What's going on

There hasn't been an update here for a little while. The reason is that I am working on a translation of JAA Ottesen's report on a pastoral free conference on the topic of the 14th Article of the Augsburg Confession. I'm about 1/4 the way through the translation. I'd hoped it would be ready by Synod Convention (this coming week) but it won't. And several other pastoral duties have swamped me right now. For those interested you can find out more about those duties at my family blog.

The 1904 Synod Convention

The following table is a translation from Maanedstidende v. 31. No. 2. Edited by Prof. Dr. Laur. Larsen. This was the official synodical publication of the Old Norwegian Synod published by Norwegian Synod Publishing in 1904, p. 740-741

The issue concerns the divine institution of the local congregation as it differs from other organizations that the Church in her freedom may choose to establish.

Vore synodemøder. III Refereret af S. Lee.
Our Synod Meeting, part 3, presented by Sophus Lee.

Torsdag eftermiddag meldtes 8 prester ankomne. Formand Torgerson fra Iowa distrikt blev af formanden budt velkommen til mødet. Hjælpesekretærer blev udnævnte af sekretæren. En indstilling fra komiteen for indberetningerne blev oplæst og behandelt, og de forskjellige sager henviste til vedkommende komiteer. Derpaa begyndte man med læreforhandlinger. Temaet var: Den kristne lokal= eller stedsmenighed. Referent past. L. I. Ierdee. I indbledningen gav referenten skildring af Guds rige paa jorden. Følgende satser blev dikterte:	Thursday afternoon it was reported that eight pastors arrived. Chairman Torgerson from the Iowa District was bid welcome to the meeting from the chairman. An assistant secretary was appointed by the secretary. A recommendation from Committee for Reports was read out and discussed , and these various matters were referred to the appropriate committee. Then we started with the doctrinal discussion. The topic was : The local Christians—or the Local Congregation. Pastor L. I. Jerdee presenting. In outline form (I indbledningen) the presenter gave a description of God's kingdom on the earth. The following propositions were dictated :
Den kristne lokal= eller stedsmenighed.	The local Christians—or the Local Congregation
I. Dens oprindelse.	I. Its Origin.
a) Ikke af menneskelig, b) men af guddommelig oprindelse. Den er ifølge Guds vilje stiftet af ham, opholdes ved ham og skal ved hans kraft bevares.	a) It is not of human origin, b) but of divine origin. It is according to God's will instituted by Him, sustained by Him, and shall by His power be preserved.
II. Hvad den kristne stedsmenighed er.	II. What the Christian Local Congregation is.
a) Efter sit indre væsen er den samlingen paa et bestemt sted af dem, som tror paa Kristus og har fælles bekjendelse.	a ) According to its inner nature it is the assembling together at a certain location by those who believe in Christ and have a common confession.
b) Efter sin ydre skikkelse er den samlingen paa et bestemt sted af dem, som har en fælles bekjendelse og holder sig til Guds ord og sakramenterne.	b ) According to its external form it is the assembling together at a certain location by those who have a common confession and hold themselves to God's Word and Sacraments.
III.. Hvorledes man bliver et virkeligt medlem af den kristne stedsmenighed.	III. How can one be a true member of the Christian Local Congregation.
Et virkelight medlam bliver man	A true member will be one
a) ikke ved at bo indenfor dens parokialgrænser,	a) not by the fact that he resides inside its [the congregation's] parochial boundaries,
