|
From the very beginning the Missourians were devoted to
the cause of a united
Lutheran
Church
in
America
. They have given to it the best
that was in them, and have suffered shame and reproach for it.
But did they not in 1847 organize a separate synod?
Why did they not unite with the older synods?
The Missouri Synod has been severely blamed for
standing alone. In 1848 the
"Missionary" spoke of "their exclusiveness and their
unpardonable one-sidedness, which in many instances is the cause why they
and their church are evil spoken of and their usefulness is materially
hindered." The
"Lutheran Observer" of 1864 called it "bigotry" and
said: "They err in declining to enter into an intimate ecclesiastical
communion with the
American
Lutheran
Church
and its General Synod." Again: "Some say that unity must precede
union. But the Bible demands
that we unite. Hence those who
magnify those differences and endeavor to keep us separate are the greatest
sinners in the Church." And
as late as 1918 the "Lutheran" declared:
"A doctrine of rigid aloofness and separatism was developed as a
wall of defense. When orthodoxy
becomes so strict and strait-laced and legalistic...the cause of unity is
harmed, and union and cooperation are impossible."
The fact is that the Missourians labored, not to keep
the Lutherans separate, but to unite them, and they went about it in the
Lutheran way. That is the only
way, according to the Augsburg Confession:
"This is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian Church,
that the Gospel is preached therein according to its pure intent and
meaning, and that the Sacraments are administered in conformity with the
Word of God." The fathers
were ready to join, and some of them had joined, the older synods on this
basis. "Walther had hoped that these synods, by placing themselves
fairly and squarely on the Lutheran Confessions, would render it possible
for him and his companions to unite with them. He would have been content to
see the leaven of truth work in the older synods, and gradually bring about
a better state of affairs from the view-point of confessional
Lutheranism." (Prof. Dau, in "Quarterly, 16, 136.)
And when they, for conscience' sake, organized a separate synod,
"the main object the synod sought to obtain by its common efforts were
just this: to bring back the straying Lutherans to their Church and her pure
doctrine, and to unite them under the banner of her old, but not antiquated
symbols." ("Lutheraner,"
Sept. 8, 1847
.) Synod stood for the "
preservation and cultivation of the unity of the pure confessions."
"Constitution, chap. I.) "Conditions of membership:
Acceptance of all the Symbolical Books of the
Evangelical
Lutheran
Church
." (Chap. II.)
The General Synod, comprising at that time about half of all the
Lutherans in America, had but to accept the Lutheran Confessions, and the
Missourians, destined to become the largest Lutheran body, would have formed
either an alliance or a union with it. The General Synod refused, and
Missouri
stood alone.
The General Synod refused to accept the Lutheran
Confessions because the dominating element abhorred them.
It was in fact not a Lutheran body.
In the letter addressed to the Evangelical Church of Germany in 1845,
signed by Dr. S. S. Schmucker, their leading theologian and teacher, Dr. B.
Kurtz, editor of the "Observer," and others, they say: "In
most of our church principles we stand on common ground with the Union
Church of Germany." And: "The peculiar view of Luther on the
bodily presence of the Lord in the Lord's Supper has long ago been abandoned
by the great majority of our ministers."
These men loved the Reformed doctrine and practices, were fanatical
champions of the revival, sought to put into the
Lutheran
Church
"the warmth of Methodism and the vigor of Presbyterianism," and
advocated a union with all possible and impossible sects, meantime
practicing pulpit-and altar-fellowship with whatever Reformed sect was
willing. They called this
abomination "American Lutheranism."
W. M. Reynolds, one-time of the General Synod, called it "a kind
of mongrel Methodistic Presbyterianism."
With Dr. S. Sprecher, their third leader, they denounced the Lutheran
doctrine on Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Absolution, and the Personal Union,
and the Lutheran practices "as antiscriptural and injurious to the
spiritual kingdom of Christ," and spoke of "baptismal regeneration
nonsense and similar semipapal imbecilities."
Their hatred of the Confessions was so intense that, when casting
about for strong terms of reproach, they coined that of "symbolic
Lutherans" as most adequately expressing their repugnance; that
Sprecher warned against the sinister designs of those who would "make
all their synods stand on the Unaltered Augsburg Confession"; and that
Schumcker looked upon the practice of binding the conscience of the minister
and members to the Confessions as "highly criminal."
