I was saddened
to learn of the recent passing of retired pastor Herman Otten, long time editor of his privately published newspaper
Christian News. Although this blog has taken
sharp issue with some of his theology, yet his stand for the Bible was refreshing at times. It was a stand taken since his earlier student days and was scorned by the theologians of the fast-changing LCMS in the 1950s and 1960s. He was certainly not the chief or only spokesman for the defense of the Scriptures. There were greater testimonies before him, from
Prof. Theodore Engelder, separated teachers
Paul Kretzmann,
Wallace McLaughlin and
Siegbert Becker, the
Synodical Conference brethren, Paul Burgdorf's
Confessional Lutheran newspaper, etc. He became largely the "
straw man" for many of the liberalizing parties, inside and outside the LC-MS, who did not want to be seen as opposing C.F.W. Walther, the father of the old (German) Missouri Synod, or Franz Pieper, longest serving president of Concordia Seminary.
In the past 25 years that I have perused the pages of Otten's paper, I do not recall ever seeing that he re-published a noted letter
from his student days at
Concordia Seminary. I came across this striking letter, of exactly 62 years ago today (1957), while reviewing the documents from the
State of the Church conference of 1960. What surprised me was the group of signatures under this letter that was directed to the then president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis,
Dr. A.O. Fuerbringer. The recognizable names included Otten,
David Scaer, and
Kurt Marquart. What is striking is that both of Otten's former associates later distanced themselves from him. — I now present the text of this letter as a tribute to Herman Otten, who as a seminary student stood up to the crime, as
Pieper called it, of “
Lèse-majesté”, a crime against the divine majesty, against the Bible, at Concordia. The following was extracted from the book
State of the Church 1961 pp. 79-81:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Concordia Seminary
May 1, 1957
Dear Doctor Fuerbringer,
We, the undersigned, respectfully submit to you the following matter:
As you no doubt already know, we have carried on doctrinal discussions with another group of students. These discussions had as their purpose the clarification of the points of doctrine which have caused conflict and division on this campus in the past several years.
Since some of us had conducted unsuccessful dealings of this kind before, we know the general aversion to formal charges. We thought we could avoid such action at this point and secure a clarification of the issues through public discussions in the presence of our advisors and Seminary officials. We had been led to believe that the proper way to raise issues of this kind was through our faculty advisors. We now understand that this is not the case, and that no action can be taken unless specific charges are made.
Being vitally interested in the solution of the problem, we must and shall offer specific charges.
Permit us, however, to preface the same with some “historical introductions":
The present conflict is not now. Some of us have faced it for several years. The main issue is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. In a general way, the discussions through these past years telescoped through four logical-chronological stages:
(1) Inspiration. We found that it is almost useless to operate with terms like "inspiration" or even "plenary inspiration", since these are sufficiently elastic to permit any interpretation. And "verbal inspiration" too, besides being a formulation which, we are informed, we may not "force" on anyone in our Synod, is, when not safeguarded, subject to semantic evaporation.
(2) Inerrancy. The issues are apparently met much more effectively and directly in the area of the inerrancy of Scripture. If the inerrancy is affirmed bona fide, verbal inspiration must be presupposed.
(3) Complete inerrancy. But even the term "innerancy" becomes ambiguous by being tacitly assumed to embrace only certain portions of Scripture. Hence we had to specify that we understand by "innerancy" the doctrine that the Holy Scriptures "contain no errors or contradictions, but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters." (Brief Statement, 1)[Archive]
(4) "Hermeneutics". We found that even the confession of plenary inerrancy may be subject to ambiguity: It is claimed that even though Scripture may contain errors ("error" being apparently defined in some such sense as "major theological heresy"), portions of the Bible, such as the first few chapters of Genesis, including the account of the creation and fall of our first parents, must or at least may be understood figuratively and not as literal history. This we can in no sense regard as submission to the text of what to us is the Word of God. It rather appears to us that if "inerrancy" does not refer to the plain, literal sense (unless of course, the text, context or another text demand the figurative sense), then "inerrancy" means nothing and may be applied with equal facility and justice to Aesop’s Fables and other forms of literature from which morals may be drawn which are "true" at some level of generalization. Scripture then becomes a "waxen nose." We therefore believe that the literal historicity of the Scriptural account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve is not an open question or a mere "hermeneutical problem," which has no bearing on the doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Holy Writ, but that this Genesis account is in fact a reliable barometer of the doctrine of Scripture.