b) ikke ved at betale penge til dens kasser,	b) not by the fact that he pays into its treasury,
c) ikke blot derved, at man er en troende,	c) not by the mere fact that he is a believer,
d) men ved en ret benyttelse af naademidlerne:	d) but by a right use of the Means of Grace:
1 Guds ord,	1 God's Word,
2 daabens sakramente,	2 the Sacrament of Baptism,
3 alterens sakramente,	3 The Sacrament of the Altar
e) og derved, at man bejærer optagelse i menigheden og ved stemmegivning optages i samme.	e) and thereby, that one assents to becoming a member of the congregation and by vote is taken into the same.
IV. Dens goder og rettigheder.	IV. Its Property and Rights.
a) Naademidlerne: Guds ord, daabens og alterens sakramente,	a) The Means of Grace: God's Word, Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar,
b) Himmeriges riges nøgler og dermed retten:	b) The keys to the kingdom of Heaven and thereby the rights:
1 til at styre i sine egne anliggender,	1 to rule its own affairs,
2 til at have og opretholde ordets embede iblandt sig,	2 to have and maintain the Office of the Word in its midst,
3 til at forkynde Guds ord og forvalte sakramenterne,	3 to proclaim God's Word and administer the Sacraments,
4 til at ansætte og afsætte prester og lærere,	4 to appoint and depose pastors and teachers,
5 til at drive mission, baade den indre og ydre.	5 to establish a mission, whether domestic or foreign.
Referenten udtalte under første punkt, at der i verden var en hel del foreninger af den mest forskjellige karakter, men de var alle lige deri, at de var of menneskelig oprindelse. Menigheden er den eneste, som er af guddommelig oprindelse. I samtalen over dette punkt deltog formand Bjøro, dr. H. G. Stub, Pastorerne J. G. Monson, Olaf Hoel og T. O. Tolo.	The Presenter explained under the first point that there in the world was filled with unities of the most varied character, but yet they were all alike in that they were of human institution. The congregation alone is instituted by God. President Bjøro, Dr. H. G. Stub, Pastors J. G. Monson, Olaf Hoel and T. O. Tolo took part in the discussion concerning this point.
Formanden udnævnte derpaa følgende komiteer:	Then the President named the following committees:
Til medlemmer af læreanstalt=komiteen pastorerne J. W. Preus, J. D. Ylvisaker, J. R. Vaaler og S. M. Orwoll samt repræsenterne J. R. Større og Fred N. Field.	To the membership of the Seminary Committee: Pastors J. W. Preus, J. D. Ylvisaker, J. R. Vaaler and S. M. Orwoll with representatives J. R. Større og Fred N. Field.
...	... (other various committee appointments)
Fredag formiddag fortsattes med lærerforhandlinger over punkt 1 og 2. Som komite til at justere læreforhandlingerne udnævntes pastorerne Blilie, Erdahl og Bothne. Følgende menigheder optoges i synoden: Sions menighed, Hazel Run, Minn.; Lily menighed, Lily, S.D.; St. Pauli menighed, N.D. Treenigheds menighed, Esmond, N.D.; Froens menighed, Flaxton, N.D. Pastorerne N. Brandt og R. O. Brandt af østlige distrikt optoges som raadgivende medlemmer.	Friday forenoon continued with doctrinal discussion concerning point 1 and 2. Pastors Blilie, Erdahl and Bothne were named to a committee for the purpose of evaluatiing the doctrinal discussion . The following congregations were taken into synodical membership: Sion's congregation, Hazel Run, MN; Lily congregation, Lily. SD. ....
...	... (Various other convention business)
Fredag eftermiddag .... Resten af sessionen anvendtes til løreforhandlinger over punkt 3.	Friday afternoon ... The rest of the session was given over to the Seminary Committee concerning point 3.

