The Madison Settlement, or Opgjoer (pronounced “up-your”), was a
compromise reached in 1912 between the Norwegian Synod, the United
Norwegian Lutheran Church, and the Hauge Synod. (1912 was the same year
that Arizona became a state and the Titanic sank.) The doctrinal
issue was election, or predestination. By then, this controversy had torn
apart members of the Norwegian Synod and, to a lesser extent, its sister
church bodies like the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod for many
years. It had been one of the points of disagreement between the
Norwegian Synod and the others involved in the Opgjoer.
The controversy had been so bitter within the Norwegian Synod that it
had withdrawn from the Synodical Conference to lessen its ill effects.
Yet during the intervening years, the Norwegian Synod had continued to
recognize doctrinal fellowship with the Synodical Conference, and had
been welcome participants in its conventions. But in 1912, under the
leadership of its new President Stub, the Norwegian Synod was happy to
reach a settlement with the other scandinavian-based synods on this
doctrine, and submitted it to the Synodical Conference for review.
In the historical volume The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor
by Armin Schuetze, the response of the Synodical Conference to the
Norwegian Synod is included in summary form. I think it shows a
salutary discernment on the part of the Synodical Conference
theologians. It also shows a certain pattern found in compromise
documents, in which a doctrine is described as existing in multiple
disparate forms. In Opgjoer, election is described according to two
different points of view or senses, which are supposed to be equally
valid and exist simultaneously. The problem described by the Synodical
Conference was that only one of those points of view or senses was in
harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. The other one used
expressions from the Bible and the Confessions, but was a
doctrine arising from human reason or tradition.
This is from page 124 of the above named book:
“In order that the unity of faith existing among us may be preserved,”
the Conference made three requests. The first was in reference to
paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Madison Agreement. In these paragraphs the
Union Committees of the Norwegian Synod and the United Church
“accepted unanimously and without reservation” the two so-called
“forms” of the doctrine of election. The First Form, set forth in
Article XI of the Formula of Concord, held that election is “unto
salvation,” or the “cause of faith.” The Second Form with reference
to “Pontoppidan’s Truth unto Godliness,” a catechetical book widely
used among the Scandinavians, spoke of election “in view of faith.”
The Agreement stated, “Since it is well known that in presenting the
doctrine of election two forms of doctrine have been used, both of
which have won acceptance and recognition within the orthodox Lutheran
Church; . . . We find that this [i.e., teaching one form or the other]
should not be cause for schism within the Church.” The Synodical
Conference asked the Synod “to eliminate from Theses 1-3 of the
‘Opgjoer’ the coordination of the so-called first and second form of
doctrine, because only the first form represents the truth of the
Scriptures and the Confessions.”
It would seem that this method of settling a controversy is flawed. I
might add to the criticism of Opgjoer that the second sense or form of
“election,” being a doctrine not really found in holy scripture,
represents instead a certain human usage of the word. In this case, the
human usage of the word “election” directly contradicts the divine usage
of the word found in the Bible. In other cases of compromise, there may
be merely human usages that do not contradict the divine usage, but are
found to be compatible. While it is important (though sometimes
difficult) to tell the difference, it is even more important that the
Church confess only those articles of faith that are doctrines clearly
taught in the Bible.