(For the whole sad story see Bente, "American Lutheranism, Vol.
II.”)
They abhorred the Confessions, and so they abhorred
Missouri
. They branded its love of Lutheranism as "rigid symbolism"
"German Lutheranism," "deformities of a Pharisaic
exclusiveness." They
denounced the Missourians as "Jesuits in disguise," stigmatized
the synod as "a new sect," of Roman-Catholic proclivities; for did
they not teach the real presence, and wear gowns, and burn candles on bright
midday
? And Sprecher insisted that the
General Synod refused admission to such as adhered to the Lutheran Symbols.
Are you asking why
Missouri
stood alone?
Lutheranism and General Synodism would not fuse.
Wyneken, the first of the fathers to come over, had been led by the
providence of God into the Synod of the West, belonging to the General
Synod, and he labored long and patiently to win it back to Lutheranism.
"When I later became acquainted with the state of affairs, I felt that
I must not at once withdraw, especially since no attempt had yet been made
in the synod itself to win over the erring brethren, to a number of whom I
had become warmly attached, by means of an open testimony."
In 1845 he brought the matter before the general body, was turned
down again and again, and when he finally moved that synod either renounce
the name Lutheran or reject as utterly un-Lutheran the position of Schmucker,
Kurtz, and the others, synod, as the "Lutherische Hirtenstimme"
gleefully reported, "listened good-naturedly to this funny motion and
tabled it." Wyneken stood
alone.
Missouri
and the General Synod would not fuse. If
they had tried it, what kind of "intimate ecclesiastical
communion" would have resulted? Here is the General Synod declaring:
"Our principles not merely allow, but actually demand, fraternal
relations with all Evangelical Christians."
The Missourians protest, in the words of Luther:
"A man who knows that his doctrine, faith, and confession is
true, correct, and certain cannot stand together with those who teach false
doctrine or who side with such." In
1845 the General Synod "cordially approves of the practice of inviting
communicants in regular standing in either church (Lutheran or Reformed) to
partake of the Sacrament in the other."
Again the Missourians quote Luther: "I am shocked to hear that
in one church at one altar, both parties should take and receive the
Sacrament, one party believing that they are receiving mere bread and wine,
the other, that it is the true body and blood of Christ." Well, then,
who is this man Luther? Walther
arises: "We place Luther far beneath the prophets and apostles, but at
the same time far above all the other orthodox teachers of the Word known to
us." Kurtz jumps to his
feet: "We are three hundred years older than Luther and his noble
coadjutors, and eighteen hundred years older than the primitives.
They were the children, we are the fathers."
Here is the "Lutheraner" glorying in the distinctive
Lutheran doctrines, and the "Observer" at once and always calling
it to order for "gathering these old rags, tying them on to a stick,
and calling upon all Lutherans to agree with it on pain of
excommunication." The whole
time of Synod would have been taken up with the tabling of the
"funny" motions of the Missourians.
And that is what actually took place.
The leaders made it their chief business to combat confessionalism.
Why did not
Missouri
unite with the mother synod, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania?
Because
Pennsylvania
preferred the ways of the General Synod.
Already in 1844 Sihler had foretold that Pennsylvania,
"indifferently observing the anticonfessional, church-destroying
activities of the so-called General Synod, yea, fraternizing with their
leaders, would become their prey."
It was fulfilled in 1853.
The Ohio Synod did not belong, by far, in a class with
the General Synod. Yet its
Lutheranism was not sound Lutheranism. Dr.
Loy himself, in the story of his life, characterizes it as being at that
time "a unionistic corporation."
And what is more, and what finally counted, it refused to forsake the
un-Lutheran position it held in this respect. The friendly and earnest
remonstrances of Sihler, Ernst, Selle, and other pronounced Lutherans, whom
the providence of God had led into the Ohio Synod, were disregarded, and
these men were compelled to withdraw. Their
letter of withdrawal, of 1845, says: "Some of the undersigned had
requested the synod to remove the unionistic formula of distribution now in
use among us at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which formula begins:
'Christ says,' etc." The
petition was refused. They
further petitioned "that the synod raise a protest against the false
teachings of the so-called Lutheran General Synod regarding the Sacrament. A
technicality prevented action on this petition and others.
