 35 he says that in our synod "prior to the association with the German Missouri Synod, no marked theological tendency is noticeable." But how does this admission tally with the professor's earlier assertions? For example, when he says in volume I, number 4 of Professor Johnson's Kirketidende: "Dietrichson has to get the greatest credit for the theological direction in which he soon led the new synod because of his gifts as a speaker, as well as because of his theological training and as a follower of Grundtvig, and especially of the deceased W.A. Wexels, in a decidedly Grundtvigian direction. And when he says here in his book that our synod was from a Grundtvigian root, and that in its "most Romanizing direction," that Grundtvigianism with its high-churchly interpretation of the church and the ministry was not a little spread in the Norwegian Lutheran Church" here, and that it later shot out a powerful shoot in the doctrine of "lay preaching"? And when he says right afterward that this “high churchly interpretation” proceeded to and "circumscribed a high-churchly view," then surely the meaning of that, if there is any at all, has to be that within the synod there was a high-churchly tendency which through the connection with the German orthodoxism produced "Wisconsinism." When the professor accuses us of "ministerial aristocracy" and "high-churchliness," we are just going to remark that the Missouri Synod and we with it are otherwise generally accused both here and in Europe of "low-churchliness" and of wanting to introduce the authority of the congregation in the place of pastoral dominance. But naturally for Professor Weenaas this has nothing to do with the matter. His imagination is lively enough to ascribe to us the most opposite predicates when it merely suits his purpose.

On page 42 the professor insinuates that the various men who have been called to a theological professorship by our synod have declined our Call because "they saw through the spiritual direction and did not want to sell their convictions for a loaf of bread or a professor's dignity." As concerning several of the gentlemen referred to, I declare the insinuation to be a lie, and for everyone concerned, I demand that Mr. Weenaas prove it. We could also have obtained enough theological professors if we had not wanted to take the proper regard for Christian earnestness, theological ability and Lutheran orthodoxy.

When on page 44 the professor scoffs at the contentment we show about "sitting at a strange table and digesting foreign board," namely at the Missouri Synod's theological seminary in St. Louis, then I will only answer that I will be very thankful to God if he will grant our synod a capable, orthodox theological faculty, but at the same time I certainly prefer justifiable, healthy board at a foreign table to such a "national" hash as at "Augsburg Seminary." Neither ought we forget completely that it was from Germany, through the German, Luther, that the Lord allowed also us Norwegians to partake of the blessings of the Reformation.

Finally, will Professor Weenaas be so good as to prove that Professor Larsen has said that he "had sought the truth in vain" before he became associated with the Missouri Synod, and that he "judges all learned theologians with the same rule."

Near the end of this section the professor tries to trace "the influence which the Missouri Synod has exerted upon the Norwegian Synod's doctrinal characteristics," and for this reason mentions again the various doctrinal questions which have been discussed among us and which have spurred our "clergy" on. It is actually unnecessary work the professor has done in proving what we have never denied but on the contrary acknowledge with thanks, namely that the association with the Missouri Synod, chiefly with respect to doctrine, has had a great influence upon our synod. But that this influence has been a seductive, a corrupt one, as the professor asserts, that he does not prove here either.