OLC vs. LCMS

This document contains sworn courtroom testimony from a 1954 case in which a Lutheran congregation broke with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to join the Orthodox Lutheran Conference. Because the statements were given under oath, they offer unusually direct and unguarded insight into the doctrinal controversy.

At issue was the charge that the LCMS had departed from its historic confession, especially on Scripture, conversion, and church fellowship. The testimony, including that of Paul E. Kretzmann, forcefully defends the classical Lutheran position of verbal inspiration, monergism, and full doctrinal agreement as necessary for fellowship, while exposing the theological drift that led to separation.

A sharp and revealing primary source, this document lays bare the battle for confessional integrity in American Lutheranism and the cost of refusing compromise.

Background note: Back to Luther, “Orthodox Lutheran Conference vs LC-MS: in court under oath”.

PROFESSOR PAUL E. KRETZMANN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

A I am vice-president of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and president of the Orthodox Lutheran Seminary.

Q Are there differences on doctrinal questions between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and the Missouri Synod?

A There are differences.

MR. DUGGAN: So far as I understand the position of my clients — let us say so far as this Court is concerned their paramount issue is Roman 16—17, engagements and the Common Confession. So far as other differences of doctrine are concerned, they are not raising it. Those are the principal, paramount, primary differences.

Q Now, will you define for me the position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on Common Confession?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference has objected to the Common Confession from the beginning on doctrinal grounds. It has stated that the majority of the points represented there are inadequate, out of harmony with the Lutheran confessions and that certain parts of that confession are contrary to Scripture and we have so stated publicly. I will not name the doctrines unless I am asked to. I have all the material in my pocket and can give you a detailed discussion of the doctrines, but I understand all you want to know is that there is a difference.

Q What is the belief of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on engagements?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference believes with Holy Scripture that when a young man and woman agree with the consent of their parents, according to Scriptural doctrine, when they consent together with the knowledge and consent of their parents, to become man and wife according to the laws of the country, they are, before God, under the full responsibility. They are before God under the full responsibility of the married estate. In other words, a Scriptural engagement puts the two young folks under definite obligation before God that they cannot break that engagement or betrothal.

Q Now, then, what is the position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on Romans 16—17?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference takes the words of that wonderful passage just exactly as they read. Mark them which cause divisions and offenses among you contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

A The position of the Missouri Synod, even in its official organs, is that this does not refer to Lutherans — people having the Lutheran confession, but only to outsiders. And we have taken a very determined position against that.

Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly

VOLUME XXVII NUMBER 1

APRIL 1954 (p. 20-33)

The Doctrinal Position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference — A Court Statement

Editor’s Note: The following is the exact transcript of a portion of the record in the case which involves two differing factions of Trinity Lutheran Church, Chesterfield, Missouri. The question at issue was whether there were doctrinal differences between The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod and the Orthodox Lutheran Conference. Since the statements were made in court under oath, we believe them to be of historical significance for any future study of the controversy.

IN THE

ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS

FRED MERTZ, et al, Plaintiffs (Respondents) vs. ELMER SCHAEFFER, et al, Defendants (Appellants) ON APPEAL TO THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY DIVISION NO. ONE HON. RAYMOND E. LaDRIERE, JUDGE

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD VOLUME II —pages 395—775 DUBINSKY & DUGGAN E. C. KOENEMAN, 705 Chestnut, St. Louis 1, Missouri, Attorneys for Defendants (Appellants) GEORGE EIGEL, JOHN A. EIGEL, L. A. ROBERTSON, 722 Chestnut, St. Louis 1, Missouri, Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Respondents)

PROFESSOR PAUL E. KRETZMANN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DUGGAN:

Q If it is at all possible, Professor, I wish you would confine your answers to yes or no for the time being, if you will try to do that.

A I will try.

Q Will you state your name?

A Professor Paul E. Kretzmann.

Q Where do you live?

A Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q Are you an ordained minister?

A I am.

Q Of what faith?

A The Lutheran Church.

Q What is your present affiliation or connection?

A I am vice-president of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and president of the Orthodox Lutheran Seminary.

Q Are there differences on doctrinal questions between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and the Missouri Synod?

MR. ROBERTSON: Wait a minute, please. I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled. He may answer yes or no.

MR. DUGGAN: You may answer.

A There are differences.

Q Now, Doctor, how long would it take you to prepare what you deem to be the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and the Missouri Synod?

A I am prepared right now.

