LCMS moderate didn't "Walkout", but should have (on Science and the Bible)

[2024-06-06: added reference page link to Hausmann's book in red below]

     While reviewing the latest book in the Concordia Historical Institute's (CHI) "Monograph Series", Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Concordia Seminary Walkout, (only $19.99!). I discovered a reference to a book, authored by an LC-MS pastor, that I was previously unaware of.  The reference was made by Rev. Dr. Armand Boehme in his essay "Creation and the Fall".  The essay is generally commendable in revealing the history of the change of doctrine by the teachers in the LC-MS, although I would suggest that the door to evolutionary teaching began even before the 1950s (p. 175). His references to support the literal meaning of Genesis 1-3 from Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions was most helpful. My upload of the famous "Blue Book" to the Internet Archive will also aid readers to follow the many references to that book by Dr. Boehme, and also by the other CHI essayists. 

 

Rev. William John Hausmann

    The book in question was Science and the Bible in Lutheran theology: from Luther to the Missouri Synod authored by Rev. Dr. William John Hausmann (1930-2015, obituary, Legacy) in 1978 (free to borrow for 1-hour periods).  This book, along with several other references in the CHI book, are available to read for free for 1-hour borrowing periods on the Internet Archive. This book was a dissertation for his PhD degree from Drew University.  When one researches his affiliation, we find that not only was he born into the LC-MS, he evidently did not leave it during the infamous "Walkout" of 1974, since one finds that he was an "Interim Pastor" at an LC-MS church in Pennsylvania after his retirement in 1990. 

      What is significant about this is that Dr. Boehme reveals on page 179, footnote # 43, that Hausmann gave a "positive view of [Prof. Norman] Habel’s essay" (2024-06-06: on p. 107-109). Who was Prof. Habel?  He was one of the Concordia Seminary professors who joined the "Walkout" of 1974.  What did Habel teach? According to Dr. Boehme, he taught according to the "historical-critical method" (p. 74, 177) and that Genesis 3 was a "symbolic religious history". 

       So Hausmann's public "positive view" in 1978 of Habel's and Concordia Seminary's teaching, 4 years after the "Walkout" in 1974, demonstrates that although the LC-MS seemed to have won the "Battle for the Bible", it had not fully done so — by disciplining those who still sympathized with the "Walkout" teachings. Hausmann speaks of his own duplicity in his pastorate on pages 113-114, saying that although he would not preach about his actual belief of "accommodation" with "science" in his sermons, yet 

"Bible classes, Sunday school, confirmation instruction appear to be the place to discuss in detail the relationship between science and Scripture, the theological, philosophical, and scientific problems, questions, and possible solutions that would arise from such a dialogue", 

… that is, the "accommodating" relationship between Scripture and "science falsely so-called" (1 Timothy 6:20).

      This seemingly small situation has larger implications, for it demonstrates that Dr. Boehme is in fellowship with the Synod that found room for pastors, such as Hausmann, who publicly did not believe the official Scriptural teaching of the Synod. (Hausmann even claimed Luther for his "accommodating" cause.) It demonstrates that the "Issues" addressed in the CHI book were never fully resolved… to this day, not withstanding CHI's efforts to speak otherwise. 

      More on the CHI book on the "Walkout" to come…

Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues (Part 1 of 3)

      This blog series was prompted when I discovered that the Internet Archive has recently (February 25, 2023) scanned and made available to borrow a book that provides more of the "inside story" of the early downfall of the LC–MS, from the early decades before much of the history presented in Concordia Historical Institute's (CHI, 2024) Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Concordia Seminary Walkout. The 1980 book is The Struggle for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the Early 1970's, by Edward C. Fendt, a professor in the old ALC which merged into today's ELCA. It was written in 1978, 4 years after the 1974 Walkout staged at Concordia Seminary, and was published by the Augsburg Publishing of the old ALC. I have blogged about this book in the past in 2011 (here and here; search "Fendt") but its importance needs to be once again pointed out. It is a good basis and companion for the CHI book released in 2024, 50 years after the 1974 Walkout, and edited by Dr. Ken Schurb. Fendt's book is a good source for those who want to know more of the historical events and people that led up to what Prof. Kurt Marquart referred to as an "Explosion".

      Fendt's book contains accounts of surprising "infighting" within the LC-MS teachers, and of the doctrinal issues, in the following:

Notable Quotes:

83: "If the members present had known how Dr. [Theo.] Graebner felt about the Doctrinal Affirmation they might have called for his resignation as one of the co-editors of the Lutheran Witness."

85: “A Statement” of the 44 signers reprinted

93: "The ALC commissioners declared that we hold to the same truth which they term Objective Justification even though we may prefer such terms as Atonement and Reconciliation." [ALC shows its weakness or even denial of Objective Justification.]