And when finally the resolution was offered:
"That the synod henceforth accept all the confessional writings
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and solemnly enjoin upon its candidates
for ordination to consider themselves bound by the same," "action
upon this matter was again postponed for three years.
It was plain to us from these transactions that the synod, in the
majority of its members, possessed no sincere willingness stanchly to
represent our Church in its battle with the unionism of our times."
"The synod," the letter states, "at this
moment can hardly be regarded as acting in sheer ignorance."
There was a great deal of ignorance. Loy points out "their
limited opportunities." Walther
speaks of less than ten copies of the Book of Concord to be found in the
older synods. Loy mentions also the "force of established
customs." Sinler's party
would have patiently borne with that. But
there was no sincere willingness, on the part of the majority, to break the
fetters of established customs. One
of the leaders declared, in the matter of serving mixed congregations:
"You are trying to force principles upon us imported from the 'old
country'; we have no use for them here."
And the "Lutheran Standard" spoke of the secession as a
fortunate occurrence. It wished
to be left alone.
The "History of the Ohio Synod" and also
Prof. Lehmann, both admitting the justice of those demands, still blame the
protestants for taking the step they took.
G. J. Fritschel does not. He
says in his "History": "It was not the intention to bring on
a rupture. The object was to
exert all possible influence on the synod towards placing it on a sound
Lutheran basis." "Since
the synod refused to take the true Lutheran position, these men, who were
determined to uphold the Lutheran Confessions, could do nothing less than
withdraw and prepare to form a new synod."
Nor will Dr. Loy blame them. Referring
to the synodical sermon he heard at the first meeting of synod he attended
in 1849, in which a leading member of synod, himself a Mason, sang the
praises of lodgism, and against which he privately protested, he said later:
"If the case occurred now, I would not have become a member of
the Ohio Synod without a renunciation of the deistic foundation of that
sermon and of the man who preached it, unless he repented of the sin and
made all possible reparation of the evil resulting."
Exactly that was the position of the protestants.
With Luther they were shocked to see Lutherans commune at the same
altar with men who had the Reformed contempt of the Sacrament; but it was
only when Synod refused to apply the first principles of confessionalism and
condemn these and similar un-Lutheran practices that they were forced to
withdraw for conscience' sake. Said
Sihler in 1851: "God is my witness that my testimony against the Ohio
Synod sprang from honest zeal for the honor of God and the welfare of the
Church. If synod had received
our first request with only some measure of good will, the whole situation
to-day might be different." They
left with a sore heart, and with profound grief the "Lutheraner"
reported the matter.
A similar separation took place in
Michigan
, in 1846. The Michigan Synod
was organized, in 1849, on the basis of the Confessions; but there, too,
indifferentism and unionism prevailed. They
received, for instance, a minister into synod who refused to subscribe to
the Confessions without reservations. In
the face of the protest of such stanch Lutherans as Craemer and Lochner,
they were bound to continue in their un-Lutheran ways, and four pastors were
compelled to withdraw. The
spirit in which they took this step is shown in the closing words of the
declaration of withdrawal: "We
part from the synod with sincere grief because of the un-Lutheran position
which the synod maintains in spite of the clear testimony which we have
offered. We pray the Lord of the
Church that He many soon lead the Synod of Michigan to see and be convinced
that its position is dangerous, especially amid the conditions prevailing
among the churches of our country; and that it is necessary for our dear
Church of the pure confession and for the prosperous operation of Lutheran
synods to be firm and decided in 'doctrine' and 'practice.'"
Finally there was
Buffalo
. There was a synod which
abhorred unionism as strongly as
Missouri
did. J. A. A. Grabau had twice suffered imprisonment for holding out against
the Prussian Union. Why did not
Missouri
and
Buffalo
form a union? How little Grabau
cared to have fraternal relations with
Missouri
he showed in his synodical report of 1848, declaring "that the
ministers Walther, Loeber, and their accomplices are living in false
doctrine as regards the sacred office of the ministry, the Church. . . .