Q How long would it take you to testify as to those doctrinal differences?

A If I could speak without interruption I think I could present the main points in about 15 to 20 minutes.

Q If you were to reduce that to writing for the benefit of Court and counsel approximately how many words would be involved or how lengthy would the dissertation be?

A We can get it down to one 8-½ x 11 sheet.

Q Would the Court prefer to have it in writing from the witness for future reference?

THE COURT: Yes, I think I would. Or —

MR. DUGGAN: Of course, if that is done, I would like to reach this agreement with counsel for plaintiff, that they will submit theirs in writing and I will acknowledge the qualification or the background of whomever they have prepare theirs.

THE COURT: Is that the way you gentlemen planned to do?

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: That is what we planned to do last evening, and I think that would submit both questions to the Court.

THE COURT: Of course, there is one thing more now. If this controversy is over doctrinal questions is it necessarily over all the differences between the Missouri Synod and the O. L. C. In other words, do we have to have all these differences?

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: The doctor says he can prepare it on one legal size sheet.

THE COURT: I don’t know whether I make myself clear. There are differences between the members of the congregation — do those differences involve all of the differences in doctrine between the Missouri Synod and the O. L. C. or only a part of them?

MR. ROBERTSON: I understand there were two or three. The Common Confession, engagement and —

MR. DUGGAN: Roman 16—17.

THE COURT: As to any other matters these people are not in controversy?

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: So far as I know, not.

THE COURT: Even though there is some dispute between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and Missouri Synod.

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: I wouldn’t know of anything else.

MR. DUGGAN: So far as I understand the position of my clients — let us say so far as this Court is concerned their paramount issue is Roman 16—17, engagements and the Common Confession. So far as other differences of doctrine are concerned, they are not raising it. Those are the principal, paramount, primary differences.

Q Will you confine your dissertation or paper, then, to those three questions?

A Gladly.

THE COURT: If you will state those as briefly as you can, Professor, then I can have the reporter write up that and have it for consideration, and you can do the same with your people, if you want. Do you have your person here?

MR. ROBERTSON: No, sir. We are going to write it up. That is what we agreed on.

THE COURT: You want both written up instead of having the Professor state them?

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: That is what we agreed on.

THE COURT: Let’s agree he will write it up and give it to us some time during the day.

MR. ROBERTSON: I doubt if we can get it today but will get it just as soon as I can get over there.

MR. DUGGAN: In other words, they will be filed simultaneously. Neither will have the opportunity of seeing the others.

MR. ROBERTSON: No.

THE COURT: I don’t know what is the secret about this thing. If there is a difference they might as well bring it in the open and see what it is.

MR. DUGGAN: I don’t want one to be an answer to the other. If there is going to be an answer we would want the right of rebuttal. If they exercise the right of rebuttal to the one the professor prepares.

THE COURT: It is not a question of who wins the debate. I don’t care what those differences are, but I think the record should show them for any action by an appellate court on the question of whether it is a doctrinal difference or not. Not what the difference is, but whether it is a doctrinal difference. That is the way to show it as I see it.

MR. DUGGAN: All right.

MR. ROBERTSON: This witness testified there is a difference.

THE COURT: Yes, but, of course, in a sense that is a conclusion and we should put in the record what that difference is.

MR. ROBERTSON: That’s right. If he puts that difference in the record in writing and it is put in the record and that difference is not — we are not permitted to see that before, we don’t know whether there is or is not. Whether our theologians will testify that is a difference or whether they are in accord — what might be one individual’s interpretation might not be another’s. If, in the event —

MR. DUGGAN: It seems to me they are in a position to file their written suggestions, but they should be able to file their position on the three — on the matters we set forth, namely, the Common Confession, engagement and Romans 16—17, they know their position, and unquestionably know what our position is.

MR. ROBERTSON: No, we don’t. That is what we are trying to find out. We are contending that insofar as this case is concerned that the dispute is not over a doctrinal question, and it has been our contention throughout the case. That is the reason for our numerous objections on any doctrinal question. They, by their answer, have injected a doctrinal question, and on rebuttal we have to have our theologians testify as to whether there is or is not a difference in these doctrinal questions. We have no objection to it being written and filed with the Court today, but in the event one of our theologians takes that paper, we will certainly want the opportunity of having him come in and set his qualifications forth and set forth the principles of the — or his interpretation by the Missouri Synod as to whether or not, in his opinion, there is a difference just the same as this witness testified to his conclusion that there is a difference, and the matter then is for the Court to determine. It resolves itself into a question of fact, as I see it.

