This concludes from Part 22a (Table of Contents in Part 3), a series presenting an English translation of Pastor Christian Hochstetter's 1885 496-page book entitled (abbreviated) The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884. — This concludes the final installment to the series.
Roy Suelflow. It was troubling to find this name among those who would criticize a portion of Hochstetter's work. But there it was, in his 1946 ThD thesis "The History of the Missouri Synod During the Second Twenty-Five Years of its Existence 1872-1897". On p. 177, candidate R. Suelflow states:
Hochstetter in his History of the Missouri Synod gives a very distorted picture of the events of 1881 because he presents the action of the Ohio Synod of 1881 without giving first the preceding action of the Missouri Synod at its Convention of 1881. 207 (207. Chr. Hochstetter: Die Geschichte, der Evangelisch lutherischen Missouri-Synode in Nord Amerika. Heinrich J. Naumann, Dresden, 1885, p. 341 ff.)
I was quite saddened to see this criticism, "a very distorted picture", because of Dr. Suelflow's later self-published independent translations of Walther's formerly unpublished letters in translation. This critical attitude can be explained in part by discovering that the faculty signatories of this dissertation, and presumably Suelflow's advisors, were William Polack, Theodore Graebner, and William Arndt. These prominent St. Louis faculty members had also signed the infamous "Statement of the 44", a syncretistic manifesto, at about the same time! It is no wonder that a critical attitude against an Old Missouri history would find a sympathetic ear, maybe even encouragement, among all three of these faculty members because of their doctrinal weakness and demise. Let the reader search my blog for evidence of this.
William Schmelder. It was again troubling to find this name as a criticizer of Old Missouri historians. While he seemed generally favorable in his assessment of Walther, yet in his 1960 STM Thesis "The Altenburg Debate" he states on p. 48-49:
“In the first place, some of the writers of this period have tried to picture Walther as the serene student, calmly and quietly searching for a solution to the problems which faced the colony; Koestering and Hochstetter (27) seem ["seem"? Schmelder admits he is conjecturing.] to convey this picture to the reader. However, …(27) Hochstetter, op. cit., pp. 20-21. ”
I have thoroughly read and studied Hochstetter's history and find Schmelder's subjective charge against both Koestering and Hochstetter to be baseless, in the footsteps of Walter Forster. — As with Roy Suelflow, we find that Schmelder's faculty Advisor Carl S. Meyer and Reader Erwin L. Lueker were products of their forefathers, the "Statement of the 44", and ended up in the 1974 "Walkout" crowd. They too would practically encourage criticism of Old Missouri historians by Concordia Seminary candidates.
I have already mentioned Rev. Peperkorn in a previous post in this series. He also made specific charges against Hochstetter in his 2001 Logia "Book Review" (vol. 10, no. 4, p. 44-45, text) of August Suelflow's Servant of the Word (comments set apart in red):
Suelflow calls Hochstetter’s 1885 history of the Missouri Synod “a comprehensive history of the Missouri Synod,” (144), and said, “the book continues to be the most reliable source available from that time.” This is complicated. [Oh? Well, us readers had better listen to Peperkorn because "this is complicated"!] Hochstetter was originally J. A. A. Grabau’s deacon in Buffalo, New York. He left in 1867 and came to the Missouri Synod. [Some might say this puts Hochstetter in exactly the right place to present this history. Will Peperkorn?] His history was actually a recounting of the Missouri Synod’s doctrinal controversies, not a history per se. [We see by this statement what "Historical Theology" is to Peperkorn – it is not about doctrinal issues, not about what they teach.] Hochstetter does not even mention Walther’s Kirche und Amt. [False. See pages 218 and 262. Why would Peperkorn promote this false idea? Surely it is not because he is a poor scholar.] Furthermore, Hochstetter was a disgruntled ["disgruntled?" – not enlightened by Scripture's teaching?] former Buffalo Synod pastor. He can hardly be expected to present a balanced or reliable treatment of Grabau and the controversy over church and office in the mid-nineteenth century. (Besides, if Hochstetter is the most “reliable source” from that time, why has a full translation of Hochstetter been sitting in CHI waiting publication for seventeen years?) [This is quite a pointed question by Peperkorn! Why indeed! Surely Peperkorn knows the true answer to that question, for CHI is not in the business of publishing books – that is left to CPH. So the real question is: "Why did CPH knowingly ignore this Kramer translation?" — If Rev. Peperkorn had not made this revealing comment of an existing English translation, I may never have known about it, and therefore would never have tackled this project of publishing Hochstetter in English. My thanks to Rev. Peperkorn for his revelation, but not for his misleading, and caustic, "Book Review" of Suelflow… and Hochstetter. We see now what the qualification is to be the Chairman of the Board of Regents in today's LCMS!]
Matthew Harrison published in his House of My Fathers book, p. 569-570 an 1887 private letter from Franz Pieper to an unknown "President". Unfortunately among the topics covered was a criticism of "Hochstetter's petition" for which Harrison could give no background or outcome. He could not even confirm that it was Pastor Christian Hochstetter. While I have little doubt that this is authentic, it was poor judgment to include this portion without the surrounding details and so causes the reader to question Hochstetter's overall theology. But no reason is revealed and no outcome of this supposed criticism of Hochstetter is given. — It may be added that Harrison gives no basis for saying that Hochstetter's book contained "a history of the Stephanite immigration written by Walther". There is no hint of Walther's authorship within Hochstetter's book and this statement appears to be an error on Harrison's part. If this were true, it would refute those, like Forster, who charge Hochstetter with "imagination" in his history of the emigration.
John Wohlrabe Jr. mentions Hochstetter in his essay "Walther's Doctrine of the Ministry: A Distinctly Mediating Position" in the anthology Soli Deo Gloria: Essays on C.F.W. Walther, p. 205, fn # 415:
A detailed analysis of the Stephanite Emigration from Saxony to the United States is set forth in Walter O. Forster, Zion on the Mississippi: …. Also see Christian Hochstetter, Die Geschichte der Evangelische-lutherischen Missouri Synode in Nord-Amerika und ihrer Lehrkaempfe (Dresden: Naumann, 1885), 1-18.
Although one could take comfort that Dr. Wohlrabe seems to give some credit to Hochstetter, yet he subordinates him to Forster. Does Wohlrabe not know that Forster made serious charges against Hochstetter's History using multiple pejorative terms… rendering Hochstetter's History to be untrustworthy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most of the criticisms by these LC-MS writers apply to all those historians "in the [Old!] Missouri Synod". That is reason enough to translate and publish them again… as a testimony against today's LC-MS, the Lutheran Church—"Missouri Synod", so-called. Enough from the LC-MS! Scholars may scoff at this, but I would conclude this listing by quoting the words of author Stella Wuerffel, with a substitution. The LC-MS theologians' writings against Hochstetter are only an
"opinionated interpretation of these events and people"
and Hochstetter's History is a testimony for true Church History.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.