# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_September 1858_S260
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

260 The Church of Norway.

of the church, and besides this through a clarity that shows itself in a transparent style, both spoken and written. His activity is not confined to the lecturer's desk alone; he also takes hold, in word and deed, of important questions of life facing the church. He is therefore also a persona publica; his name is widely spoken of among the people, and great weight is placed on his word. It is not saying too much, but was borne out in the most recent movements, what a Grundtvigian-minded clergyman in Copenhagen said, that "the awakened" look to J. Mild as he is where persons are concerned, he is nevertheless not inclined, out of an indifferentist softheartedness, to open the doors and gates of the Lutheran church — which to him is the church with pure Word and Sacrament — to foreign teachings hostile and destructive to it. The two other teachers, Diedrichson and Tønder-Nissen, stand by those named, so far as my knowledge reaches, unanimous in spirit in their office.

At the practical theological seminary, which is separate from the faculty, the present Pastor Grimelund stood at its head until 1856, a scientifically clear and able man, and at the same time a spiritually lively one, whose Outline of Practical Theology is a prudent and useful work, serving as teacher of homiletics, liturgics, and pastoral theology. The young theologians were not only directed to what belongs in general to a flourishing conduct of office, but were also prompted to keep the burning questions in the church of Norway in view. This is shown best by some of the tasks that have in recent years been set at the practical-theological examination. "What is to be understood by the subjective call to the preaching office, and what are its essential criteria?"

"The significance and effect of priestly ordination from an evangelical-Lutheran standpoint."

"With what chief tendencies of false spirituality (spiritualism) will the preacher, especially in our days, have to deal in his churchly conduct of office, and what general rules can be established for his relationship to them?"

"Can the objective call to the churchly office — considered especially from the Lutheran standpoint — be dispensed with, or be rendered superfluous by the subjective call?"

"Can it be enough, for the purpose of churchly official activity, that the priest regards and treats his parishioners as an unconnected crowd of individuals in need of redemption?"

These are questions that stir minds in many ways, and do not always find a considered answer. How destructively to the church wrong opinions on these matters can work, and how important it is that the servants of the church gain here a clear and sharp eye, is plain enough for anyone to see.

From the university a not inconsiderable number of worthy clergymen have gone forth, and meeting with a good many of them has