Memories 7: Fürbringer- new Prof.: “learned constantly”; "translated justification into daily life"

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series by Prof. Ludwig Fürbringer (LF) of his personal memories of the departed Franz Pieper in the 1931 Der Lutheraner magazine. —  In this segment we hear testimony of Pieper's masterful polemics against the adversaries, that they were “never directed against their person”.  Along with Pieper's exceptional theological skills, Fürbringer impresses his readers that Pieper was “a courteous and friendly man”, not combative.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(page 281, col. 2)

Memories of Dr. Franz Pieper.

by Ludwig Fürbringer – [3.] (Part 7 of 16)

It was in August 1893, when I arrived at the seminary in St. Louis after the call was accepted, and from that time on I was allowed to work as a younger colleague at Dr. Pieper's side and could observe and become acquainted with him in all his excellent work and also in his daily life. Throughout his many years I have learned from him constantly, partly through his many informative remarks, partly through his always so clear discussions and reviews in faculty sessions, partly through his writings: through his many articles in Lehre und Wehre, his instructive synodical essays and above all by his three-volume (page 282, col. 1) Christliche Dogmatik [Christian Dogmatics]. During these long years I have also experienced much personal friendliness from him, and even if we were in one or another point – but never in doctrinal things or central issues – of a different opinion and also debated, he nevertheless never held a grudge over this with his colleagues.

He was just an exemplary Christian who translated the doctrine of justification into daily life, and at the same time a courteous and friendly man. This was also known to his adversaries, including those who stood on the other side in the dispute over the Doctrine of the Election of Grace, that his polemic was never directed against their person. He was always concerned only with the matter at hand: the faithful preservation of pure doctrine. I remember that an attempt was made a couple of years ago to bring together the two main opponents in this doctrinal dispute, Dr. Pieper and Dr. Stellhorn of the Ohio Synod, to a private debate. I remember how willing Dr. Pieper was then and how Dr. Stellhorn also acknowledged this and recognized it in his letter. But nothing came of this gathering. This kindness of Pieper was soon noticed by the laity. My old, now long-gone, original uncle, who from the older days of the Synod was also known in wider circles, Dr. E. E. Bünger of Altenburg, Perry County, Missouri (an original in every respect, as they are rare today) was quite familiar by relationship with a fighter on the other side in this doctrinal dispute and received from him the church paper which often brought attacks on Dr. Pieper. He had never met Pieper, and I happened to be present when they first greeted each other. And afterwards he told me of his own accord that he had always thought, according to the descriptions of his opponents, that Pieper was a presumptuous, unfriendly, opinionated man, and he could not wonder enough after this meeting and conversation with him, what a friendly, amiable man he was.

When I entered the faculty and almost at the same time as my longtime friend, neighbor and colleague, who died in December last year, blessedly Dr. Bente, we were the two younger members with the three older ones, and I still remember many a faculty meeting, in which we mostly remained silent and listened to the older gentlemen. And at the end of these we exchanged ideas about the varied and complementary gifts of these three men whose memory is always to be upheld in the history of our synod: besides Pieper, the splendid expositor, and the resolute, but also the winning, original Georg Stöckhardt, and the versatile, always ready-to-serve and unselfish historian August Graebner. Now the last of them has come to the rest for the people of God.

But it was during these many years of collaboration that I was able to observe that Dr. Pieper was always eager to work on the professorship. And now everyone in our synod knows what a great teacher he was, who taught the subjects he had to teach, especially the dogmatics or Christian doctrine, and then the pastoral theology or instruction to align the preaching ministry in its various branches, so knew clearly and distinctly and clearly that anyone who listened to him understood him and became firm in the matter.

And not only did he know how to teach excellently, but also to warm the hearts of the students for the office which he himself always called the highest office in the Church, the preaching ministry, the preaching of the Gospel. The students soon realized that in his teaching he did not care for mere knowledge, but that as he himself lived in the Gospel, so his own (page 282, col. 2) students be made proper living witnesses of the Gospel.  

That is why his lectures were so highly valued, and I know from more than one of his former listeners what a deep impression Pieper’s lectures made on their personal life of faith. That is why he did not begin his lectures in American sectarian style with a prayer, but once he came to this point, he emphasized that the lecture itself was worship and prayer service. He worked incessantly on his lectures, always applying the bettering hand to his concise dictum in Dogmatics, always choosing a shorter, possibly clearer, more apt expression.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 8  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It was pleasant to read how Pieper was an "amiable man", yet it is more pleasant that Pieper would not succumb to an unspiritual likableness by giving in to opponents on points of Christian doctrine.
      Fürbringer admits in this segment that he held “a different opinion” than Pieper on certain points.  Yet he leaves these differences of opinion out of his “memories”.  I wonder that these differences showed up in his Theological Hermeneutics textbook and his Introduction To The Old Testament where several LC-MS theologians have found refuge for their biblical criticism, "historical" or otherwise.  We note the anecdotal account, circa 1930, from A. T. Kretzmann reporting possible early signs of the weakening of the St. Louis faculty, including Fürbringer. Was the faculty even then more interested in "mere knowledge" than teaching and defending the true faith?  Also note Fürbringer's own son, Alfred O. Fuerbringer, referred to his father's Introduction to the Old Testament as a pretext for his own "moderate" (i.e. liberal) teaching on Holy Scripture.

      I was struck by the statement concerning Pieper's lectures, that “the lecture itself was worship and prayer service”.  Since we possess so few of Pieper's sermons in print, we may take his essays and lectures as his sermons. We note that in the few sermons that were published, he did begin them with a prayer.  —  In the next Part 8…