MR. DUGGAN: If that is the situation, in view of the fact that the witness says he will not take more than twenty minutes to expound on these matters, I would just as soon have him testify orally and let them bring their man in.

THE COURT: Will you bring in your party to testify orally then?

MR. GEORGE EIGEL: We will bring him in, yes.

THE COURT: I want to put you on the same plane. If I take the oral testimony from one side I should take it orally from the other; if one writes it, both should write it.

MR. ROBERTSON: Go ahead, let him testify.

MR. DUGGAN: Q Professor, where did you teach before your present teaching assignment at the Orthodox Lutheran Conference Seminary?

A Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

Q For how long?

A From January, 1924, although I had the call in October, 1923, until the end of July, 1945.

Q From July, 1945 to approximately January of 1951 where were you teaching?

A For a while I was in retirement, then I was pastor of a congregation in Forest Park, Illinois, then received a call to the position which I now hold.

Q Now, will you define for me the position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on Common Confession?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference —

MR. ROBERTSON: Wait a minute. Let it be understood our objections go to all this testimony.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. ROBERTSON: For the reason that we do not believe or feel that this — there is any doctrinal question involved in here.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: What was your question?

MR. DUGGAN: Q My question is, Professor, for you to define the doctrinal position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on the Common Confession.

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference has objected to the Common Confession from the beginning on doctrinal grounds. It has stated that the majority of the points represented there are inadequate, out of harmony with the Lutheran confessions and that certain parts of that confession are contrary to Scripture and we have so stated publicly. I will not name the doctrines unless I am asked to. I have all the material in my pocket and can give you a detailed discussion of the doctrines, but I understand all you want to know is that there is a difference.

THE COURT: All you have said is that there is a difference. Don’t we want to know the difference?

MR. ROBERTSON: I want the doctrine itself. He testified what somebody else at the conference indicated is a difference and the conclusions, I ask it all be stricken out.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. ROBERTSON: It is not responsive to the questions.

THE COURT: I will let it stand.

MR. DUGGAN: Q Give us the doctrines themselves.

A The chief doctrines to which we object —

Q I want the doctrines you believe in.

A That we believe in our own confession of faith.

Q Yes, the Orthodox Lutheran Conference beliefs?

THE COURT: You are limiting him to those three?

MR. DUGGAN: I am limiting him to those three.

A We believe, in opposition to the Common Confession, that the entire Bible, word for word, is inspired by the Holy Ghost. That is on inspiration. We believe with respect to the salvation of mankind that that salvation was complete on Calvary and that all mankind is included in that plan of redemption by our blessed Savior. We believe with regard to the conversion of man that it is solely and entirely the work of the Holy Ghost without any effort whatsoever on the part of man. We believe with respect to the — to the questions concerned here — if you will pardon me I will have to look at this so that I have a sequence. (Refers to paper) With regard to the election unto eternal life that God from eternity in his own gracious will selected certain men out of the total of redeemed humanity for eternal life. We believe with respect to the church that in its essence the church is invisible. The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, and that there is no visibility to the church whatsoever although there are certain attributes of the church which are visible and those are the Word and the Sacraments. We believe with respect to church fellowship that there can be no church fellowship in the Biblical sense unless there is full agreement in all the doctrines of the Bible, both fundamental and non-fundamental. Those are the chief points we object to in the Common Confession over against which we have our confession of faith, set up and stating in each case why we object. On the basis of these differences that exist since 1950 when the Missouri Synod accepted the Common Confession at Milwaukee. So much for the Common Confession. I will take up next —

Q I would like now— the matters you have testified to are the beliefs of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q What are the opposite or difference of beliefs, if you know, of the Missouri Synod?