94: "Dr. Fendt: 'It's also a problem of language. The evangelical Pieper becomes cold and didactic in Mueller’s Dogmatics. The only objection the Columbus faculty had to the Doctrinal Affirmation was its poor, archaic English.'" [Fendt labels “evangelical Pieper”!  But he does not call Pieper’s Brief Statement “evangelical”!]

 95: "Matzner [ALC]: We object to 'objective justification’ as you [LC–MS] object to 'intuiti fidei'; to us they are on par." … "[J.H.C.] Fritz: Universal, or objective, justification is the basis for subjective justification." [Thank you Prof. Fritz!! Clear evidence that the ALC erred on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.]

 

191-2: Fendt, of the ALC, speaks highly of Prof. Martin Franzmann, but that Franzmann was an unhappy man in the LC–MS.

192-193: Fendt: “Dr. Franzmann was committed to look at confessional and synodical statements in the light of the Holy Scriptures, not to look at the Scriptures in the light of confessional or synodical statements.” [See this blog post, Franzmann's conditional confession.”]

 233-239: Prof. Julius Bodensieck, of the old ALC, wrote a venomness essay against inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Yet the LC–MS was in fellowship with the ALC for a time!

235: Bodensieck: "which of the text forms is supposed to be the 'inerrant' one? Is it the 'Received Text' from which Luther translated the New Testament into German, and from which the Authorized Version was made?  Or is it the Hebrew Old Testament in Kittel's edition or Nestle's Greek New Testament text? The usual escape from the dilemma is to retreat behind the original autographic copies of the biblical books and to assert their total inerrancy. But this escape is illusory" [Franz Pieper addressed all these concerns masterfully in his Christian Dogmatics, p. 232 ff.; CSL Prof. Joel Biermann speaks much like Bodensieck.]

236: Bodensieck: "The third term used in the description of the Word of God is 'inerrant'. I have alluded to it above. A few more words are necessary here.  I assume that this term has the purpose here of eliminating the possibility of assuming that any geographical, biological, astronomical, historical statement in the Bible may be in error." [I addressed the "astronomical" in my Copernicanism series.]

237: Bodensieck: "...earmarks of current Fundamentalism." [This was the charge of the liberals in the LC–MS]

237: Bodensieck: "It [inerrancy] is Docetic, in that it denies the reality of the fact that while the Bible is the Word of God it is in every moment also the word of man. [This is the teaching of today's LC–MS.] Such a 'theologia gloriae' endangers the doctrine of the Person of Christ, robs Christianity of its essential historicity, and reduces the Bible to the level of the Koran which is held by Islam to be, in the Fundamentalistic sense, a 'heavenly', suprarational, inerrant book. Luther's statements concerning the Scriptures, it should be remembered, were dynamic-Christological, completely oriented to the mystery of the Incarnation. Did not Christ come into the world in the form of a Servant? And is it not precisely this aspect which needs to be stressed: The Word of God became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ, and, in the same manner, the Word of God can now, in the Bible, be read in the words and languages of man? [Bodensieck speaks for today’s LC-MS! SCR1886 acknowledges this assertion and completely refutes it!]

238: Bodensieck: "If we argue that the Bible is inspired because it claims inspiredness for itself [B. is confessing that he does not believe the Bible is inspired, as the Apostle Paul does, 2 Tim. 3:16], and that therefore its statements are correct and that therefore we may safely erect our theological systematic superstructure on that basis, we argue in a circle, and it may easily happen [not sure?] that the whole structure collapses because the foundation proved to be untenable, indefensible, and treacherous."

- - - - - - - - -  Cont'd in Part 2  - - - - - - - - -

      Prof. Bodiensieck, although a vehement opponent to the inerrancy of the Bible, was more honorable than those who tried to hide their opposition, like many (most?) in today's LC–MS. As mentioned previously, Herman Sasse also made the false charge of "docetic" against inerrancy. — In the next Part 2…

Table of Contents 

Part 1: Fendt's history of LC–MS: precursor to CHI book on Walkout issues

Part 2:  Behnken, Bohlmann, the Preus cousins

Part 3: Franzmann's & Graebner's halting speech, tears

Cy1: Surburg: “Hold on to your 1954, 1927 Cyclopedias!”; now on Internet Archive (Part Cy1)

      I have blogged previously in 2019 about the problematic nature of the online LC–MS "Christian Cyclopedia". It enjoys a considerable Internet authority, being cited in Wikipedia on a number of theological subjects. It carries a copyright date of the year "2000", but it is almost exclusively based on the 1975 print version edited by "Walkout" Prof. Erwin L. Lueker. Only a few exceptions, such as the item "Christ Seminary—Seminex", are new material since 1975. 

1954 & 1975 editions: Lutheran Cyclopedia

    Although I have mentioned it before in a 2019 blog, yet I want to make it well known that one may be able to get a better search experience than the 2000 electronic edition, in certain cases, by "borrowing" the 1975 print edition, the Lutheran Cyclopedia, available now on the Internet Archive. But an even better experience is to compare the 1975 edition entries with the earlier, and sometimes better, 1954 Lueker print edition. The 1954 edition came during a time of less corrosive "moderate" theology, though the original 1927 edition is better yet in some cases. The Internet Archive offers a robust text search capability, making it comparable in this respect to the 2000 electronic edition, even better in some cases. Searching for exact text does not require electronic "borrowing" of the book.

