``Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.'' Jer. 6, 16.
The Lord had spoken thus to Israel; but Israel did not give heed to His words. The Lord therefore complains bitterly: ``For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.''
Do not thoughts such as these crowd upon us, as we gather for the annual meeting of our Synod once more in this memorable place? Nine years ago a few of us were gathered here to consider how we might save some of the remnants that were left after the great calamity which had befallen our church. Our pious fathers asked faithfully and zealously for the old paths to walk therein. They had tried earnestly to heal the hurt of our Lutheran Zion with the true means which God has given for that purpose. It appeared to many, however, that they had made too little progress in their endeavors. These, therefore, took matters into their own hands, and framed a treaty of peace, which was carried into effect by means of force and treachery. Their achievement was praised and celebrated throughout the length and breadth of the land. The cry was raised: ``The great Thirty Years' war of the Lutheran church in this country is ended at last, and the peace for which thousands have longed and prayed has now been established.'' Yet there was no peace. The little band whom God in grace had given the courage to defy the threats of all overwhelming majority without considering their own temporal advantages, in order that they might continue faithfully to ask for the old paths, gathered in this church nine years ago for the purpose of considering plans for their work in the future. Their deliberations resulted in the following resolution: ``We, members present,... join together for the purpose of continuing the work of the Synod on the old basis and according to the old principles.'' A name for the reorganized synod was chosen, the fundamental principles to be followed in doctrine and practice agreed upon, temporary officers elected, and a committee was chosen to prepare a draft for a constitution.
Thus our work was begun anew in the name of the triune God. Much has tended to make our work difficult during these years. Many hindrances have been thrown in our way. We have been accused of being schismatics, Pharisees and the like. Yet God has abundantly blessed us during these nine years. He has granted us courage to testify unflinchingly to the old truths, and it has been our privilege to see evidences of the fact that, in spite of our own shortcomings, our testimony has not been borne in vain. We have been permitted to rejoice over the preservation of the old, time-honored principles for which our sainted fathers labored and contended, while a many of our former brethren, who parted from us, have sighed amid the great confusion which the new condition of affairs in the church has brought about. And the unity of spirit in all essentials, which has bound us together in our work for building the church of God, has not been the least cause for rejoicing.
If we reckon the restoration of the Norwegian Synod from the above mentioned resolution of the meeting in Lime Creek in 1918,1 we may celebrate next year, not only the tenth anniversary of the reorganized Synod, but also the seventy-fifth anniversary of the old Nor- wegian Synod. We ought to have this in mind when detailed arrangements for our meeting in 1928 are worked out.
It is true that objection has been raised from various sources to our using the name, the Norwegian Synod, and to our claim to be the logical heirs and successors to the old Norwegian Synod. It is maintained that the Norwegian Synod has been officially merged with other Lutheran bodies in ``The Norwegian Lutheran Church in America.'' Consequently, the Norwegian Lutheran Church is the rightful successor to the Norwegian Synod, as is evident especially from the fact that this church body has taken over and is now actually in possession of all the property formerly owned by the Norwegian Synod.
But the essential feature of a church body is surely not its outward organization, its educational and charitable institutions and buildings of stone and wood. It must rather consist in its confession of faith, the dominating principles governing doctrine and practice, and the spirit in which all its work is carried on. It is in this latter sense that we claim to be the logical successors to the old Norwegian Synod. Though a tree may be shattered and broken by the raging storm, yet the tender sprouts that shoot forth from the ruined trunk are a continuation of the old tree, because they are nourished and grow from the old roots. If the outward organization were a deciding factor, we could not as Lutherans speak at all of the continuity of the church. Luther was forced to secede from the outward organization of the church of his time. This was the only way in which he could restore the connection with the true apostolic church.
Very little can be accomplished by arguing in a general way about whether ``The Norwegian Lutheran Church in America'' or we, who now adorn ourselves with the time honored name of the Norwegian Synod, are the logical successors to this venerable church body. Only by considering in detail the things which in course of time have come to be generally considered as the distinguishing marks of the old Synod can we decide who are its rightful heirs. This is what I propose to do in the following paragraphs.
Our sainted fathers, who were instrumental in organizing the Norwegian Synod, were fully determined to found a true Lutheran -- i. e. a true Biblical, Christian church among the Norwegian immigrants in this country. In the middle of the last century there were in the Church of Norway various types of Lutherans, liberal and fanatic, as well as orthodox, who desired to be guided wholly by the Lutheran Confessions. The first ordained pastors who came to this country were chiefly confessional Lutherans, who, before leaving the mother country, had learned to he governed solely by the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. They were further guided and encouraged in this respect, when God providentially led them into contact with brethren here who, after having passed through many tribulations, had learned thoroughly to seek after the truth, and who had already written upon their banner; ``Back to the fathers, back to Luther and the Confessions, back to the Holy Scriptures.'' In 1877 Rev. V. Koren writes: ``Though formerly unclear in many respects in spite of its confessional and churchly conservatism, the Norwegian Synod had received, through its connection with the Missouri Synod, an earnest awakening and had arrived at a definite Lutheran firmness. And the new view of the glory emanating from the two chief principles of the Lutheran Reformation, which they had acquired, was borne out enthusiastically in all their productions, both written and oral.'' (The Various Parties in the Norwegian Church in America, p. 17.)
In his essay on the position of the Norwegian Synod, the sainted Rev. Koren writes; ``We brought with us from the mother church the unadulterated gospel, but a really clear view of its glory in opposition to all error is something which we have acquired after our arrival here, since the condition of a free church wholly separated from the state, as well as the controversies which we have lived through, by divine guidance, have confirmed us in the old truth. We would be ungrateful not to acknowledge how mightily we have been strengthened by our German brethren in faith, especially by the testimony of that faithful disciple of Luther, the sainted Dr. Walther. No one can justly accuse us, however, of being mere repeaters of Dr. Walther or of anyone else.'' (Complete works, Vol. III, Page 437.)
With reference to the question of church government and church polity, the fathers of our Synod were at the beginning somewhat unclear, but with the aid of more experienced brethren and with the encouragement which these brethren gave them to study the Lutheran church fathers and the Confessions, they very soon attained a clear view also of this question. The Rev. M. A. Preus speaks of the question as follows in his ``Seven Lectures, etc.,'' 1867; ``When the constitution was drafted, we all. pastors as well as laymen, had lately arrived from the old fatherland; we were unacquainted with the organization of congregations and church bodies entirely independent of the state. It was only natural, then, that we should have a number of erroneous and confused ideas, e. g. about the relation of the local congregation to the church body, and about church government and discipline. Because of the intermixture of church and state to which we were accustomed, it was only to be expected that our ideas would be confused, so that we ascribed power and authority to church government which could only be defended when exercised by the civil authorities. While we were governed in our practice by more correct principles than those embodied in our constitution, yet we desired to make the necessary revision of our constitution as soon as this could be done.''