Scharlemann denied inerrancy even after Walkout, supported Sasse’s error on Scripture (Part 2 of 2)

      This concludes from Part 1 in a 2-part series, the final word on a prominent LC–MS theologian from before and after the Walkout of 1974, Dr. Martin Scharlemann. — To add to the mystery of Scharlemann's conflicted theology, in 2018, the ELCA seminary student Donn Wilson (her or him?) reported in the Master of Theology Theses in footnote #42, p. 72 the following: 

There is only conjecture to explain Scharlemann’s reversal. It obviously saved his career at CSSL. The possibility of becoming president of CSSL remained. He was a “good soldier” who knew how to follow orders in a system of structured authority. Even his brother-in-law, Edward Schroeder [a zealous Walkout participant], has no clear explanation for Scharlemann’s behavior.

"Biblicistic"?

Prof. Richard Klann, a colleague of Scharlemann who also did not participate in the Walkout, "spent many hours together" with Scharlemann in the 1960s and wrote the following in a Concordia Journal article in Nov. 1982, p. 203: "Lutheran principles of interpretation are [not] biblicistic…". Klann's, and by extension Scharlemann's, use of the term "biblicistic" is probably how he would characterize the hermeneutical teaching of Walther and Pieper.

- - - - - - - - - - -

      According to CHI, there is "36 linear feet" of Scharlemann's papers in their repository. And it was reported in the Summer of 2011 that these papers, which had been closed to research since Scharlemann's death in 1982, were then open for research. And apparently there was research done since that time. And it was none other than Pres. Matthew Harrison who would present the answer to the mystery surrounding Scharlemann's "reversal", his theology of Holy Scripture.

“A thorough study of Scharlemann's papers”:

      Along with Scharlemann's omission of an inerrant Bible in his entry on "Hermeneutics" in the 1975 Cyclopedia, we now have proof-positive from Scharlemann himself regarding his actual state of mind after his 1962 "withdrawal" of his controversial essays and now after the 1974 Walkout. This was revealed in Matthew Harrison's "Historical Introduction" to last year's (2024) book Rediscovering the Issues, p. 6 (note the parenthetical remark):

Not long after the Synod's 1969 convention, a few St. Louis faculty members expressed concerns about what was being taught at the seminary. Among them was Martin Scharlemann, who wrote President Preus on April 9, 1970, suggesting an official inquiry. (It might be noted, however, that even after the Walkout, in [July] 1975, Scharlemann wrote Hermann Sasse expressing his support for Sasse's Letters to Lutheran Pastors on Holy Scripture, particularly where Sasse rejected the position that Scripture is inerrant in every respect. Although otherwise orthodox Lutherans like Sasse and Scharlemann could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy, most cannot, and certainly not members of following generations.)

It should be noted that in dating the letter to Sasse in the year 1975, Scharlemann was at that time the "chairman of the department of exegetical theology (1974-1976)", according to CHI's Historical Footnotes of Spring 2012, p. 3. So the chief LC–MS exegetical teacher, who did not join in the Walkout, did not teach the inerrancy of Scripture – how could he, if he did not believe it? Now all those pastors and theologians who judged that Scharlemann had not really changed from his former erring position, were justified in their judgment. Their Synod had cautioned them but they remained firm in the faith based on Holy Scripture.

What about Pres. Harrison?

      One wonders that Harrison may only have included this parenthetical remark because someone at CHI, perhaps Director Harmelink, informed him of the late culpability of Scharlemann and so he could not ignore it. Harrison surely cringed at reporting about Scharlemann and Sasse, because he appears to justify these theologians by stating they "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith without a strict doctrine of inerrancy". By this statement he gives an opening for other theologians to also deny inerrancy yet claim they too are "orthodox Lutherans". — Franz Pieper, while admitting Harrison's point, gave a stronger warning than Harrison. In his Christian Dogmatics I, pp. 178-179, fn 237 he states: "That the denial of the Inspiration, if consistency prevails, leads to denial also of the satisfactio vicaria [vicarious satisfaction]". That is a denial of the Christian faith. [See also this blog post] As Harrison's revelation shows, Siegbert Becker was the best judge of Scharlemann's actual teaching! [See Part 1, and this blog post from 2017.] 

