| Summary: | GUDMUNDSON v. THINGVALLA LUTHERAN CHURCH 335 there was a very decided divergence of views, not only in such con gregation, but in the synod as well, which disagreement resulted in a prompt disruption of both organizations. Did such sudden diver gence of views necessarily mean that the members of one faction or the other had departed from their views as previously entertained ? Clear ly not, and if this be true, it serves as a most persuasive answer to the contention that the members of Thingvalla Congregation intention ally agreed, by the adoption of their constitution, to a doctrine of in spiration thus so emphatically and promptly repudiated by the majority after it was first brought to their notice. While one person may sud denly change his views, even on so important a question as religion, it is contrary to all experience that a majority of a large church con gregation would do so. If the majority did not change their views, then they entertained such views at the date the congregation was or ganized, and it is difficult to believe, therefore, that they intentionally subscribed to and adopted a theory of inspiration contrary to their beliefs. Furthermore, it is quite unnatural and improbable that the organizers of this congregation, who had emigrated so recently from their mother country, Iceland, and who did not do so on account of any difference in religious views, would intentionally depart from the views entertained and taught by the mother church. From a careful consideration of the record, I am firmly impressed with the belief that there is no testimony showing that at the date Thingvalla Congregation "was organized there was any definite and generally recognized doctrine or belief on the part of the Icelandic Lutheran Church, either in Ice land or America, respecting the different theories of inspiration of the Bible. It was merely taken for granted, or, in other words, presup posed, that the Bible was the inspired word of God. Further than this there was nothing taken for granted or presupposed. How, then, tan it be successfully contended that the minds of these parties ever toet and agreed in their contract to the doctrine of plenary inspiration ? I am unable to discover any competent evidence in the record to Warrant a finding that defendants departed from the faith of their congregation. Certain of plaintiffs' witnesses, such as Professor Ness, Eev. Fossmark, and Eev. Walper, it is true, gave it as their bald con clusions that the adoption of the resolution of June 5th constituted a departure from the faith of the congregation as promulgated by article
|
|---|