History of Religions… or folly? Historian… or fool? Friedrich Michael Schiele and modern "church history"

      This blog's mission, in part, is to present proper Church History, something that is sorely lacking in today's modern world.  But during the lifetime of Franz Pieper, his writings gave his readers a purely Christian perspective on events and people from around the world — amazingly so.  In the following short comment by Pieper from 1913, we gain a true perspective on most writings of "church history" in our modern world:

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 59 (1913), p. 570. Translation by BackToLuther, modified from DeepL translation (Google). 

The folly of a historian of religions. A bookseller's advertisement quotes the following pronunciation of the historian of religions [Friedrich Michael] Schiele, who died in the summer of this year [1913]: “The historian of religions has to tell the people without any ulterior motive what the results of his professional work led him to and how he arrived at the results. His messages may shake the faith in the truth of religion—he must not cover it up or weaken it. They may confirm the faith—he must not make any attempt at persuasion. With serious openness and without any tendency, he gives us news of what has allowed him and his fellow researchers to find by methodical research. Sincerity knows no bounds at all.” This could, at best, be applied to pagan religions.  But no one can play the role of a knowledgeable and a critical person towards the Christian religion. If he does, he is an exceptional fool. The natural man does not hear anything of the Spirit of God; it is foolishness to him and cannot recognize it, for it must be spiritually directed. All knowledge of the Christian religion and all understanding of it is only imparted through faith in Christ's Word. The one who does not recognize this and acts accordingly is an ignorant man and inflated in his heart without reason, as the Apostle Paul explains 1 Tim. 6:3-5.      F. P. [Franz Pieper]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Schiele's assertions are similar to those who promote "objectivity" or "scientific method" or "impartiality" in religious history over a Scriptural perspective.  This methodology was also used in judging Holy Scripture itself by other German scholars.  One of them was quoted in the 1886 Synodical Conference Report (Boomhower translation, p. 22: Thomasius ): “If only one gives himself up to them impartially, he will immediately convince himself that these scriptures are not dictated by the Holy Spirit.”  The Report responded:

“May God preserve in grace every pious Christian from such ‘impartiality’”!

There are many posts in my blog labeled "Church History" and "Historical Theology", but this post included a quote from Pieper that sets the bar for understanding true Church History:

"Where things are as they should be, the Church will, therefore, elect only such men as professors of church history as are thoroughly conversant with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts, well informed in dogmatics, in order that the instruction in church history will not confuse but aid Christian understanding." (Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics I, 100-101, also here)

So we know by Prof. Schiele's own words that his "history" is not true Church History, but at best can be consulted only for pagan religion history.  —  Church Historians in the LC-MS, such as Drs. Paul L. Maier (example) and Cameron MacKenzie, although not without some benefit, at times overrule a Scriptural perspective, essentially following Schiele's methodology, in the interest of unionism or in order to gain the favor of today's scholars.