# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1935_S183
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synod of. Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1935. 171

available, and it recommended “that Synod elect at this convention
a committee of five impartial men who have not as yet dealt with
the question and that this committee work toward an ultimate blessed
settlement of all points at issue.” This recommendation was adopted.
Another recommendation, that, until Synod’s committee should report,
Shen be used, was rejected.

Accordingly Synod elected the following five men to serve on this
committee: Prof. W. Kruse, Prof. E. Koehler, Rev. Wm. Moll, Prof.
W. Moenkemoeller, Rev. L. Schmidtke. The members of the committee
first individually studied, and then jointly discussed in a series of
meetings, numerous documents. They have written and received
many letters and have had personal conferences with the parties to
the controversy.

They have not confined themselves to the abstract question
whether or not it is ever permissible to apply the name of a heathen
idol to the true God, but they have also endeavored to keep in mind
the practical conditions and the consequences which might be encoun-
tered in China. They have considered the theological aspect of the
question, the exegesis of the Bible verses cited in the controversy,
the linguistic considerations, and the reasons why Shangdi was pro-
posed and advocated.

Your Committee regrets to report that two of its fellow-members,
Prof. W. Moenkemoeller and Rev. Leo Schmidtke, have died during
the triennium and that Rev. Wm. Moll was prevented by failing
health from taking a very active part in the work. Your Committee
might of course have filled the vacancies by calling in men from the
list of candidates for this committee; but that would have meant
a serious loss of time. The men so drafted would have been obliged
to start from the very beginning and work themselves through an
immense mass of literary material. For this reason we have not
availed ourselves of that right. If therein our judgment has been at
fault, we have no further defense to offer.

To all those who have supplied us with books, documents,
papers, etc., we would express our appreciation of their kindness
and help.

The original question, then, in the Chinese Term Controversy is:
“How shall the word god be translated into Chinese?”

The first Protestant Bible translations used Shen exclusively
and consistently. Later the term Shangdi was introduced. We find
that the reasons for the use of Shangdi vary with individuals and
groups. Some of the advocates of Shangdi have been crassly syn-
eretistic. Legge, for instance, believed, and was bold enough to say,
that “the Shangdi of the classics is God over all, blessed forever.”

Others, Faber, for instance, hold with the Jesuit Ricci that the