      I was surprised that Harrison would be the one to report Scharlemann's letter to Hermann Sasse. But Concordia Historical Institute, in their "Historical Footnotes" essay (Summer 2011 to Summer 2012) on Scharlemann chose to title their series "Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann: A Faithful Servant". Perhaps author Zittlow was not aware of what Harrison revealed 13 years later in 2024. But what does that say about those who accept equivocal answers to critical doctrinal questions? And what does it say about Pres. Harrison himself when he chooses to justify both Sasse and Scharlemann as "orthodox Lutherans" who "could retain the dogmatic context of the faith", while stating that most other theologians could not?

      One may also wonder why Dr. Robert Preus and other members of the faculty did not take notice of Scharlemann's lingering error.

The Confessional Lutheran and the State of the Church publications:

      For anyone interested in getting the full story of the Scharlemann case, read through the pages of The Confessional Lutheran periodical. As Matthew Harrison reported (page 4): 

Beginning with the November 1959 issue, the Scharlemann controversy dominated the pages of an independent publication called The Confessional Lutheran until well after the Synod’s 1962 convention.

Author Mark Braun makes extensive use of this periodical which is now available on the Internet Archive for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. —  Another independent detailed source available on the Internet Archive is the State of the Church (Missouri Synod), Book of Documentation series of publications for the years 1961 and 1962. — Both of these publications provide the reader with the background and documentation on the Walkout participants and their sympathizers.  Scharlemann's demise was well documented in these.

Seminary President Karl Barth (emeritus; † 2020)

      According to Barth in 1999, as reported by Mark Braun, "Scharlemann had renounced these views later in his life". While one may charitably assume that that was true, even after 1975 where he privately admitted that he had not changed, there is no public record of his change of heart, certainly not in his many writings that I have read. Franz Pieper judged Delitzsch the same way that Barth judged Scharlemann, calling his denial of Inspiration a "felicitous inconsistency" (Christian Dogmatics I, p. 178). I would tend to "charitably assume" the same of Scharlemann after reviewing the book The Making of a Theologian: Selected Works of Martin H. Scharlemann.  — But could it be that even the LC-MS's Karl Barth was weak on discerning the remaining error in Scharlemann? CHI writer Todd Zittlow's final remark still stands:

“Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

That rhetorical question was a strike for honesty by writer Zittlow as he admitted the obvious. — 

      The sad reality was that the same Concordia Seminary Board of Control that acted against the Walkout faculty looked favorably on Prof. Martin H. Scharlemann after he had been given a period of rest after the Walkout. Klann reported in the above mentioned Concordia Journal article on Scharlemann that "His former status as graduate professor of New Testament exegesis was returned to him." This was done because it was in part "necessary to oppose" a "biblicistic" "principle of interpretation". In other words, the LC–MS never fully returned to its former glory notwithstanding the influence of the two Preus brothers, Robert and J. A. O.. One could use Zittlow's remark to say the following:

“Will the real LC–MS please stand up.”

To borrow Harrison's phrase, isn't the LC–MS actually an "otherwise orthodox" church body? 

[2025-09-07: An excellent essay that documents the "neo-orthodoxy" of Prof. Scharlemann was authored by Pastor Reinhold Goetjen in 1961. The Wisconsin Synod repository of essays has a copy of it here. Scharlemann's neo-orthodoxy is addressed on pages 3-5.]

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.

Hrm03: Surburg's essay: Walther’s Hermeneutical Principles

 

      This continues from Part Hrm02 (Table of Contents in Part Hrm02) in a series on Lutheran Hermeneutics. — Twelve years after Prof. Raymond Surburg penned his scathing Book Review (series Cyc1) of the disasters of the 1975 Lutheran Cyclopedia, the basis for today's LC–MS "Christian Cyclopedia", he authored an essay to review Walther's itemized listing relating to "Hermeneutics" in Walther's book True Visible Church of God on Earth.  This appeared in the book C. F. W. Walther: The American Luther, pp. 95-113, commemorating the 100th year of the passing, or "going home", of Walther.

Notable quotes:

95: Walther "has not written a separate book or treatment on the important subject of Biblical hermeneutics".

95: "Hermeneutics set forth the proper rules of interpretation, while exegesis applies these principles in the interpretation of the Bible." [Excellent concise definitions and distinction.]

96: "the use of the historical-critical method with its devastating and emasculating effects on Lutheranism".

