At a recent meeting of the Synod the split within the church was thoroughly discussed. Many views were given, but at this time we will quote only Judge A. Grindeland. His analysis is as follows:

"The opposition to the union and the proposed constitution can be attributed to Opgjor [a religious paper published by the Synod]. Can it be that Opgjor has published any new doctrine? No! But the Norwegians of America have been steeped so long in church strife and doctrinal controversies that it has become a mania with them, and has produced warring clerymen and disagreeing theologians who cannot rid themselves of underlying hostility and suspicion where their former opponents are concerned. Thus, it has been difficult for them to become reconciled to the acceptance of Opgjor and church unity.

"What is there to all this cry about Falsk Laere[false doctrine] in Opgjor? For 150 years the church has adhered to the Pontopidan [a Danish religious teacher] doctrine of election; this Deboelte Forklaring [double explanation] as we used 2to call it, with the answer to Question 548, was taught to our grandparents, our fathers and our mothers; and this doctrine has been tolerated by the Synod since it was organized. We have been taught to accept it as orthodox. Thus, when this doctrine seemed to be questioned in the doctrinal controversy that raged in 1882, the laymen decided to put the question directly up to the Synod. Here is the answer: 'The Synod is in complete agreement with the congregations, when they say that they accept the teachings of Fontopidan, with reference to Naadevalget (doctrine of election) as explained in Pontopidan's Sandhed Til Gudfrystighed Er Ret (Truth in Belief is Correct).'

"In spite of all this, we have a storm of protest because Pontopidan's doctrine of election appeared in Opgjor. If we are to throw Opgjor over board because of false doctrine, we must also throw Pontopidan with it. Not only that, but we must also repudiate the 1882 record of the Synod and cast it overboard with Pontopidan. Moreover, we would have to repudiate the mark of approval that the great man, Lauritz Larsen, placed upon Opgjor; we would also repudiate Doctor Stub, Chairman Vangnes, Nordby, Bjorgo, and Foss; the venerable professor, A. Nikkelsen, Chairman W. Halvorsen, not to mention a large majority of our 3pastors.

"Brother layman, with these facts staring you in the face, can you do it? No! If Pontopidan's doctrine of election, as found in Anden Kaereform [part two of the Teacher form], was right when it was taught to our fathers and mothers and to us: and when the Synod told us expressly in 1883 that it was right, can we, then, reasonably and conscientiously join now with the technical theologians in defeating this union because this same doctrine happened to be approved by Opgjor? Quibbling over technical distinctions too fine to be seen has brought too much mischief and misery to our church people already--mischief, because it fixes the attention so strongly upon distant, imaginary evils that might result from such and such a form or expression, and because present sins escape the attention that moral obligation demand--misery because it begets hatred instead of brotherly love.

"No historian has been able to picture the bitterness engendered, the suffering endured and the harm done by these doctrinal controversies into which the theologians have, from time to time, plunged the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America. The broken hearts and saddened homes caused by these controversies 4cry aloud to us today. If the laymen unite, if they,as a unit, stand by Pontopidan and the record of the Synod, the microscopic differences in theological conceptions and the hairline boundaries between theological interpretations would not cause such disturbances. The present bitter, doctrinal controversy would starve itself very soon, if it had no laymen to feed upon. How long! Oh, how long shall we let these controversies prey upon us?

"I am not unmindful of the great and noble work done by our Norwegian Lutheran Church in America, because it is from the church that I received my best education, and I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to our church. We cannot overestimate the clergy and the theological instructors. Now, when we laymen call your attention to your failings, we do so in a friendly spirit, and we beg you to give due consideration to this. We, the Hauge, the United Church and the Synod people have the same Barnelaerdom [child instruction], the same hymn-books, the same sacraments, and the same understanding of sin and of grace; we come from the same mother church, have the same ancestry, and have so much in common. Why, then, in God's name, should we not form the proposed union and live and work together according to the precepts of Christianity?

5

"Theologians, not laymen, are directly responsible for the present controversy, which is based upon mere technicalities; as a result the spirit that now prevails in the Synod is deplorable to say the least. Some of our people are sad and some are provoked, and there are reasons for one as well as the other. Rekindling old fires of hatred, harboring distrust and suspicion, hurling accusations of dishonesty against one another, belittling and, showing disrespect for our officers, and disregarding the resolutions and actions of the Synod have lowered the dignity of the Norwegian Synod, have crippled the influence of the church and caused friction in our schools and colleges; have invaded the domain of our congregations and dispelled peace and brotherhood and left enmity and strife. Yea, they have invaded the very sanctity of the home with their disturbing influences. Well might we be reminded of the words of Paul: 'By love serve one another....but if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.'

"If there was ever a time in the history of the Norwegian Lutheran church of America when the great interests of the laymen were at stake, and when they themselves could control the situation, it is now. We have heard prayers for 6unity for years. The crucial time is finally at hand; the lines are drawn and the battle is on. Upon one banner we see the foreboding words 'delay or secession;' upon the other banner we see emblazoned letters of life, 'union and brotherhood.'

"Brothers, under what banner will you rally? Where will the interest of your family and your congregation be? Where will Pontopidan, the record and the action of the Synod tell you to go? The time has come when the laymen should assert their right, and use the power the church has placed in them and entrusted to them. We, as well as those schooled in theology, are invested with responsibility. We are sent here to express by our votes the wishes of the congregations we represent. At one of our annual meetings I heard a delegate state: 'we are for union, but our pastor, who has served us so long, wants us to vote against it''; so he did in order to please his pastor. While it is entirely proper that we should seek advice from and consult our pastors, we must still bear in mind that we are not sent here to vote according to their dictation; we are here to express the wishes of our congregations, regardless of where our pastors stand.

7

"After years of discussion and consideration, it is an insult to the intelligence of our people to say that we are not prepared for final action. We have been patient, but the time is at hand when patience ceases to be a virtue. Delay means more agitation, more mischief; it means defeat and retrogression. Let every friend of the union be aroused to the highest sense of duty, and postponement will not prevail. 'With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us here and now face this issue fairly and squarely and go on record as opposed to useless controversy. Let us conduct ourselves like men."