No negative remarks were recorded here or in the following general pastoral conference, nor in the report to the Convention in 1905.

Consistent Doctrine in 1919

[ As shown in the Presidential Address by H. A. Preus, the Old Norwegian Synod Doctrine rejected the notion that a Synod or its offices (such as Synodical President) were Divinely Instituted. I put this next quotation here so those who claim to be the inheritors of the Old Norwegian Synod's Doctrine can see what was actually believed and taught by the Old Norwegian Synod and how that same teaching was held by the formers of the "New" Norwegian Synod--the "plucked chicken" of 13 pastors who did not join the general Merger. The address concerns the direction the small group should take and what doctrinal basis there should be for working together as a Synod. Just as in H.A. Preus' address, so Pres. Bjug Harstad carefully distinguishes between what is divinely instituted and commanded in contrast with what is done in human freedom and instituted by human freedom.

The quotations presented here are from Pres. Bjug Harstad's 1919 Address to the Synod. This is the foundational presidential address for those who claim to be the inheritors of the Old Norwegian Synod's Doctrine. The address can be found at the ELS website here.

Again, I ask, "Does a Synodical President have a divinely instituted and called office simply by virtue of being a Synodical President?" And, "Where, according to Bjug Harstad, does the notion of presidential authority come?" The controversially adopted ELS statement in Part II A says that the President of a Synod is one form of the Divinely Instituted Pastoral Office:

"Missionary, assistant pastor, professor of theology, synod president (who supervises doctrine in the church), and chaplain are some examples of this."

Bjug Harstad wrote (emphasis added):
----

Neither must we in the orthodox Lutheran Church allow ourselves to be deceived by modes of expression about prescriptive right. Serious and harmful departures from the Word of God and the Augsburg Confession have unfortunately had prescriptive right in most Lutheran countries for hundreds of years. Church and state were early tied together to the great harm of both kingdoms. This prescriptive right has produced many sad results. How has not the right and duty of congregations to call shepherds and teachers for themselves been deprived them? The Lord has nowhere indicated that the worldly authority has any right whatsoever to meddle in the work of the church.

The church has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the Word and the Sacraments, in order to save immortal souls through the power of the Spirit. The state has received the sword in order to protect life, property and worldly rights, nothing else. But the worldly authority took to itself even in Luther's lifetime a little, as it seemed, insignificant right over the church, when a consistorium was established to which politicians and jurists were elected and who had the right in individual instances to judge in church matters. Luther saw immediately in his time where it would lead; hardly anyone else did.

Dr. Rudelbach discusses this in this way in his book, The Origin of the Policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: 'When he (Luther) saw this before him, namely, the caesaropapism (the rule of princes in the church), which would come and already had then risen as a thunder cloud, he became indignant and could hardly control himself.

'Dear people,' he said, 'you will excuse me for becoming very vehement against the jurists; you are going to hear why. We have now often written in almost all our books and painted it so clearly that if a person might be able to grasp it, he should believe that this spiritual kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in Bethlehem is to be separated from the worldly kingdom and government. And notwithstanding the most learned, most understanding jurists want to know or understand nothing about it now; but they are mingling everything together, wrapping it all into one, leading consciences astray to uncertain things. That's why I'm angry and will be angry, because they are encroaching upon the government of God ... The largest swarm of jurists, with few exceptions, and they are held in contempt by the others, are basically the pope's servants; they do not want to be called that but they prove it in what they do, since they want to govern the church and tread its faithful servants underfoot; therefore they are doomed. ... The true right, that we praise as an ordinance of God; but we will not and we cannot tolerate the harsh, wicked practices and abuses of jurists who act as though they are plowing fields, but reject them entirely. If they want to keep on doing it, then we will chase them out of the church, and they ought to get to know that the consistorium is not going to buckle under their authority but it is going to be under the pastors. ... This is what we cannot endure or tolerate: that they want to be in the church and to govern consciences. We must tear such a consistorium apart, because, briefly and to the point, we do not want to have the jurists and the pope in it. The jurists do not belong in the church with their lawsuits; they govern the world with opinion and imagination, not with right.' So far Luther.

'That is Luther's position at the very time when he is leaving the church as an angry, threatening shadow, warding off the dread encroachment which is already at hand with his last gigantic strength; but in vain,' says Rudelbach. But this disturbance developed more and more also in the Scandinavian countries until kings and princes who do not have a call from the church, or training, or qualifications according to the Word of God to be so much as schoolmasters or bellringers in the smallest rural congregation, stand as the supreme bishops of the church.

Similar abuse and encroachment have evolved in more recent times even in our Lutheran free church here in this country. They have come from another direction, namely, from the Reformed church which has always wanted to have a finger in the governing of public affairs. When prosperity increased among us, it happened, unnoticed by many, that the presidents were not to have any pastoral call but were only to be presidents. In that way people got a kind of ecclesiastical prelates who were over pastors and congregations. What their right and authority are, really now consists most nearly in whatever is pleasing to that individual. In practice, some have espoused the belief that if a pastor does not want to belong to the large church body to which his congregation belongs, then the congregation is thereby either without a pastor and can only proceed to the election of another, or the pastor is to be dismissed even if there is no other complaint against him than that he cannot swear loyalty to their church body.
...
In the church, all Christians, lay as well as learned, are equal brothers. They can have different positions and callings in life, given them by God as their earthly vocation. But in heavenly and spiritual things they all have, and each for themselves, the same Lord and Spirit, the same faith and hope and also the same rod and staff, Law and Gospel, which they have the right and the duty to use on themselves and on others for the correction of faith and life. They are all equal members of one and the same body under Jesus Christ as Head and the only Lord over the whole body.

