GB14: Buchwald misuses Walther's lamentations; Free Church could be better?

      This concludes from Part GB13 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Just like German Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann in his book of 1881, (see blog post Part RH10) Buchwald points to the lamentations that Walther had for his Synod. In the 1878 address to the Synod, Walther spoke thus: "the time of the first love of our synod, which we older members of it once saw, is gone". So Licentiate Buchwald (Ph.D.) does the same thing as Pastor Hoffmann in his 1881 pamphlet. Germany’s State churchmen's only mention of Missouri is to deride it, and to twist its writings. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.144 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

 

Now just one more thing! At the end Buchwald quotes some passages from our [Walther’s] jubilee sermon of 1872 and from our synod address of 1878, in which we seriously complain that "among some formerly zealous members, especially of our older congregations" a sad decline can be felt. From this Buchwald concludes, in almost unbelievable blindness, among other things: "It is not beautiful fruits that doctrinal discipline, communion discipline and separation of state and church have borne", and the editor of the Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt (Pastor Schenkel in Cainsdorf) agrees with him! Indeed, Buchwald remarks: 

"Is it worse or better? It remains to be seen!" 

It is true that we do not take back any of the complaints we have made and recognize from the bottom of our hearts that we have great cause to humble ourselves in the dust before God because of them; but if the aforementioned gentlemen leave it open whether things are worse or better in their state church congregations, this reveals a truly astonishing insight into their conditions, or damage and infirmities. It is only good that Buchwald responded to Pastor Willkomm's accusation that their state church was a Babel. When even an old Saxon preacher [? - unknown] who had emigrated in 1838 for the sake of religion, who had spent a longer period of time in Germany in 1850 and 1860 and made his observations there, who was also quite familiar with German theological and popular literature, was also concerned about the religious, moral and social situation out of a love of the fatherland that had not yet died out, and ecclesiastical conditions, we would otherwise create a picture of the Babel of the other world, which would drive away the masters' desire to tickle themselves over our infirmities, which we have not punished according to a police but a spiritual standard.

In summary: Licentiate Buchwald's writing is indeed a splendid sleeping powder and lullaby for the awakened consciences over there, which he has prepared as a guardian of his Zion, but as a defense [apologia] for his state church it is so well done that everyone immediately sees that, as easily as he may be able to read old manuscripts and as learned as he may otherwise be (both of which we are not inclined to diminish, together with the associated merits), he has here entered a field in which he is obviously a stranger. Finally, we must say that anyone who wants to learn about the plight of the Saxon state church should read his defense of it. W. [Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - -  End of essay  - - - - - - - - - - -

      In Buchwald's statement, he left his own assertions in some doubt by leaving the door open that the Free Church could be better than the State Church, demonstrating his unstable mind.

      “Red Brick Parsonage” may want to add spiritual judgment, beyond just an evaluation of “Luther scholarship”, to his comments on Georg Buchwald in the future to avoid confusing readers who also read Walther's judgment of this scoffer of the Lutheran Free Church, and the Missouri Synod. Surely his Wisconsin Synod would not want to appear to disagree with Walther in his points against Buchwald.

      May Walther's sharp evaluation of a well known German Luther scholar give aid to those who covet their soul's salvation, by arming them for their own evaluation of what is truly Lutheran and what is not. It certainly helped me!

GB13: Walther condemns State Church 10 ways: deprives of soul & salvation

     This continues from Part GB12 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Ten strong charges against Germany's State Church: follow Walther's countdown of pointed questions beginning with "Who has…". — Valparaiso University students, under Pres. O. P. Kretzmann, flocked to German schools being taught by teachers (or as Walther calls them "false prophets") from the State Church. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.143-144 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

There are only two things we would like to mention briefly.

First of all, Buchwald writes on p. 16: 

"To make such a constitutional question a condition for attaining salvation is quite un-Protestant." (Underlined by Buchwald)

Obviously Buchwald wants to say [falsely] that this is done by the Free Church. What are we to say about this? We remain silent; for if we were to speak, we would have to offend. And yet even the editor of the Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt (Saxon Church and School Bulletin), op. cit. confesses to it! God forgive him for this great sin.

