Scharlemann on inerrancy: new information (Part 1 of 2)

      In March of this year, I blogged about how an essay by the well-respected theologian Raymond Surburg unfortunately did not notice how the 1975 LC–MS Christian Cyclopedia, in the "Hermeneutics" entry rewritten by Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann (1910-1982), had omitted reference to an inerrant Bible as previous editions had done. Much controversy surrounded Scharlemann and his early essays against Holy Scripture. But it seems the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory in its teaching on this subject. In fact, after the Walkout of 1974, whenever LC–MS historians refer to Scharlemann's 1962 "withdrawal" at the 1962 Synod convention, they speak of it as if that had settled the matter. 

    The Scharlemann case was documented by Wisconsin Synod historian Prof. Mark Braun in his 2003 NPH book A Tale Of Two Synods. On pages 309-310, he records the following (bolding is mine):

Scharlemann “withdrew” his essays at Missouri’s 1962 conven­tion, apologizing for the disruption he had caused throughout the synod during the previous three years. (#105) The convention’s delegates assured Scharlemann of their forgiveness and resolved to demonstrate their forgiveness by prayers, encouragement, and “the request that [Missouri] members refrain from attacks upon him on the basis of [his] essays.” (#106) A dozen years later [1974], Scharle­mann was among the five professors who remained when most faculty and students walked off Concordia’s campus in 1974. (#107)

• 105) Many in the Missouri and Wisconsin synods, however, doubted that the with­drawal of Scharlemann’s essay resolved the issues his studies raised and won­dered whether Scharlemann in fact ever changed his views. 
• 106) Missouri Proceedings, 1962, 106-7. “Doctrinal Matters,” LW [Lutheran Witness], 81 (July 10, 1962), 334-5.
• 107) At a presentation of the highlights of this dissertation at Wisconsin Lutheran Col­lege, Milwaukee, March 22, 1999, after the author [Mark Braun] made a brief reference to the Scharlemann papers, a member of the audience rose to defend Scharlemann, saying that Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life, and that he—the speaker—while president of Concordia Seminary, had even ministered to Scharle­mann on his deathbed in 1981. The speaker was Karl Barth, former South Wiscon­sin District President and Concordia president. Siegbert Becker, however, who opposed Scharlemann’s views at the 1959 Chicago meeting and for whom the Scharlemann papers occasioned the most traumatic decision in his ministerial career, remained unconvinced that Scharlemann had undergone a change of heart. Becker used to remark, “To the end of his life, Scharlemann was a charlatan.”

This case was also reported in Concordia Historical Institute's Summer 2012 "Historical Footnotes", p. 6 (bolding is mine):

These papers were strongly critiqued and a large groundswell of opposition developed. By the 1962 convention in Cleveland moves were made to remove Dr. Scharlemann from the faculty of Concordia Seminary. In response, Scharlemann agreed to officially withdraw his essays and apologized to the Synod in convention for the controversy and discord he had caused. The delegates responded by overwhelmingly passing a resolution accepting his apology and assuring him of forgiveness.

One may note the Synod's acceptance of Scharlemann's "withdrawal" from his controversial essays, while Scharlemann himself did not retract his essays. It seems the Synod did not care, and actually warned against continuing to defend against Scharlemann! Everyone was practically forced to accept Scharlemann's equivocal "withdrawal".

      But even the CHI writer, Todd Zittlow, admitted the strange situation of Scharlemann's own teaching (page 7):

But questions remain. How does one make sense of Scharlemann’s apparent move from moderate progressive theologian to conservative defender? … Perhaps some of these questions can be answered by a thorough study of his personal papers. Perhaps a researcher will be able to speak with some clarity and insight when the statement is made, “Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

Well, last year President Matthew Harrison reported on the result of what was evidently a more "thorough study of his [Scharlemann's] personal papers". We will report on the results of that in the concluding Part 2.