If one of the equal brethren is elected to be president, then everyone must know that he has only received a human appointment to the office of servant, which everyone also otherwise actually has according to the Master's example to wash the disciples' feet and to dry them with the insight, knowledge and experience with which he can be equipped. At all times, however, he is only an advisor, and as other Christians, is in duty bound to point to what is written.

He himself is to guard himself against the conceit that he is now a head higher than the others and also always remember that he has no other duty or authority than diligently to serve the others in the things with which they have charged him, either in the constitution or in other mutually agreed upon arrangements. Such an office, I believe, ought to be discharged by everyone in turns, if possible.

The Old Norwegian Synod's Doctrine on Synod Offices

[The following is from the 7th Regular Convention of the Norwegian Synod held at Highland Prairie Lutheran Church, Fillmore County, Minnesota; on June 14-22, 1865. The address is from President H.A. Preus. I put this quotation here so those who claim to be the inheritors of the Old Norwegian Synod's Doctrine can see what was actually believed and taught by the Old Norwegian Synod. The address concerns the adoption of the synod's constitution. For the sake of the congregations the President carefully distinguishes between what is divinely instituted and commanded in contrast with what is done in human freedom and instituted by human freedom.

Does a Synodical President have a divinely instituted and called office simply by virtue of being a Synodical President? The ELS adopted statement in Part II A says that the President of a Synod is one form of the Pastoral Office:

"Missionary, assistant pastor, professor of theology, synod president (who supervises doctrine in the church), and chaplain are some examples of this."

Compare what was believed and held by the Old Norwegian Synod concerning the nature of Synod and its authority in the quotations below. The full document can be found at the ELS website. --Joe]

---

[S]ince God is a God of order, so will his people also adopt their own ordinances or constitution carefully so that all things can be done in decency and order during their outward course here in the world. Now where the Word of God is proclaimed purely and where its proper authority is acknowledged both as a Means of Grace and as the highest rule and guide for faith and life, there, the above work will all have as its object that the order set down by God himself in his Word is not disturbed or interfered with and that the rules and regulations which are adopted do not conflict with the doctrines of faith revealed in the Word of God, and finally, that neither the use of the Lord’s Means of Grace is restrained and restricted , but is promoted, and neither that the rights which God has given the congregations as well as their pastors in the Word are denied them, because that would also make the carrying out of the duties assigned them difficult, yes, perhaps made impossible.

Naturally this applies where believers unite in a congregation and adopt a constitution for it, but to an even greater degree, where several congregations join together to form what we call a church body, and accept a constitution for it. I say that it applies “to an even greater degree” in this latter instance because the forming of congregations is ordered and commanded by God himself in his Word, and therefore in the proper understanding of the word are an institution of the Lord, a work of the Lord, while the coming together of individual congregations into a larger church body, be it a state church or synods, is not commanded by God. Therefore the necessity of such joining together taking place, as well as also the form, constitution and expansion of such a church body must be dependent upon many external and internal circumstances, and above all, on what may be considered useful and helpful for the individual congregations as well as for the church of God on the whole.