On the other hand, Buchwald writes: 

"No one has ever been separated from his head Jesus Christ by the union of State and Church and this would be and remain the only conceivable reason for separation." (Underlined by us) — 

How? Through the connection between state and church, not one person has ever been deprived of soul and salvation?! — We rather say: uncounted thousands! (Of course, we are not speaking here of that connection in abstracto, but in concreto.) 

(1) Who appointed the educators of the false prophets at the universities? 

 

(2) Who gave wolves to shepherd the churches? 

(3) Who gave the school teachers' seminaries over to the disciples of the Rousseaus, Dinters, Diesterwegs, etc.? [Cp. these to JCWL!]

(4) Who has handed over the church's nurseries, the Christian parochial schools, to hollow, arrogant, rationalistic schoolmasters?

(5) Who has taken the good old agendas, hymnbooks and catechisms from the preachers and congregations by brute force and imposed on them the most wretched works of [theological] art, bristling with the poison of false doctrine? 

(6) Who, above all, has hindered the discipline of doctrine and life in the church? 

(7) Who has persecuted the pure teachers and appointed false prophets in their place? 

(8) Who has destroyed entire Lutheran state churches and turned them into unionist, unbelieving communities through expulsions, fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment? [Stoeckhardt’s imprisonment] Were they not your state bishops and their creatures, the royal, ducal, princely consistories and superintendents? 

 

(9) Who, therefore, can count the souls that have fallen <page 144> victim to the constitution of the state or, as one prefers to speak euphemistically, of the state church and have been dragged to hell by it? 

(10) Who has imposed on you, you believing Saxons, your godless unbelieving ministers and schoolmasters, over whom you sigh, with iron compulsion? Is it not your royal consistory? And you stand up for this constitution? —

- - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part GB14  - - - - - - - - - - -

      One senses that Walther held back from these harsher condemnations in the main body of his narrative so that he could lay out the full picture of Germany's failed theology, and establish the groundwork for them. Then the reader would be prepared for his long list of condemnations.

    I contrast the likes of the unbelieving German/European teachers at the German teachers' seminaries that Walther names in point #3 with the president of the Missouri Synod's Teacher's Seminary in Addison, Illinois: J. C. W. Lindemann.

      Walther had personal experiences relating to his 3rd and 4th point. He described them in other places when speaking of his younger years and his training in Germany. The 8th point, which included fines and imprisonment, was experienced by Prof. George Stoeckhardt before he left Germany for America. — We conclude this series in the next Part GB14…

GB12: Fusion of Church and State? Buchwald defends, Walther attacks; a “quick-witted” Ph.D.

     This continues from Part GB11 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. —  In this segment, Walther finishes his defense of proper discipline for the Lord's Supper. Then he begins a lengthy, strong defense against Buchwald's "fusion of Church and State", just as Pastor Hochstetter did in RH9. Walther call this "theological darkness".

      Again, all green highlighting is meant to point out issues of logic. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.142-143 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

At the end of the second main section of his defense of the conditions in the state church, Buchwald p. 14 poses the following question in a blocked text: 

"Can I therefore not be sure of the forgiveness of my sins in the Lord's Supper because an unworthy person also partakes of the Lord's Supper? Must I, because unworthy enjoyment can and does occur, turn my back on my church, which has received me and educated me to this day?" 

You can see from this that the Doctor philosophiae [Ph.D.] is sticking to his once popular tactic: he is changing the status controversiae. For he knows quite well that no truly Lutheran Free Church member will answer his question in the affirmative, and yet he presents himself as if, as a faithful guardian of his Zion, he had to take the negative answer to his question under his wing. He probably knew no other way to save his glorious state church; and that was the "good purpose" of his little book! —

