Psychology versus Scripture
Some time ago a rather lengthy correspondence between a Missouri layman, who had been graduated from one of the junior colleges of that Synod, and our dear brother H. F. Koehlinger, known to the readers of this church paper chiefly through his heart-searching devotionals based upon Luther’s exposition of the Twenty-third Psalm, was turned over upon request for publication in this paper. After careful reading and consultation among three or four of us we decided that we could not afford the space in this Scriptural publication to reproduce so much of the Missourian’s scurrilous language as would form the necessary background for printing all of our brother’s fine Scriptural rejoinders. If space were not so precious with us we could indeed cite excellent precedent for publishing the whole correspondence, in Luther’s frequent practice of publishing libels written against him with or without his own detailed reply.
Yet this material is so symptomatic of the attitude of many Missourians today that we could not wholly ignore it. Even before the establishment of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, but in an intensified degree since that time, the so-called “psychological approach” has displaced the old-time Scriptural propaganda and polemics once characteristic of the Missouri Synod. If you disagree with Missouri today and attack her aberrations you are not likely to be regarded as an erring brother who must be set straight from Scripture, or as a heretic whose mouth must be stopped by Scripture, but rather as a “psychoneurotic” who should consult a psychiatrist.
The Missouri correspondent to whom we are referring is an extreme example of this attitude. We find him constantly insisting that he has no interest whatsoever in our “silly theological debate” but only in the personal “frame of mind” of his former friend. In his letters he uses no Scripture, although Brother Koehlinger’s answers are full of Scripture properly applied, but takes evident pride in the ease with which he has been able to recognize what he considers the peculiar “psychosis” expressed in the actions and publications of our Orthodox Conference.
Such attacks on our church-body, whereby he presumes to enter a public controversy without knowledge of the facts and with professed disinterest in the theological principles involved, are the most objective sections of his extremely subjective tirades. He does once express curiosity as to “what new thought your group is advancing,” but suppresses his curiosity with the remark: “Seems to me you aren’t saying anything new.” In this of course he is right; as Brother Koehlinger’s rejoinder shows: “We believe, teach, and confess only the eternal Bible truths.” That is really all the answer we can make to people who are not interested in “theological debate” on the basis of Scripture. There is no common ground on which we can meet.
The situation delineated above, which is startlingly general, may account in large degree for the failure to “get together and talk things over” between representatives of the Missouri Synod and the O.L.C. When we adduce God’s Word and are met by the suggestion that we have our heads examined there is no basis for discussion. Under such circumstances we are not surprised when our adversaries lose interest and break off discussion, as occurred in this case. With those who regard the fact of taking Bible doctrine seriously as an indication of “fanaticism,” and the willingness to die for it if need be as a “martyr complex,” we have nothing to discuss.
W. H. M., with grateful acknowledgments to H. F. K.
- “psychoneurotic” and “should consult a psychiatrist.” I have a
- peculiar “psychosis” and should
- “have my head examined.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.