We declare furthermore that they are willful and proud sinners, who
in spite of all Christian exhortation have increased in sin and become
strong in crime. Therefore we
have to regard them as willfully false teachers and manifest, zealous
sinners, until they turn, repent, and sincerely seek reconciliation with
us." This was the sin of
Missouri
- it had refused to allow Grabau to introduce Romanizing principles into the
Lutheran
Church
. Besides teaching that outside
of the
Lutheran
Church
there is no salvation, he denied the right of a congregation to call, of its
own authority, the minister, to prove his doctrine, and to excommunicate the
impenitent, and he even asserted that Christians are bound to obey their
ministers in all things not contrary to the Word of God.
That, of course, meant the establishment of a Lutheran papacy.
And if there is anything that does not agree, it is Lutheranism and a
papacy. Loeber and Walther could
not tolerate the monstrous thing. They taught with the Confessions that the
congregation is the highest, final tribunal in the Church, and that, to
Grabau, was a monstrous thing.
When Grabau enunciated his doctrines in the
"Pastoral Letter" of 1840, this came as a shock to the Saxons, who
"had been hoping, with not a little joy, that with just these brethren
they might enjoy the most intimate communion, closely united in the bonds of
confessional Lutheransim." For
years they labored, patiently and earnestly, to bring about an agreement on
Scriptural, confessional lines. They
refrained for a long time from a public controversy; they carried on the
discussion in a conciliatory manner; again and again they attempted to meet
Grabau in conference. In the end
Grabau excommunicated the whole Missouri Synod.
And so
Missouri
perforce stood alone. The
isolation for which she has been maligned these many years was not of her
choosing. Nor did she like it.
She was eager to establish a friendly "entente" among all
Lutherans, if possible, and alliance, indeed, the closest ecclesiastical
communion. They aimed at
"the final realization of one united Evangelical Lutheran Church of
North America."
People must get the idea out of their heads that the
Missourians of old were violent men, or men who, blown up with Pharisaical
pride, gloried in their isolation. Why,
the name of Wyneken was a synonym of modesty and charity!
Let Loy tell you how, after a clash in which Sihler had been at
fault, he, "the elderly man," sought out Loy, "the mere
stripling," and begged his pardon.
Let Walther tell you how, when, like Joseph, he had been compelled to
speak roughly with his brothers in his polemics, he would, like Joseph, go
into his chamber to weep, and only after washing his face come among the
people again. (Letter to
Delitzsch.) Again: "Our
controversy with
Buffalo
is a cross which would again and again almost crush us to the ground."
(Letter to Brunn.) With the fathers of the Smalcald Articles they
knew that "it is a serious matter to be separate from so many nations
and peoples and to be called schismatics.
But here is God's command, which forbids us to hold communion with
those who teach false doctrine." - They were, on the whole, rather
likable men. Says Loy: "For
myself, I never had much difficulty in getting along with the members of the
Missouri Synod."
There was nothing "exclusive" about
Missouri
. Men did not at all have to
join their particular organization in order to be treated as true Lutherans
- if they were true Lutherans. When
they became acquainted with the Tennessee Synod, which, from Paul Henkel
down, had been testifying against the apostasy of the General Synod, they
"rejoiced in having found in them flesh of their flesh and bone of
their bone." (Bente, I, 217.) Sihler: "It would be a great joy if
we could enter into definite church-fellowship with them"v The
delegates of Missouri to Tennessee, 1853: "Our Synod extends the hand
of fraternity to you, not fearing to be refused, and ardently desires,
however separated from you by a different language and local interests, to
cooperate with you, hand in hand, in rebuilding the walls of our dilapidated
Zion."
Wherever there was a stirring of Lutheran life,
Missouri
was quick to see it and eager to stimulate and strengthen it.
When Ohio was working and fighting its way upwards (as Loy puts it),
it was Sihler and Walther who urged them on, counseled and admonished as
they felt brothers should do, and rejoiced over the good progress made.