In the last section, on pp. 14-16, Buchwald defends the fusion of church and state that took place in his state church. Here we encounter a piece of theological darkness that we otherwise only find in Richard Rothe [Wikipedia] and the Prussian Union theologians. There is no room here to show his theory of the relationship of the church to the state in all its nakedness. Nor is it necessary. First of all, Pastor Willkomm has expressly declared that if the demand for doctrinal and communion discipline had been complied with in the state church, which is intertwined with the state, there would have been no separation because of the constitution, although they, the Free Church, would prefer the Free Church constitution. The question of whether it would be better and more in keeping with the Word of God and our church Confessions if the church and state were separated from each other as far as the government of both is concerned, is not, on the other hand, of such a nature that one would say yes only on the one side and no only on the other, since all preachers of the state church who are even somewhat concerned about Joseph's damage [?] sigh over the yoke of the state, which is why the editor of the "Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt" (Saxon Church and School Gazette) in the number of the same of April 1 expressly says that, although Buchwald's writing is "on the whole  <page 143>  an excellent, quick-witted 1) answer", "one may perhaps disagree with individual passages in the writing, e.g. on the relationship between church and state". Finally, we have already dealt with this question in detail on other occasions, partly in our journals and partly at our synod assemblies, so that we may well refer our readers to them. There are only two things we would like to mention briefly.

—————

1) Buchwald's opus is certainly quick-witted, but it is a pity that it always misses the mark, only hits an enemy of its own making and leaves its own opponent unharmed or turns against God's Word and the Confession itself.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB13  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther's attack will culminate in one of his most outspoken condemnations, like his one against a divine-human Holy Scripture… in the next Part GB13.

GB11: Buchwald makes foolish opponents: "straw man" argument

     This continues from Part GB10 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Buchwald takes a parting shot in this matter by asserting a "straw man" argument. Walther blows the straw away. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.141-142 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

Buchwald finally concludes the present section on p. 13. f. with the following words: 

"But the question is well permitted: Does a deception of the pastor never occur in the Free Church, or does he feel able to look into the hearts? (Underlined by Buchwald) When are we even 'worthy' to partake of the Lord's Supper? Is not he who in his innermost heart considers himself 'unworthy' much, much more worthy than some who in Pharisaical pride professes to be rightly prepared, ‘worthy’? Luther is also right here when he says (‘Brief Warning About Confession’ in the Symbolic Books. edited by Müller, p. 842, § 21.): ‘Whoever goes to his work, no matter how pure he has made his confession, only remains so.’” 

We remark on this: Both what is written here at the beginning in underlined type and what follows in ordinary type proves that the writer makes foolish opponents for himself, only to overcome them gloriously to the applause of his readers who are incapable of judgment or who belong to his party. A preacher of the <page 142> Free Church knows quite well that, even with the greatest faithfulness in examination, he cannot prevent some of his examinees from enjoying Holy Communion unworthily; but he wants to prevent that at least, as Luther writes (see above p. 138), his “industriousness” is not to blame. Which is well to be noted! But finally, as far as those who hypocritically consider themselves worthy guests are concerned, the purpose of right examination is not to promote this, but to prevent it as far as possible through God's Word and grace. To want to prevent this by letting people come here uninstructed, untested and unwarned — “let us leave that”, to use Luther's words, “to the enthusiasts”! (see above p. 139)

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB12  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther does not ridicule the Ph.D. for his education, but only for his spiritual blindness. — In the next Part GB12…

GB10: Walther schools Buchwald on communion discipline; "broad-minded"?

     This continues from Part GB9 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Buchwald did not seem to like the uncomfortable job of examining potential communicants, and potentially having to turn someone away from the Lord's Supper. But that is Evangelical practice, so Walther had to call him out on this and instructs this "Luther scholar/Doctor of Philosophy/Licentiate/Deacon" of just how important this practice is for communicants. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.139-141 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

Buchwald continues on p. 13: 

"Luther's practice is also in harmony with this, as he describes it in the 'Brief Admonition to Confession' (Symbol. BB., ed. by Müller, p. 843, 32.): ‘When I admonish to confession, I do nothing else than that I admonish everyone to be a Christian. 1) If I bring you there, then I have also brought you to confession, etc.’” (Underlined by Buchwald)

What this is supposed to prove in favor of the notoriously dissolute practice of the Lord's Supper in the state church is hard to pin down. But a clearer proof lies in those words of Luther for our Free Church practice; for the words used on the occasion of personal registration, the 25th Art. of the Augsburg Conf. and the 15th article of the Apology of the same 2) has the very purpose of testing people to see whether they come to the Lord's Table as Christians and, if this is not yet the case, to make them such Christians. 