For us, then the last three of these four "stages" are already implicit in the first, and each is meaningful only if all of the succeeding ones are also affirmed.
As the discussions have proceeded, through the years, from stage (1) to stages (3) and (4), where the conflict centers at present, it has been our impression that the "other side" (of whom the gentlemen herein named are not the exclusive representatives) has become progressively less crass and more subtle. But the basic positions appear to us to be unchanged. We have witnessed an increase not of conservatism, but of caution and specification.
In fact we can conceive yet of a fifth stage of refinement of the issues, and that not altogether without foundation in actual experience: The positions outlined in stages (1) to (4) could be, at least in part, formally granted, but not as indubitably certain Scriptural truths, but only as pious conclusions, results of empirical investigation, human conviction, etc. To concede validity to such a "confession" would, in our estimation, be tantamount to granting a dispensation, in principle, from the positions so confessed, though for a time this right may not be exercised. In our discussions, we have therefore operated on the basis of the principle that what is not confessed positively as indubitable Scripture-truth is not confessed at all, no matter how strongly it may be emphasized that a definite, dogmatic denial or rejection is avoided.
In the light of the preceding, we herewith regretfully submit the following concerning these seven students, Paul Heyne, Dale Krueger, Ed Lawrence, Duane Mehle, William Olsen, Arthur Simon, Thomas Strieter:
1) Their theological outlook is seriously tinged with Lundensian and neo-orthodox theology, as evidenced in a typical vagueness, subjectivity, and uncertainty with regard to doctrine in general. They do not regard the Missouri Synod's Brief Statement as in any sense normative or binding for them.
2) They do not accept the authority of Holy Scripture in the sense in which our church has always understood this, Specifically:
a) They refuse to affirm as a dogmatic certainty the inerrancy of Scripture in all matters of which it treats, including "historical, geographical, and other secular matters." (Brief Statement, 1) Their reasons are: (1) The original autographs are not available for an empirical determination of their inerrancy, and (2) in view of the many variants it is meaningless to predicate verbal inspiration and complete inerrancy of the present text.
b) They refuse to confess as a matter of faith the literal historicity of the Genesis account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, and would admit the view that Adam and Eve are not to be regarded as historical persons. We are treating this under the doctrine of Scripture and not of Creation, because we regard this view as a subversion of the organic foundation of our faith, the Scripture principle.
3) They refuse to affirm ("in view of the absense of Scriptural grounds") the doctrine that man has an immortal soul which survives after death. They regard the soul as "not ontological but existential," i.e. as a quality of the body, which perishes together with the body.
These views we understand to be contrary to the Evangelical Lutheran position of our Synod. Hence we cannot with a good conscience sit by idly while men holding such views are graduated into the field to become pastors and even teachers. You will understand, then, that we cannot accept men with such beliefs as future colleages in the ministry, with whom we are to live in brotherly peace and concord. We therefore request that steps be taken to ascertain the correctness of our charges, and if they are sustained, to take the appropriate action.
We should like to say also that under the circumstances we cannot very well consider the case settled and closed by any solution operating with the theory of "talking past one another," “misunderstanding," "using different terms," etc., unless we have been given full opportunity, at a public hearing and in the presence of our faculty advisors, to support our cause and to question the witnesses.
In view of the fact that the academic year is rapidly drawing to a close, and calls are about to be issued, we respectfully request your immediate consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Dorn
David Scaer
Robert Stockman
/S/ George Lobien
Robert Cordes
Richard Beits
Kurt Marquart [† 2006]
Herman Otten [† 4/24/2019]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
There is much irony in this letter in comparing the early student David Scaer with the later Prof. David Scaer in the matter covered by this letter, but we pass over that now. Herman Otten's struggles were only beginning on that day in 1957, 62 years ago today. His later defense of the Bible in the pages of his newspaper was at times weak. But for the ridicule that he received because of his stand for the Bible, I would count myself as his follower. May Otten's fight for the return to old Missouri's teaching on Inspiration and Inerrancy of Holy Scripture be his lasting legacy.
%20p.%20xii).jpg)
.jpg "Dr. Franz Delitzsch (Wikipedia)")