The communion of God, the Christian Church, is, of course, properly speaking, invisible, since it consists of believers in whom the Holy Spirit has worked faith, which is invisible, through the Word. But it is, however, recognizable by the Word of God and the Sacraments which he has commanded are to be proclaimed and administered publicly. And just as God creates believers through these Means of Grace, so he gathers these believers around the public preaching ministry in an external congregation for mutual strengthening in the one saving faith and in the mutual confession of that faith. And just as it would be sin on the part of believers if they would not seek to establish and support the public preaching ministry among themselves, so it would also be sin if someone would not stay with this preaching ministry and the orthodox congregation which gathered around it. Because the Lord says, “He that hears you hears me; and he that despises you despises me,” (Lk. 10:16) and again, “Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is,” (He. 10:25). I well dare suppose that most people among us agree on these things. But it is another matter with respect to the merging of several congregations into a larger church body, a synod, or the like. And it isn’t merely with respect to what can be the best form and constitution for such an organization that more or less different opinions show up. No, it is with respect to the nature and essence of the organization as well of the meaning of the ordinances and regulations adopted by such an organization that views go in opposite extremes.

...

Now where the rights and the power which God has given his church in his Word, for example, the power of the keys, and with it the right to install and remove pastors, practice church discipline, stipulate ceremonies and the like, have been transferred to the prince and exercised by him down through the centuries partly through worldly advisors, partly through pastors and bishops as royal functionaries, as has readily been the case in the state churches; furthermore, where the prince, so far from recognizing his right to exercise only such authority as has been turned over to him by the congregations, which therefore must always have the right to take it back and to exercise it themselves, much rather, claims it as something which is due him according to divine right (iure divino) whether as the supreme bishop (summus episcopus) or as ruler; where now to this a legislative assembly, parliament or the like, which does not once need to confess the faith or belong to the congregations, has the power to give all kinds of laws and edicts for the congregations which also should be obeyed by them for God’s sake pursuant to the Fourth Commandment, there it is very natural that the concepts of congregation, church and church government become confused, yes, entirely false.

Then when people break from the ties of the state church so that the life of the congregation can take shape and develop freely, the old notions will, however, assert themselves, and people will try as best they can to carry them over into the new, freer situation. Thus we find the error very widely spread that the church which is talked about in Scripture, the church which the Lord of the church calls his bride and to whom he gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power and the rights which are connected with them, is not and cannot be the individual congregation but only a group and combination of them, be it now as a state church, people’s church, or synod, which therefore alone is due the name “church.” These churches of “the church,” as they readily are called everywhere, are regarded then also as an institution and work of the Lord, commanded by the Lord as superior to the individual congregations, with a power and authority over them which is supposed to be given by the Lord himself. A congregation’s refusal to accommodate itself to “the church,” or its disobedience to the Word of God, is thought to be a breach of the Word commanded by God, yes, even as a defection from the orthodox church and the orthodox faith.

Over against this error it is of the highest importance to recognize that every congregation which has the Word of God and the Sacraments, even if it is ever so small, yes, even if there are only two or three believers, true children of God, to be found in it, that it is, however, for their sake who lie concealed in it as the true, invisible church, a church of God and the lawful holder of all the power and authority which Christ has earned for and has given to his church. This is altogether evident from Matthew 18:17-20.

Here the Lord says, “Tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen and a publican.” How significant he thinks that is is evident from verses 19 and 20 where the Lord says , “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But when he also says now in verse 18, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” then, with that, he is giving every visible congregation the power of the keys.

In the next place, while as I said before, we must acknowledge that the forming of congregations is God’s command and God’s work, and voluntary submission to and joining an orthodox congregation, everyone’s absolute duty, thus on the other hand the individual congregation’s joining a so-called church body is nowhere commanded or required in the Word of God. Not doing it would therefore not be a sin for the individual congregations which are involved, when circumstances and the needs of a congregation might persuade it not to join. Even less would it entail their exclusion from the Church of Christ. On the contrary, such congregations would each for themselves possess and properly be able to use the authority of the church which Christ has acquired for his entire church.

But at the same time as we assert the right and the authority of the individual congregation which is given it by Christ over against the false conception of the church,

...

