Churchman 2: Freedom of congregations; Synod only advisory, Pfotenhauer stands firm

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1936 CTM essay "Walther as Churchman". — In the Introduction, I wrote that Fuerbringer hinted at unrest in the Synod.  This segment reveals that some had requested "that the Synod be given more power and authority".  He then holds up the one who held firm against this during his tenure, to not allow such a change.  More will be said about Fuerbringer's praise of President Pfotenhauer below.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Original German essay in CTM, vol. 7 (October, 1936), p. 721-730, full text here. Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Fuerbringer's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] are mine.

Walther as Churchman.

[by Ludwig Fuerbringer; continued from Part 1]

Particularly Walther's outstanding talent and activity as a churchman came to the fore in the preparations for the foundation of our synod in which the Saxon emigrants, those sent by Loehe in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, and Wyneken, who had come independently to America, united. We cannot, in this present article, describe the whole course of this important and interesting history; but this is clear and must never be forgotten that in the Constitution adopted by the Synod the true biblical principles are laid down for a free church fellowship independent of the State; and it is a historical fact that in the drafting of this Constitution, Walther, who through the Lutheraner founded by him in 1844 had done the most important preparatory work for the union, now above all said the decisive words. This Constitution stressed in particular the freedom of the individual congregations, unreservedly rejecting all synod rule in the important paragraph on the relationship of the Synod to the congregations. It is significant that precisely the congregation of St. Louis, which was under Walther's leadership, applied for this addition to the provisional constitution at the first synodal assembly in 1847, which was then also accepted and confirmed by the congregations which had joined together as synod: 

“Since the synod is only an advisory body with regard to the self-government of the individual congregations, no decision of the former, if it imposed something on the individual congregation, has binding force for the latter.…  Such a <page 724> synod resolution can only be binding if the individual congregation has examined it and voluntarily accepted and confirmed it by means of a formal congregation council…  If a congregation does not find the decision appropriate to the Word of God or unsuitable for its circumstances, then it has the right to reject the decision.” 2) 

This paragraph has now been in force for almost ninety years. Also in our new Synodical Constitution it is found, albeit somewhat shorter, in the seventh paragraph: 

“Relationship of the Synod to its members. The Synod is not a church authority with legislative and coercive powers toward its members, and is only an advisory body with regard to the self-government of the individual congregations. There is therefore no resolution of the Synod, when it imposes upon the individual congregations something that does not appear to be in accordance with the Word of God or that it is unfit for their circumstances, that has binding power.” 3) 

And experience has shown that our Synod did well with this paragraph. It has been repeatedly pointed out and also requested that the Synod be given more power and authority with regard to the implementation of the Synod resolutions; but our current Honorary President, Dr. F. Pfotenhauer, has stood firm that this point should remain unchanged. And as far as I know the history of the other Lutheran Church bodies of our country, in this article one has followed more and more the example of our Synod, and no body which advocated a synod rule on a greater or lesser scale has had such financial success as our Synod under this free order. 

———————

2) First Synod Report of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States of 1847, p. 6.

3) Synod Handbook of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States, p. 4.

———————

= = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 3  = = = = = = = = =

      The weakness of Fuerbringer's presentation is that he only stressed the "financial success" of the Missouri Synod under their "free order".  But the "free order" was more importantly targeted for the "self-government of the individual congregations", which primarily targeted matters of doctrine.  And the praise of Synod President Pfotenhauer should now include his firm stand against changes of doctrine. He was the last Synod president who truly was "Old Missouri". An example of this was his concern for the Wisconsin Synod's aberration in their Doctrine of the Ministry. — In the next Part 3…