Cy3: Surburg: supplement to Rediscovering the Issues book

      This continues from Part Cy2 (Table of Contents in Part Cy1) presenting Dr. Raymond Surburg's CTQ Book Review of the 1975 Lutheran Cyclopedia, the basis of today's LC–MS "Christian Cyclopedia".— As I read Surburg's article, I was surprised at the number of entries that he focused on. I took considerable time to fully understand his points. He was certainly an authority with deep knowledge of the theological scene 50 years ago.  — Excerpted from Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1977 (vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 101-102). 

Book Review

[by Raymond F. Surburg, concluded]

“Pentecostalism”

While the revised Lutheran Cyclopedia has an article on “Pentecostalism” [1954 ed.; 1927 ed. comment is best.] which describes what traditionally was the position of this movement and defined the churches espousing this erroneous kind of theology, there is no articles on “Neo-Pentecostalism,” which since 1961 has affected the main-line denominations of Christendom, including Roman Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and other Protestant denominations. Neo-Pentecostalism has divided and continues to divide churches and is one of many problems plaguing Protestant and Lutheran churches.

“Historical-Critical Method”

Since the historical-critical method is the big dividing issue today in The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, it would have been extremely helpful to have had a discussion in this reference volume of the difference between the historical-grammatical method [2000 ed.] and the historico-critical [2000 ed.], but the definitions given are exceedingly brief and do not inform the reader wherein the difference between the two methods consists. 

“Biblical Commentaries” and Hengstenberg

The article on “Commentaries, Biblical” (pp. 187-188 [by F. W. Danker, “Walkout” professor]) [2000 ed.] definitely favors the critical approach to Scripture. The writings of Hengstenberg, outstanding conservative Lutheran theologian of the nineteenth century, are belittled by citing F. W. Farrar’s judgment, namely, the exegetical methodology of Hengstenberg “was retrogressive.” [p. 188] The ICC Commentary [p. 188] which contains many extremely liberal volumes is cited “as authoritative, though some volumes have been superseded by fresh investigation.” Conservative commentaries, those of [Herbert C.] Leupold and [Theodore] Laetsch, are not mentioned among commentaries not in sets. [Why no mention by Surburg of Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann's even better, more conservative than Leupold, Popular Commentary?]

With 250 individuals contributing, some of whom are now associated with Seminex and men sympathetic to the so-called moderate theology, it is not surprising that the 1975 revision does not portray the same consistency toward the Bible and its writings as was the case with its predecessors of 1927 and 1954. Hold on to your 1954 version and the 1927 version if you own them or can purchase them. [Now everyone has free direct access to refer to these earlier, and sometimes better, versions.] Living theologians and church leaders are not mentioned; only those who are dead rated inclusion in this reference work. The many cross-references make this a very useful volume. Despite the foregoing criticism and others that might be made, the revised Lutheran Cyclopedia contains much valuable information and is a volume every pastor will want to have in his library for handy access to data normally scattered through many books. Considering current book prices, the price asked for this volume is not too high.

Raymond F. Surburg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -   End of entry  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    As I read Surburg's comments on the entry for the “Historical-Critical Method”, I thought of the full treatment in chapter 3, “The Historical-Critical Method”, in Rediscovering the Issues by Timothy H. Maschke,  former chairman of the Department of Theology at Concordia University Wisconsin. As Prof. (emeritus) Maschke stated on p. 77: 

"Although historical criticism was being laid to rest in official publications of the LCMS [?], the historical-critical method remains a dominant method in most other denominations and seminaries, to say nothing of public universities."

Another resource would be to search "Historical Critical Method" in the 1977 Board of Control book Exodus from Concordia.

      Surburg could have criticized Lueker’s claim in his “Preface to the Revised Edition” [p. vi] that “Special efforts were made to improve objectivity. …unevenness and bias in some entries of the previous edition.” It may be noticed that the charge of “biased” was also made by Drs. Adam Francisco and Scott Keith against F. Bente. One of those who “pointed out…bias in some entries of the previous edition” could have been Prof. Martin Scharlemann, who re-wrote the section on “Hermeneutics”. Scharlemann avoided the 1954 edition’s assertion of an errorless Bible. That would be made apparent when ten years later, after this CTQ article, Dr. Surburg praised C. F. W. Walther in a 19 page essay for the book Walther, the American Luther. A presentation of that full essay will be presented in another blog series. — Another glaring example of a severe abbreviation follows in the next Part Cy4.