However, even if we agree that a joining together of our individual congregations is useful, yes, necessary, and that failing to do it would expose the individual congregations to great danger and be a great hindrance and would harm the building up of God’s kingdom in and outside our circle, yet it is, however, not said that we agree about the form which such a joining together ought to take, nor about the provisions and the regulations, or the constitution, as it is generally called, which ought to be adopted as regulatory for the church body. Here the widest range is revealed for the most opposite opinions and views. Although now the greatest freedom must be preserved here for the congregations to give their joining together the form with which they might find themselves best served, yet it is, however, as I said before, their duty through the arrangements to follow such principles as agree thoroughly with the rule of the Word of God, and in their application see to it above all, first, that the pure faith and doctrine can find their expression and be preserved and furthered thereby, as well as in the next place that love can find its greatest possible exercise as a fruit of faith. History surely shows us the joining together of congregations in the most varying forms, all the way from the church-state, or papal church, and the various forms of state churches, to alliances and synods. These last also have the most diverse arrangements and constitutions.

We take it for granted that the joining together of congregations ought only take place by orthodox - we do not say those of identical belief - congregations. A merger like that American-Lutheran General Synod is a babel, just another organization of many disunited churches. But orthodox congregations also have to watch with the most extreme diligence that through their joining together and through their adopting a constitution for it, that while they do relinquish a portion of their freedom and independence voluntarily in love and with concern for their own as well as the common good, that they do not, however, transfer to the synod or to the joint-church such rights or such power which the Lord has not only entrusted to the congregations themselves, but whose exercise by themselves is the best guarantee for the preservation of the pure faith, for example, installing and removing pastors, practicing church discipline, and adopting hymnbooks and school books. But even less must congregations give to the joint-church or its officers such a power and authority that their decisions should be binding law for the congregations by virtue of a divine authority which should be due them as those who are over them according to the Fourth Commandment - even if their decisions do not conflict with the Word of God. Such a concession on the part of the congregations would make the synod a papacy which would be just as unchristian as the one which reigns in Rome. It would make the congregations slaves of men and would place a yoke upon them which would be heavier to bear and more difficult to remove than that which imprisons and oppresses them in the state churches.

The history of the church past and present shouts its warning! There is the papacy where the congregations, as is well known, are as good as deprived of all their rights. The church, as it is called, that is, the clergy, with the pope at the head, possesses them. As a worldly authority it demands unconditional obedience according to the Fourth Commandment.

The yoke of bondage which laid upon the congregations under the papacy, the Lord lifted through Luther, when as an angel of God this man brought the pure Gospel to light and taught believers to know the Christian liberty which Christ earned for them with his death, and the church learned to know the rights which the Lord of the church had given it in the power of the keys. And even where he agreed that certain of these rights were exercised by the worldly princes because of the congregations’ plight, there, with all the rest of the reformers, Luther is untiring in reminding both them and the congregations of the fact that they did not exercise this power as rulers but only because it was transferred to them by the congregations who possessed it as they who were looked upon as the congregations’ first and leading members because of their power and position. The power which they possessed as rulers only gave them occasion and right to serve the congregations so much more as members of the congregation.

...

Insofar as the congregations transfer to the synod and through it to its officers some right and authority to direct, then they do not have this office by divine right (iure divino) but by human right (iure humano); nor does their power reach further than the Word reaches, as it must always be exercised without outward force. In everything else its activity is essentially only advisory.

Christian Anderson's 3rd and 4th Points

[The following is from a paper by Pr. Christian Anderson found in The Clergy Bulletin
September 1953, Vol. 13 entitled "Underlying Causes of the Deterioration and Breakdown of the Old Norwegian Synod" which he Delivered at the General Pastoral Conference of the Norwegian Synod held July 27th to July 31st, 1953 at Bethany College, Mankato, Minnesota.

His paper closes with these words:

"Our purpose in considering these things is not chiefly to satisfy our curiosity and to evaluate the weaknesses of our fathers and former brethren. But it should serve as a lesson for us, who are still exposed to the same dangers as they were. And it will help us also to understand the problems of other synods; for, as The Preacher says "There is nothing new under the sun." History is sure to repeat itself in so many ways. The arch-enemy of the saving truth will use pretty much the same tactics at all times, to rob us of this truth, though they may appear in somewhat different form as the occasion demands. The Lord protect us against his machinations."

