This continues from Part 8 (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. — Hochstetter moves his focus from Wyneken to a general overview of the conditions of the Lutherans in America at the time of Missouri's founding. Then he gives the sad history of the Methodists and their enthusiasm, or as Luther called them, Schwärmerei.
Some quotes from Chapter 5: (p. 119-146)
120: "The General Synod, founded in 1820… stated officially that although they had examined Luther's doctrinal structure according to God's Word and found it to be essentially correct, they were on common ground with the United Church of Germany."
121: "The General Synod therefore also refrains from obliging its preachers to use the Lutheran symbols."
120: "The General Synod, founded in 1820… stated officially that although they had examined Luther's doctrinal structure according to God's Word and found it to be essentially correct, they were on common ground with the United Church of Germany."
121: "The General Synod therefore also refrains from obliging its preachers to use the Lutheran symbols."
124: "It was to be regretted that the old Pennsylvanian Synod, which regards Heinrich Melchior Muehlenberg, who had been sent from Halle, as its founder, also joined the General Synod."
126: "the Ohio Synod, which emerged from these conferences by refusing to enter the General Synod…"
127: "…the Lutheran symbols first, which were very rarely found in a pastor’s library at that time"
131: "since precisely the Lutheran confessional writings in all humility subordinate themselves without exception to the Holy Scriptures"
136: "Sihler sent a memoir … in which he finally reproached the Ohio Synod for using the Lutheran Confessions only as a figurehead"
140: "How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification when he has heard the Word of absolution and the word of salvation? How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification if he disregards the word of absolution and the holy sacrament? What good is all the talk of grace, when this grace is conditioned by the works of man?"
142: "they, the Methodists, are the ones who despise God's Word and setup their own work"
126: "the Ohio Synod, which emerged from these conferences by refusing to enter the General Synod…"
127: "…the Lutheran symbols first, which were very rarely found in a pastor’s library at that time"
131: "since precisely the Lutheran confessional writings in all humility subordinate themselves without exception to the Holy Scriptures"
136: "Sihler sent a memoir … in which he finally reproached the Ohio Synod for using the Lutheran Confessions only as a figurehead"
140: "How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification when he has heard the Word of absolution and the word of salvation? How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification if he disregards the word of absolution and the holy sacrament? What good is all the talk of grace, when this grace is conditioned by the works of man?"
142: "they, the Methodists, are the ones who despise God's Word and setup their own work"
Images of men appearing in Chapter 5:
 |
| Sihler ——— B. Kurtz ——— P. Henkel ——— Lehmann ——— Lochner ——— W. Nast —— Whitefield Schmucker —— Muehlenberg——— W. Schmidt ——— Brohm ——— J. Albrecht ——— J. Wesley |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The following is an English translation of C. Hochstetter's Geschichte… by BackToLuther utilizing the DeepL Translator with minor assistance from Dr. Fred Kramer's translation. All hyperlinks, highlighting and red text in square brackets [] are mine. All internal hyperlinks are active in this embedded window, external links should be opened in a new tab or window.
Unfortunately the changing Missouri Synod, even as early as 1919, again, blocked the wider publication of true Church History in relation to the Missouri Synod. According to the biography of Bente's widow Josephine (emphasis mine):
"Volumes III and IV were to follow soon after. However, since it was feared that the publication of these volumes, which were to deal with the doctrinal positions of the Joint Synod of Ohio, the Buffalo Synod, the Iowa Synod, and the Synodical Conference, might frustrate at the very outset the work of the intersynodical conferences then in progress, he was asked to defer publication. These conferences finally came to nothing; but Bente was stricken before he found time to resume his work."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full text of Chapter 5 (fine print) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884, Chapter 5
By Christian Hochstetter
= = = = = = = = =
The state of affairs in the old synods called Lutheran. The so-called Lutheran General Synod (120), the Ohio Synod (125) [and its turn to Confessions, Sihler’s 6 points (131), Brohm’s rebuke (133), Walther’s reproof (134); ], The withdrawal of the Franconian Lutherans from the Michigan Synod (138) . [Methodism moves in (140)] The successful fight against the Methodists (142).
