Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1935 · 36th Convention, Cleveland › Page 170

LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1935, Page 170

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 5 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Sheet 106 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 108 Sheet 111 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Sheet 125 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Sheet 137 Page 181 Page 132 Page 188 Page 134 Page 188 Page 136 Page 187 Sheet 145 Page 189 Page 140 Sheet 148 Sheet 149 Page 148 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 149 Page 148 Page 151 Page 150 Page 158 Page 152 Page 155 Page 164 Page 157 Page 156 Page 159 Page 158 Page 161 Page 160 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Sheet 172 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Sheet 180 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Sheet 184 Page 179 Page 178 Page 181 Page 180 Page 183 Sheet 190 Page 185 Sheet 192 Page 187 Sheet 194 Page 189 Page 188 Page 191 Page 190 Page 193 Page 192 Page 195 Page 194 Page 197 Page 196 Page 499 Sheet 206 Sheet 207 Page 200 Sheet 209 Page 202 Page 905 Sheet 212 Page 207 Page 206 Page 209 Sheet 216 Page 211 Page 210 Page 213 Page 212 Page 915 Page 214 Page 217 Page 216 Page 218 Page 919 Sheet 227 Page 991 Page 999 Sheet 230 Page 224 Page 995 Page 296 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 284 Page 935 Page 236 Sheet 244 Page 238 Sheet 246 Page 240 Sheet 248 Page 242 Page 248 Page 244 Page 945 Page 246 Sheet 254 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 264 Page 256 Sheet 263 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Sheet 272 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 969 Page 270 Sheet 278 Page 272 Sheet 280 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Sheet 284 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 981 Page 282 Page 288 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 989 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 800 Page 801 Page 802 Page 308 Page 804 Page 805 Page 306 Page 807 Page 308 Sheet 316 Page 310 Page 811 Sheet 319 Sheet 320 Page 314 Sheet 322

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

170 Proceedings of Thirty-Sixth Regular Convention,

of using the idol name Shangdi as a term for God were published
right along. Our own men were bound sooner or later to have their
attention called to the matter and forced to take sides.

This is exactly what happened in 1924. At a conference of our
missionaries a paper was read: in which the question was discussed
from a purely linguistic angle. It was pointed out that the Shangdi
Bible involves itself in an inconsistency in translating the word God
sometimes with Shangdi and sometimes with Shen, but that no such
difficulty would result if the term Shen were used exclusively. By
a vote of eleven to two the conference thereupon resolved to drop
Shangdi and to use only Shen in their preaching and in their printed
literature. But the minority refused to be bound by this resolution.
And the controversy was on.

During the next four years, as the debate continued with in-
creasing bitterness, the doctrinal question “Can the name of an idol
be used in the worship of the true God?” became the main issue.
Finally the Mission Board told the missionaries, as may be gathered
from a letter of July 26, 1928, that, while all of them had full permis-
sion to use Shen in their own teaching and preaching, no missionary
could be allowed to refuse to use and explain mission literature that
used the term Shangdi and that those who for conscience’ sake could
not work according to these regulations were permitted to resign and
to return to this country.

Thereupon two of the missionaries resigned. Several others
failed to return to China when their furlough had expired. Your
Committee would not be understood as saying that these men did not
return because of the ruling of the Board, although the prospect of
returning to a mission-field rent with strife may not have appealed
to them. Be that as it may, our mission lost the services of eight
men who would now. be at the very peak of usefulness if they had
returned. ;

Needless to say, our present missionaries preach and teach ac-
cording to the rules laid down by the Mission Board. As far as we
know, they use Shangdi and Shen in conformity “with prevailing
Protestant usage.” .

But the controversy has now invaded our own home circles. That
many of our people are disturbed by the thought that the name of an
idol is used for God in our mission-work is shown by the fact that
overtures requesting the Synod to reverse the action of the Mission
Board were presented at River Forest in 1929 and at Milwaukee
in 1982. In.1929 the position and action of the Mission Board were
endorsed.

At the Milwaukee convention the committee to which this matter
was assigned reported that-the questions underlying the controversy
were too intricate-to admit of adequate study and solution in the time