96: "hostile types of Biblical criticism… form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and in recent years a type called structuralism".

96: "key hermeneutical principles in the Bible itself".

97: Walther "studied the Lutheran Confessions of the Book of Concord of 1580, in which he found the same hermeneutical principles as he had discovered in Luther’s works".

97: "The second source for doctrine, tradition, was repudiated by Luther and the Lutheran Confessions." [Prof. Joel Biermann teaches the opposite.]

98: "Walther in his lifetime saw the origin of such cults as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, … all of which claimed new revelations from their founders and leaders". [This directly contradicts claims made by Profs. Joel Biermann and A. C. Piepkorn.]

98: "Human reason as a source of religious knowledge is rejected by the Apology…The Apology … reject[s] tradition as another source for revelations… New revelations as a source of knowledge in religion are… are condemned in the Smalcald Articles."

98: "The average Christian does not need a church council, a pope, the consensus of the Church fathers or tradition to teach him what Holy Writ states".

99: "Walther wrote: “Whoever thinks that he can find an error in Holy Scripture does not believe in Holy Scripture but in himself.”".

99: "…this basic hermeneutical principle that only Scripture is able correctly to interpret itself".

102: "'…the literal sense has but one sense.' This hermeneutical principle eliminates allegorization of the text".

102: "…critical scholarship has repudiated the New Testament’s interpretation as erroneous. …many miracles of the Bible… are reinterpreted by historical critics as sagas, myths, legends, and parables…"

103: "interpreting, is guided by the context and intention of the author".

104: "“dark passages are to be interpreted by the clear ones” (Thesis XVI G).…Luther affirmed this principle … as follows: 'That is the special nature of the whole of Scripture that it explains itself through all passages that belong together and by the analogy of faith.'"

105: Luther: "…where the Holy Scriptures establish something to be believed one should not deviate from the words as they are expressed".

105: "Analogy of Faith": “The Ev. Lutheran Church rejects out of hand every interpretation not in harmony with the analogy of faith (Romans 12:6)” [Prof. Joel Biermann confuses what the "analogy of faith" is.]

106: "Walther ruled out the practice of claiming that those teachings and practices [of the Bible] which modern culture … finds unacceptable are time-bound and no longer binding."

106: The Lutheran Church "makes the teaching concerning Christ, or justification, the foundation and marrow and guiding star of all teaching."

107: "It was Luther who emphasized the proper distinction between Law and Gospel as a procedure in Biblical hermeneutics."

108: "…this principle [on adiaphora] is in harmony with the Lutheran Confessions".

108-109: "'…no teaching as an article of faith which is not contained in God’s Word.' … This principle eliminated a whole host of teachings, many of which are based upon the consensus of the Church Fathers, the decisions of the teaching magisterium and the tradition…"

109: "rule out teachings of certain Protestant denominations…gone beyond the clear teachings of the Bible" cults claiming new revelations as a source for their theological teachings

109: "many different cults claiming new revelations as a source for their theological teachings". [Prof. Joel Biermann teaches that cults get their theology from the Bible, not their "new revelations".]

110: The Lutheran Confessions are "the hermeneutical criteria for the evaluation of the theology of the Enthusiasts, of Calvinism and of Roman Catholic doctrines".

110: "Unfortunately, after 1947 the position of Walther and The Lutheran Confessions on Biblical interpretation was not adhered to by many in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod". [This is certainly still true today! Prof. Joel Biermann teaches explicitly against Walther's teaching, particularly on "tradition" and "the analogy of faith". See the other blog series starting with Part JB01.]

In the following "reprint" one will find that practically all references are hyperlinked to their sources. Highlighting is mine:

One may download the complete essay without highlighting >> HERE  <<.

One caveat to this essay is that Surburg refers, in his footnote # 3, to Prof. Martin Scharlemann's entry for "Hermeneutics" in the 1975 Lutheran Cyclopedia. But Scharlemann avoided the 1954 edition’s assertion of an errorless Bible. Although Scharlemann did not participate in the 1974 "Walkout", his early writings on Holy Scripture were devastating.  Another issue is Surburg's reference, in footnote #90, to a writing of Prof. A. C. Piepkorn, but Piepkorn clearly brought into question the inerrancy of the Bible. — The next blog post in this series, should there be one, will be Part Hrm04… 

[2025-08-27: see series on Scharlemann's theology here.]