The protest of their Eastern District against the Union Letter of the
General Synod was hailed by Walther as a hopeful sign:
"Surely God will in His grace bring all those who in this land
want to hold fast the precious doctrine of the
Lutheran
Church
into still closer communion." When
Ohio
in 1848, by formal resolution, adopted the Symbols of the
Lutheran
Church
as its confession and was assaulted for that by the "Observer,"
Sihler became the proud champion of their cause.
And when in various quarters vehement protests were raised against
the Definite Platform (that Zwinglianized Augsburg Confession which the
Schmuckerites in 1855 attempted to foist on the Church), Walther warmly
commended the "Standard" for "its Lutheran fervor and manly
firmness," and proudly chronicled the fact "that what is known as
the Lutheran Church of North American possesses in her various divisions a
host of witnesses whom God has given insight, faith, and courage enough to
set themselves against the revolutionary and destructive designs of the many
renegades in her midst." And
so throughout.
The Free Conferences held from 1856 to 1859 by men from
Ohio
,
New York
,
Pennsylvania
, and
Missouri
had for their object the unifying of the
Lutheran
Church
. The prime mover was Walther.
He had proposed them "with a view towards the final realization
of one united Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America."
(Lehre und Wehre, II, 4.) And
when the Synodical Conference was formed in 1872, a union between the
Ohio
,
Missouri
,
Wisconsin
, Norwegian,
Illinois
, and Minnesota Synods, glorious as this consummation was, it was not
considered the final consummation, but only the groundwork for it.
Nothing was permitted to stand in the way of union,
nothing short of a willful and persistent denial of the Lutheran faith.
Not the hard words hurled at them, not even aberrations in doctrine,
if but the open mind and an honest desire for the truth remained.
If you want to meet broadminded men, make the acquaintance of the
fathers. President Wyneken
referred to the Buffalo Synod in 1853 as "our brethren"; and you
know what Grabau had been calling
Missouri
. And when Ohio in 1856 urged
Missouri and Buffalo to endeavor to establish fraternal relations, Walther,
"receiving the admonition with sincere gratitude" and pointing out
"that true union can spring only from the unity of faith,"
concludes with the peace offer: "If, however, in case an agreement in
doctrine cannot be reached at present, the Buffalo Synod will refrain from
anathematizing our doctrine and, as to what has been done on our side in
consequence thereof, will let bygones by bygones, and thus accepted our
offer of reconciliation, we would consider it our sacred duty to maintain,
even though our doctrinal difference be not yet removed, fraternal relations
with Buffalo." (Lehre und
Wehre, II, 380.)
Missouri
aimed to bring together the Lutherans of America, and for that very reason
she stood alone. Her isolation
was, after all, of her own choosing. The
ultimate object of the separation was union.
"True unity is oneness in faith," says Krauth.
And in order to win men back to the one faith, there had to be a body
which clearly taught this one faith, which in doctrine and practice stood
squarely on the Confessions and, by refusing to stand with errorists,
refused to countenance the error. Nor
could
Missouri
have preserved the faith if she had united with such as persisted in error,
or suffered them to unite with her. Faith
cannot dwell with error. The
body that experiments in that direction will lose its pure faith - and its
power for good. Nor can such an
organization to be held together. No
synod can endure half confessional and half indifferent.
"If a Lutheran synod does not want to plant the seeds of
dissolution in her very midst, its members must be bound, by provision of
its basic law, to refrain from even these subtle forms of syncretism.
Let us faithfully confess the truth, and not attempt to help along
the
kingdom
of
God
by deviating from the instructions God gave us."
(Walther to Ernst.) The
oneness of the faith unites, and Synod knew of no other way of attaining her
object, that of uniting the straying Lutherans, than that of unfurling the
banner of the old Confessions, and of laying down these conditions of
membership: "Renunciation of all syncretistic church-fellowship, such
as serving union-churches as such, taking part in the worship and
sacramental acts of heterodox and mixed congregations." (Chapter II.)
They were far-sighted men.
They knew their policy could not fail.
They were willing to wait. They
were willing to set up in humble quarters - as an insignificant 'Synoedchen.'
They were willing to bear shame and reproach for many a long year.
For they were confident their way would succeed.
It had to succeed.
It had God's promise back of it.
"Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them.