Presented here are his third and fourth pints on the reasons for the deterioration and breakdown of the old synod. They are relevant today, just as he said they would be. -Joe]
---

"3) In the period following the withdrawal of the Anti-Missourians there arose a number of very able leaders within our Synod. For a long time they were thoroughly sound doctrinally, and they worked diligently for the true welfare of the church. While this no doubt was a blessing, it however tended to encourage a greater part, at least of the clergy, to be satisfied to follow the leaders without seeking diligently to inform themselves on the issues, so that they would be prepared to hold back in case those leaders should go wrong. A spirit of indifference developed both among the clergy and the laity. New elements gradually entered the ranks of ministers, which did not fully appreciate the historical position of the Synod. Those needed only the right kind of opportunity to cause mischief. And as a large part of the laity had been seriously affected by the constant cry for a union of all Norwegian Lutherans, it is no wonder that any demagogue who might arise would find a fertile field of operation. And when some of the leaders who long had been looked up to were ready to make compromises, it is not strange that they would gain a following. We need only remember how the multitudes were ready to follow Dr. F. A. Schmidt for the same reason. I remember from the time of my youth and on, that I repeatedly heard such expressions as this: "When the old war horses are gone, we shall have no difficulty to effect a union." And this was heard even from some of whom you would not have expected it. When the last of the leaders of the old staunch defenders of the truth lay down to rest, it was not long before a new spirit gained the ascendancy. We see before our eyes this very day how quickly such a sweeping change can take place.

"4) The custom of continuing the same men in office for a long time helped to centralize power and influence in a few. It is no doubt an advantage to let those who have proven their ability continue at the head of the organization, rather than have frequent changes. Experience surely counts for much in carrying out the duties of the office. But on the other hand there is the grave danger that the prestige connected with holding office a long time may be abused when a crisis arises. After all, even the best among us are only human. Because of the experience we had in the formation of the late merger, there was a gentlemen's agreement among us, when we re-organized the Synod, that the term of office of the President was to be only two years, and that no one was to be re-elected more than once. We have hereby no doubt lost some of the valuable service of experienced men, but this loss has been offset by the safeguard against anyone wrongfully usurping power which this arrangement has given us.

"An institution in the Old Synod often mentioned was the so-called Church Council (Kirkeraad). It is sometimes spoken of as the root of all evil in the Synod. We have virtually the same thing in many of our congregations today. At first the members of this Council were elected directly to this office by the convention. It was composed of three pastors and three laymen; but after the Synod was divided into districts it was composed of the general and district presidents, a layman elected from each district and one lay member at large. The duty of this council was chiefly to look after the interests of the Synod between the conventions. Many matters which required investigation and special study were usually referred to it. This Council no doubt became an important factor in promoting the best interests of the Synod. Especially in the controversy in the eighties did it perform yeoman work in defending the truth against the propagandist of error.

"For a long time, reports of the meetings of the Church Council were published in the official organ of the church. This kept the membership informed on its work, gave them an opportunity to offer criticism, and in general helped to stimulate their interest in the work of the Synod. It is unfortunate that this practice gradually died out after the presidents became the leading element in the Council, so that their deliberations were carried on more or less in secret. While there was frequent rotation among the lay members, the office of the president practically became one held by the incumbent for the rest of his life. Dr. Koren was a member of the Church Council from 1861 to his death in 1910. Through his long tenure in office he gained a great deal of influence, which was freely made use of also in practical matters. This caused growing resentment in many quarters. And this dissatisfaction gave strength to the more liberal element which was developing. At the time of Koren's death most of the older conservative presidents were gone too. Koren's successor in office, who had always been a champion of the cause of union, found little difficulty in lining up the majority of the Council for this cause. One district president who opposed a union on the basis of "Opgjør" as easily defeated in the next election. And the reputation of another was so vulnerable that his opposition to the program of the head man was easily silenced.

"Since the Church Council had gradually become such a strong influence in the Synod, when its power was taken into service of the liberal element, it was something which was not easy to resist. Woe to the poor pastor who dared to oppose this Council and come into its disfavor! And because this institution had so long been highly respected by the majority of the members of the Synod, the culprit could not count on much support.

"We see this same danger asserting itself in other synods, even if the vehicles of power may be called by different names."