A In the Common Confession the inspiration of Scripture has been watered down to the statement that inspiration was supplied to the holy writers in content and fitting word, a phrase which has been used by our opponents in other Lutheran bodies to indicate not an acceptance of every word of Scripture but just the general content of Scripture. So that verbal inspiration is ruled out. On the question of objective justification the Common Confession merely states that forgiveness of sins has been secured and provided for whereas in Lutheran Confessions and also the so-called brief statement of the Missouri Synod has a very fine statement, namely, that the whole world has been declared to be righteous, to be righteous in Jesus Christ our Savior. With regard to the election of grace, which I set forth, the Common Confession has just a weak statement, namely, that God elected as his own all those whom he makes and keeps members. That phrase covers the entire wrong attitude which makes man responsible for his election. The doctrine of the eternal election according to the Common Confession therefore puts the burden upon man, upon man’s faith. Whereas, we, in our confession of faith, openly declare that faith is a result of God’s eternal election and there we have a fundamental difference. In the case of conversion we definitely state that God by grace, through the work of the Holy Ghost, brings men to faith without any merit or worthiness in themselves. The Common Confession says that the sinners’ conversion takes place when God brings the contrite sinner to faith in Christ, and we say that the sinner is already contrite before conversion is false doctrine.

Q What is the belief of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on engagements?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference believes with Holy Scripture that when a young man and woman agree with the consent of their parents, according to Scriptural doctrine, when they consent together with the knowledge and consent of their parents, to become man and wife according to the laws of the country, they are, before God, under the full responsibility. They are before God under the full responsibility of the married estate. In other words, a Scriptural engagement puts the two young folks under definite obligation before God that they cannot break that engagement or betrothal.

Q Do you know the position of the Missouri Synod on engagements?

A The Missouri Synod in its official publications years ago, and I wrote a number of those articles myself —

MR. ROBERTSON: Wait a minute. I object unless the witness knows whether or not that has or has not been changed down to the time of this alleged or purported controversy in 1951.

THE COURT: I will sustain that.

A I will come to that. The matter was so serious that it was brought —

MR. ROBERTSON: I object to that.

THE COURT: Sustained. What we want is a statement of the doctrine of the Missouri Synod on that point.

MR. ROBERTSON: As it now exists.

THE COURT: As it existed in 1950 and 1951.

MR. DUGGAN: Q Yes, between August of ’51 and January of ’52.

A The Missouri Synod passed the resolution that the two faculties, the one at Springfield, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, were to get together to draw up a final statement of doctrine of teaching on that question. They have never agreed —

Q I don’t care what they did. I want the position of the Missouri Synod on engagements, if you know?

MR. ROBERTSON: I believe he is now trying to say that they have not agreed and there is not any agreement with reference to what the present status of that question of — is concerned.

THE COURT: Ask that question, will you, Mr. Duggan, if they have agreed — if there is a position of the Missouri Synod on the point?

MR. DUGGAN: Q Is there a definite position today of the Missouri Synod on engagement?

A The resolution of the 1950 convention stated —

Q You can answer that yes or no first. Is there, to your knowledge, a definite position of the Missouri Synod on engagements?

A A resolution is on the books — that is what you want to know?

Q No. I want to know if you know, of your own knowledge, whether or not the Missouri Synod has a definite stand or doctrine on engagements?

A The Missouri Synod duly, officially, accepts what is included in their catechism which states that the obligation of a rightful betrothal is equivalent to holy marriage in the eyes of God.

Q That is their position?

A That is their catechism.

Q What is the difference in the position of the Missouri Synod and the Orthodox Lutheran Conference?

A On that particular point, if that catechism is still acceptable, there is no difference between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and the Missouri Synod.

Q You say if it is acceptable. Do you know whether or not it is acceptable?

MR. ROBERTSON: I object to that as calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness. He stated the doctrine and stated if, in the catechism, that is the doctrine, which he understands it is, there is no difference between —

MR. DUGGAN: He did not say that. He qualified it.

THE COURT: He may answer the question.

MR. DUGGAN: Read it, please.

(Reporter reads: You say if it is acceptable. Do you know whether or not it is acceptable?)

A According to the catechism it stands just that way.

Q Now, then, what is the position of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference on Romans 16—17?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference takes the words of that wonderful passage just exactly as they read. Mark them which cause divisions and offenses among you contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Q What is the position of the Missouri Synod —

A The position of the Missouri Synod, even in its official organs, is that this does not refer to Lutherans — people having the Lutheran confession, but only to outsiders. And we have taken a very determined position against that.

MR. DUGGAN: As a theologian — I will withdraw that question. You may take the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERTSON:

Q In your statement on the Common Confession, have you stated the Common Confession doctrine in its entirety or just excerpts therefrom?

A Those particular points about which I was asked.

Q Those are excerpts, are they not?

A Quotations.

Q Let me look at those memos you were referring to?

(Witness hands paper to Mr. Robertson).

Q This only has to do with the Common Confession, the excerpts?