    One of best writings to come out of the LC–MS concerning the changes in the editions of the Cyclopedia was by CTS-FW Prof. Raymond F. Surburg in a 1977 "Book Review" of the 1975 print edition. It shows surprising candor about his own church body, the LC–MS. It is a good supplement to the history presented in the recent book Rediscovering the Issues edited by Dr. Ken Schurb. In fact it is so informative that I have decided to republish the entire 1500-word article on this blog in 3 parts, with numerous enhancements. Many hyperlinks have been added for immediate access to sources and for ease in comparing the significant and provocative changes. Excerpted from Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1977 (vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 99-109).: 

Book Review

[by Raymond F. Surburg]

LUTHERAN CYCLOPEDIA. Erwin L. Lueker, editor. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1975. 845 pages. Cloth. $24.95.

In 1927 Concordia Publishing House published the Concordia Cyclopedia: A Handbook of Religions Information, with Special Reference to the History, Doctrine, Work and Usages of the Lutheran Church [Internet Archive]. It was Theodore Graebner who first suggested this reference work and he served on the editorial board until 1923, but in that year was replaced by Paul E. Kretzmann, with Ludwig Fuerbringer and Theodore Engelder serving as editors from the very start. They were assisted by a number of notable scholars in Synod. This volume reflected the conservative stance of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod on all matters presented and discussed.

 

In 1954 its successor appeared utilizing materials that had appeared in its 1927 predecessor, but under the editorship of Dr. Erwin Lueker. Naturally this volume endeavored to present matters of Biblical interpretation, systematic theology, church history, life and worship in the church as they were understood and practiced in the two decades that had elapsed since 1927. Renamed as Lutheran Cyclopedia, it was expanded to 1160 pages. William F. Arndt, Richard R. Caemmerer, Otto A. Dorn, and Frederick Mayer served as editorial advisers. A number of professors and scholarly pastors served as consultants. [Surburg passes over commenting on the changes from 1927 to 1954, preferring to focus on the change from 1954 to 1975. More on this later.]

 

In 1975 Concordia issued a Revised Edition of the 1954 Lutheran Cyclopedia, again with Dr. Erwin Lueker (now a Seminex professor [Surburg now begins his criticisms.]) serving as editor. In the preface to the 1975 edition the reader is told that numerous corrections, suggestions and criticisms poured in as soon as the 1954 edition appeared and all these were entered into a master copy before the decision was made to issue a revised edition. The editor states [page vi]:

The number of entries has been considerably increased, articles from the previous editions were carefully reworked, and the mechanics improved. Subjects on which information would be sought especially in a Lutheran cyclopedia are somewhat more complete than those on which information is available in many other reference works. Thus a length of an article is not necessarily a criterion of importance.

About 250 individuals, professors, district presidents, synodical executives, and others contributed to the revision. The views that now are dividing the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod are partially reflected in certain articles written by those sympathetic to the so-called “moderate movement” in the LCMS.

In contrast to the three volume The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church (Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), this cyclopedia reflects an emphasis on matters related to the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, but it does contain a wealth of material useful to Lutherans of other synods. There is also information of a general nature about Christianity in all lands and at all times and places. Like its predecessors, the 1975 revision covers the major subjects in the areas of Biblical interpretation, systematic theology, church history, and practical theology, which includes religious education, preaching, counselling, evangelism, and worship. The revised Lutheran Cyclopedia contains information on church bodies and their official teachings, hundreds of historic persons, and the religious status of other countries. Lutherans in the United States and Canada will find numerous discussions of topics of interest to American and Canadian Lutheranism. Short bibliographies at the end of many articles will be helpful for research students or those wishing to pursue a subject in greater depth. Few outstanding personalities in the history of Christianity are forgotten. People associated with American and European Lutheranism are given space; there is even a list of all synodical and district presidents of the LCA, ALC and LCMS.

As one compares the Concordia Cyclopedia, The Lutheran Cyclopedia, and the revised Lutheran Cyclopedia the observant reader will find theological shifts. …

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part Cy2  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      In these prefacing remarks, we begin to get a hint of what is about to come. Dr. Surburg is going to inform us of what these "theological shifts" are that are still "dividing the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod"… in the next Part Cy2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cy1: This post: Surburg: “Hold on to your 1954, 1927 Cyclopedias!”; now on Internet Archive. 

Cy2: “Theological shifts“, 1954 to 1975

Cy3: Surburg: supplement to Rediscovering the Issues book

Cy4: Cyclopedia slashes Pieper entry: 1954 to 1975: restored

Cy5: 

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.

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.]