And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall; and they
shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am
with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord." Jer. 15,
l9.20. Accordingly, when these
separations were going on, Rev. W. Loehe had reason to prophesy: "By
going out from those with whom they could not come to an agreement on the
basis of God's Word, their number has not decreased, but their strength is
increased. No longer hampered by
the halting and lukewarm, our friends can now move forward in a compact
mass. They will not remain
alone."
They did not remain alone.
Everywhere champions of the Lutheran faith arose.
A mighty battle came to be fought - and, please God, the end is not
yet. Indifferentism and unionism
was driven back all along the line, and hierarchism on another sector.
The "Observer" was horrified: "From 1830 to 1840 our
Church enjoyed a universal peace and flourished greatly.
It was a time of revivals and great bloom.
Between 1845 and 1850 a change took place.
A little cloud, like the hand of a man, appeared in the West."
And the storm burst, and all good Lutherans rejoiced.
"The former lethargy is a thing of the past.
A healthy movement has arisen. Everywhere
divisions are taking place: at the same time there is manifested among the
orthodox a determined desire for more intimate union." (Walther in
1846.) They did not all join the
Missouri Synod and her sister synods. But
the good old Lutheran faith came to be known and, consequently, to be loved
by ever-increasing numbers, and while great and grievous doctrinal
differences still divide the Synodical Conference from the other synods as
such, great multitudes have been brought together in the fundamental form of
ecclesiastical communion - the unity of the faith.
How much of this shall be credited to
Missouri
? We shall not quarrel about
that. The fathers did not.
The "Lutheraner" of September 5, 1846, was glad to
acknowledge that the first to protest against the great apostasy was the
"Lutherische Kirchenzeitung" of Pittsburgh, and the good work of
the "Standard," of Tennessee, of men like Charles Porterfield
Krauth (of the Council), who, says Walther, "was wholeheartedly devoted
to the pure doctrine of our Church, as he had learned to understand it, a
noble man and without guile," received their unstinted praise.
We need not quarrel.
There is honor enough to go round.
And there are men a-plenty to give testimony that the usefulness of
Missouri
was not materially hindered. G.
J. Fritschel: "Later events proved that the influence of Wyneken
extended further than he himself had anticipated." The same:
"These conferences (1856-1859) had a great influence on the Eastern
synods, and especially on
Ohio
." Loy speaks of the
"stimulating power" he and his fellow-students found in the "Lutheraner,"
of "the need of such a tonic to stir us up amid the indifferentism
which was destroying all earnest faith and life."
Of the later years: "I
was glad that we had Walther among us, and was thankful that God had given
us so powerful an advocate of a cause so dear to my heart."
And he speaks "of the new Lutheran life which had come into our
synod." There you have a
real "revival and great bloom," and the whole Joint Synod of Ohio
was glad to point out Dr. Walther as the chief instrument of it all.
The General Council "Pilger": "if the Missouri Synod
had not so tenaciously clung to the confession of the pure doctrine, if the
Lord had not taken pity on the Lutheran Church of America by placing it in
her midst, we would be to-day an insignificant body, Lutheran perhaps in
name, but otherwise the stamping-ground for foxes and other wild
things." F. Uhlhorn, in his
"History:" "The
fact is that the greatest gain the Lutheran Church of America made came by
reason of the firm and immovable stand men took, against unionism and
liberalism, for the old Lutheran faith. The next result, indeed, was
division after division, but in the end their determined confessionalism
yielded blessed gain. Synod
after synod placed itself, with varying degrees, indeed, of insight and
consistency - on the platform of the symbols." Neve, in his
"History:" "The close unity [of
Missouri
], coupled with its size, exercised a powerful influence on those without,
strengthening, especially in the Eastern synods, the already awakened
confessional consciousness. " Krauth: "I have been saddened beyond
expression by the bitterness displayed towards the Missourians.
They have been our benefactors. Their
work has been of inestimable value." - That will do.
The Missouri Synod is going to keep up the good work in
the good old way. And great
things will be accomplished if all work together along the lines and in the
spirit of Dr. Pieper's great treatise: "Zur Einigung der
amerikanisch-lutherischen Kirche."
|
|