Un2: The General Council turns away from orthodoxy

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" to the 1871 volume of Lehre und Wehre on Unionism. — Walther continues his searching essay exposing the mediating General Council. He originally had high hopes that Pastor Brobst of that synod, pictured below in the left panel, would have enough influence to bring them to a pure confession of the truth.  One finds many references to Brobst in the early years of Der Lutheraner,  but now we see that Brobst's proposals to his Council were rejected and so he was surely disappointed in this. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  continued from Part 1  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Accordingly, it is clear that the [General] Council does not want to reject all errorists, but only open heretics, in addition to those who cherish errors in which salvation is impossible, such as Socinians, Unitarians, Universalists, and Rationalists, for the Council gives the exact definition of a heretic in the words cited. It fearfully avoids being specific and declaring that, in short, it wanted all non-Lutherans, e.g. all Reformed, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., to be rejected from their pulpits and altars. 1) The Council allows those who err because of weakness (as a result of upbringing and instruction (page 3) and of prejudices imbibed under certain relationships), in short, all those whom it believes it can still consider Christians in the erring fellowships.

__________ 

1) How the Council stands as a whole is shown by the fact that it rejected the version of the answer proposed to it by Pastor Brobst, which was also read out, as the Lutheran and Missionary [C. P. Krauth, Editor] reports, and instead adopted the most flexible version. In the version proposed by Pastor Brobst it had said, among other things: “Since communion and pulpit fellowship are church fellowship, it must be established as a general rule that only Lutheran Christians are to be admitted to Lutheran altars and only orthodox Lutheran pastors are to be admitted to preach on Lutheran pulpits." But that was already too clear (?) a tone. It sounded too anti-unionist and could have offended the delicate ears of the distinguished Presbyterian and Methodist "brethren." We say advisedly that it shows how the Council as a whole stands, for Brobst's proposals show that individual members of it stand quite differently. But a church body is not to be judged by those who are not heard [i.e. Pastor Brobst, and Prof. Krauth] in it, but by those who are the deciders.

We confess that we had little hope that the Council would give a reasonably satisfactory answer to the questions presented by Minnesota; but that the former would venture so brazenly into the light with such crass unionist principles, we had not expected. After the omissions of Dr. Krotel and some others, the alternative arose that either they would have to leave the Council, or that the Council would have to declare itself Unionist; but in view of the progress which this body had made in Lutheran organization during the last few years, it did not seem impossible that it would rather sacrifice some of its most gifted men than offer them the pure Lutheran character. It evidently preferred the latter, however.

To be sure, the Council points out in its justification that 

"in harmony with the confessions and theologians of our Church, the General Assembly of the Church makes a distinction between such doctrines as are fundamental to the continuance of Christianity, i.e. 'essential to the true knowledge of Christ and to faith in Him'; and between such doctrines as are fundamental to the whole completeness of our Christian faith, i.e. 'essential to the true knowledge of Christ and to faith in Him'; without which one cannot hope to be saved. "between such doctrines as are fundamental to the true knowledge of Christ and faith in Him, without which one cannot hope to be saved; and between such doctrines as are fundamental to the whole completeness of our Christian faith, i.e., to the complete and faultless (absolute) perfection of Christian doctrine, without which, if one does not wish to judge uncharitably, it may yet be possible to attain to salvation."— 2)

alone, correct as this distinction is, there is no justifying reason in it for the Council's unionist practice.

________________

2) We quote from the German text of the Council's resolutions given by Pastor Brobst.

- - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 3  - - - - - - - - - - -

Walther highlights the tactic of unionists to avoid being specific in their wording.  After Luther's death, some Lutherans were avoiding the term "sola fide" in a proposed settlement with Catholics (Augsberg Interim). This is a good lesson for all Christians as they judge the teaching of the various church denominations, even within Lutheranism. — In the next Part 3…