A Yes. Old Missouri means the official confession of the old Missouri — former Missouri Synod.

Q Those other memos have nothing to do with engagements or Romans 16 or 17, is that correct?

A That is not included in this particular distinction.

Q Now, I believe you say you were in retirement. When did you come out of retirement — what year?

A '46 I accepted a call to Forest Park, Illinois and was there from ’46 to '48.

Q Then where did you go?

A From ’48 to ’51 I again was in retirement. I had a home in the Ozarks.

Q Then in ’51 you took the call to the O. L. C., is that right?

A That’s right.

Q What month in ’51?

A I received the call in spring of ’51. I won’t be able to give you the month. And was in office by the middle of September, ’52. In the spring of ’51 and was in office in September of that year.

Q The Orthodox Lutheran Conference came into existence sometime in 1951, then?

A That’s right.

Q Is that correct?

A And the following spring—let’s get that altogether straight— the following spring I received that call,

Q What spring was that?

A In 1952.

Q That would be in what month — March or April?

A It was March or April.

Q Of 1952?

A Yes. I went into office in September.

Q You now hold the office of what?

A President of the seminary.

Q President of the seminary?

A That’s right.

Q Where is the seminary located?

A Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q What year was it that you resigned from the Concordia, or from the Missouri Synod or the Concordia Seminary?

A It went into effect on the last of July, 1945.

Q That was before there was any controversy, if there was a controversy, on the Common Confession, isn’t that right?

A The Common Confession did not get into existence until 1950.

Q So it came into existence after you left the Missouri Synod?

A Right.

Q Was that also true of engagements?

A The engagement question was before us in the faculty for at least ten years.

Q Was that also true of Romans 16 and 17, the difference you now talk about?

A That became a burning question in ’45.

MR. ROBERTSON: That is all.

MR. DUGGAN: That is all.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

PROF. W. H. McLAUGHLIN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DUGGAN:

Q Will you state your name?

A Professor W. H. McLaughlin.

Q You reside where, please?

A Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q Are you an ordained minister of the Gospel?

A I am.

Q How long have you been such?

A Since 1924.

Q Of what faith?

A Evangelical Lutheran.

Q Where did you receive your education for the ministry?

A I received my education for the ministry in the seminary of the United Lutheran Church in Philadelphia and then in the postgraduate department of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Q Are you acting as a pastor at the present time?

A No, I am acting as professor of theology.

Q At what university or college?

A At the Orthodox Lutheran Theological Seminary.

Q Where is that located?

A In Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q Do you hold any office in a Lutheran body other than your professorship in this seminary?

A Yes, I am president of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference.

Q Can you briefly describe for us what the Orthodox Lutheran Conference is?

A The Orthodox Lutheran Conference is a church body comparable to a synod. It accepts all the Lutheran confessions and it rejects the recent departures from those confessions and other Scriptural doctrines in the Missouri Synod.

Q If I deduct from your testimony, you have used the word "conference” instead of the word "synod,” is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Are there cardinal differences of opinion on doctrine between the Orthodox Lutheran Conference and the Missouri Synod?

A Yes, sir.

MR. ROBERTSON: Let me make my objection at this time.

THE COURT: Same ruling.

MR. ROBERTSON: It will go all the way through then?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DUGGAN: Q Could you, in about the same length of time, sketch those differences?

A Yes, I could.

Q You don’t think you would run overtime?

A I don’t believe so.

THE COURT: Well —

A I could —

THE COURT: Ask him —

MR. DUGGAN: I will ask it this way. Q Professor McLaughlin, could you add any additional facts or factors to the differences that have been enunciated by Professor Kretzmann?

A Not on the three points to which his testimony was confined.

Q You mean there are other points of differences?

A Yes, there are.

Q The points of differences he elaborated on or discussed, would you say they are paramount or principal points of difference?

A Yes, I would.

MR. ROBERTSON: If the Court please, I object to that.

THE COURT: We don’t care, do we, as long as they are the only three involved in this dispute?

MR. ROBERTSON: He is asking whether, in his opinion, they are the principal points — those three.

THE COURT: I will let the answer stand in the record.

MR. DUGGAN: That is all.

MR. ROBERTSON: No questions.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Professor. Mr. Duggan asked if you could add anything or wished to add anything. You said "no.” Do you approve everything, then, that has been said?

A I do, your Honor.

THE COURT: You would make the same statement, or approximately the same statement, on the differences of those several doctrines?

A Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

WITNESS EXCUSED.