Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1935 · 36th Convention, Cleveland › Sheet 180
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1935, Sheet 180

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

|

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1935. 1738

“3 We agree that this use of Shangdi must be properly safe-
guarded, since Scripture demands that the glory of God and the wel-
fare of our neighbor must be guarded.

“4. For the same reason we agree that, if this use of Shangdi
cannot be properly safeguarded, Shangdi must not be used of the
true God.”

At a subsequent meeting of Synod’s committee with representa-
tives of the Shen party these brethren also adopted these theses with
the following explanatory note to Thesis 2: —

“When Shangdi is divested of its heathen or idol connotation,
jt ceases to be an idol name and becomes a common term, and as such,
when filled with the Biblical content, it may be used of the true
God and become a new name of God, like Lord, Savior, Com-
forter, ete.”

These theses being accepted by both parties, we believe that there
is an agreement in the doctrinal principles involved. In the opinion

of the synodical committee the codicil appended by the Shen brethren

is, as far as Christian doctrine is concerned, covered by Thesis 1.
Whether Shangdi, when used to designate the true God, is a common
term or a new name or a specific use of an old name is a matter of
grammatical terminology, not a matter of Christian doctrine.

IL.

The second objection is of a linguistic nature. It holds that
Shangdi is not the right word for God.

There is a difference between using Shangdi of God and using it
for God. In the first case we are using it as a descriptive term, title,
or name for God; in the second case we are using it as a translation
for the word god. The first cannot under all circumstances be re-
garded as wrong (see Thesis 2); the second is wrong from the view-
point of language, since Shangdi does not mean god and can there-
fore not be used as a translation for God. Yet this is done at present.
In many instances where the Bible speaks of the true God, Shangdi
is substituted. Thus: —

“In the beginning Shangdi created heaven and earth.” —
“Shangdi so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.”

In the Catechism we have: “We should fear, love, and trust
in Shangdi above all things.” — “Shangdi’s name is indeed holy in
itself.”

In these and many other instances the term Shangdi is not prop-
erly safeguarded, and such use is likely to result in confusion and
idol-identification on the part of heathen readers. Nor is Shangdt
here used as a descriptive term, title, or name of God, but as a trans-
lation for God. And this is wrong because Shangdi does not mean god.