—————

2) "Confession is not abolished by the preachers of this part. For we are in the habit of not administering the sacrament to those who have not been previously interrogated and absolved, non-nisi antea exploratis et absolutis." (p. 53. § 1.) "Apud nos utuntur coena Domini multi singulis Dominicis, sed prius instituti, explorati et absoluti. With us, however, the people need the holy sacrament willingly, unpressed, every Sunday, who are first interrogated whether they are instructed in Christian doctrine, know or understand anything in the Lord's Prayer, in faith, in the ten commandments." (p. 212. § 40.) Cf. p. 248. § 1. 259. § 49. [Trigl. 325]

But this is lacking in the state church with few exceptions; whether because the preachers believe that all their people are already <page 140> good Christians, or out of fear of man and laziness, let the gentlemen themselves say. May Deacon Buchwald therefore take to heart what Luther writes shortly before the words he quotes: "But if you will despise it and go so proudly unconfessed, we conclude that you are not a Christian and should not enjoy the sacrament (nec te ad usum sacramenti admittemus)." (op. cit. p. 843. § 29.)

On p. 13 of the pamphlet we read further: 

"But the fact that we withhold a notoriously impenitent sinner from the Lord's Supper is also done at the risk that, 'if not legal action, then at least endless writing in the newspapers and a questioning in the state parliament would be the result'." 

This almost sounds as if this is what is really done in the state church, whereas notoriously this is not even the case. Buchwald therefore rightly adds, as a precaution against being taken at his word: 

"But the fact that we are perhaps (!) somewhat more broad-minded (Underline by Buchwald) in this than the Free Church" (should mean: have a broader conscience), "has its good reason in the fact that we, mindful of Matthew 7:3: 'Why do you see the mote in your brother's eye and are not aware of the beam in your own eye?' do not feel called to be judges over our neighbors. Here, however, we also stand fully and completely on the 'foundation of faith' of the symbolic books. 'God is the judge', says the Apology (M. 185. § 6-8.), who did not command the apostles to judge, but to execute grace, to absolve those who desire it, and they also absolve from sins that do not occur to us." — 

What an exegesis of the Bible and what an interpretation of the Church's confession! What on earth does the Licentiate want to prove that the official judgment of a preacher on obvious sins is splinter judgment? Indeed a wonderful way to be completely relieved of the fatal office of punishment! Has our pamphleteer not read what Luther writes about Matthew 7:3 in his Church Postil? Did he not read there: 

"Those who have the office of judging and condemning do not do wrong when they do so. … Therefore it does not rhyme at all to stretch this text as if the Lord were speaking of those who have the command to punish injustice, such as preachers" etc. (Erl. vol. 13, 81.)

The use of that passage of the Confessions (p. 185, § 5-8 [Ap 6, 5-8; Trigl. 281, 5-8]) is equally wrong. Does he not know that it is directed against the doctrine of the papists, that the penitent must recount all sins with all the circumstances, so that the priest, whom God has here appointed as judge, can prescribe the satisfactions necessary for the expiation of sins according to their quantity, magnitude and gravity? The <page 141> doctor could have seen this from the context in which his quotation stands, if he had, as is fair, paid attention to it. For the whole passage in question begins with the following words: 

"But of the enumeration of sins we have said above in our Confession that we hold that it is not commanded by God. (Underlined in Müller's Book of Concord) For they say that a judge must first hear the things and infirmities before he pronounces judgment, so the sins must first be told, etc., but this is irrelevant. For absolution is not a command to absolve and is not a new judgment to investigate sin. For God is the judge" 

and so on. (See above!) Thus nothing could be more foolish than to use this passage against the pastoral examination that precedes admission to Holy Communion, since the pastor neither demands a heartfelt counting of sins nor investigates secret sins himself, nor decides in any judicial way to what degree of performance the granting and power of absolution should be linked, depending on the findings. With regard to the person being examined, the examination is nothing more than a service of love that a pastor performs for his penitent so that the latter can comply with the apostle's admonition: "Try yourselves whether you are in the faith, examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless you are not able." 2 Cor. 13:5. But with regard to the examiner, it is a duty of love, without the fulfillment of which he makes himself partaker of the terrible sin of the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper of the souls entrusted to him. (1 Tim. 5:22.)

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB11  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Buchwald misused Holy Scripture, and Luther, to attempt to support his lax practice on Communion. Walther instructs his readers on the need for proper examination before Holy Communion. — In the next Part GB11…