Even though the emissaries of Loehe had until 1845 at first united themselves with synods that had been called Lutheran by Pastor Loehe, the newly settled Saxon Lutherans were alone for eight years until the Evangelical-Lutheran Missouri Synod was constituted. A reader may ask, why was the establishment of this synod necessary, since there were already Lutherans in North America before that! The Lutheran Observer, the organ of the General Synod, also raised this question and
120 >
said, when he came to the Saxon Lutherans, that these Old Lutherans were thoroughly educated old-school people, spotless Orthodox, their theology as exact and straight as only the symbols can make it; the only regret was that they were so stiff that they kept away from the American Lutherans for that very reason. [↑] Dr. Sihler, who at that time had already resigned from the Ohio Synod, as will be reported below, answers the representative of the General Synod in No. 7 and 8, Vol. IV [1847] of Der Lutheraner among other things: “Surely no one is more sorry than we are that we cannot, with our hearts and good conscience, enter into fraternal fellowship, or even ecclesiastical relations, with all who bear the name of Lutheran here in America. For the Word of God, which alone is to determine our hearts and consciences in all our behavior, forbids us to have any contact with such church fellowship or even only ecclesiastical relations, which causes division and scandal in addition to the teaching we have learned, Rom. 16:17, and which persistently opposes this teaching, whether in one or several points. ‘Avoid such,’ it says. Among these, however, are not only the papists and enthusiasts, but also the false brethren, that is, the so-called Lutheran General Synod.” As proof of this, a document signed by the doctors: S. S. Schmucker, B. Kurz, H. N. Pohlmann and J. G. Morris on behalf of the General Synod was sent to Germany in November 1845. These representatives of the General Synod, founded in 1820, who were accompanied by a professor of the Hartwig Seminary [or Hartwick], stated officially that although they had examined Luther's doctrinal structure according to God's Word and found it to be essentially correct, they were on common ground with the United Church of Germany. Only essential agreement in opinions on doctrine and life (these men of the General Synod have only doctrinal opinions) is required of them, they do not regard the differences between the Old Lutheran and Reformed Church as essential; and the direction of the
121 >
so-called Old Lutheran party seems to them to be behind our modern age. The great Luther had made progress throughout his life and at the end of his career he considered his work to be unfinished. Therefore, one is Evangelical-Lutheran if one searches for his advice and keeps on searching. Luther's particular view of the bodily presence of the Lord in Holy Communion has long since been abandoned by most of her pastors, who believe in a blessing of the Lord in the holy sacrament, and through baptism want to add the subject (the person baptized) to the visible church fellowship, etc. — Although the men of the General Synod, with this official declaration, clearly declare their apostasy to the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments and their rationalistic direction, they nevertheless invoke, in the manner of today's United Church, that the Word of the Bible alone is infallible and that the symbolic books must be subordinated to the divine Word, the General Synod therefore also refrains from obliging its preachers to use the Lutheran symbols. With such people it says: the Bible, nothing but the Bible! Also the Lutherans who are loyal to their confession say: the Bible, but also the whole Bible! Whoever only accepts every Word of the Holy Scriptures as the truth inspired by the Holy Spirit will soon also agree with the Lutheran symbols with respect to the form of the saving doctrine, in the correct understanding of the Bible, because they relate to the Bible in the same way that minted gold relates to the solid gold bar; the confession of the Church is the voice of the Bride, who lets her Yea and Amen follow the Word and will of her heavenly Bridegroom. This response of the Bride must, of course, be as definite and affirmative as Peter's response was when he answered the Lord Christ's question: “We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God!” [John 6:69] If Peter had said no more than: I believe all that is written, the Lord Christ would not have liked such a declaration!
That is why Dr. Sihler also refutes the objection that
122 >
the confession must always remain subordinate to Holy Scripture and is therefore not binding, by stating that we do not consider the symbols to be an original norm of faith in addition to Holy Scripture (this alone is the normative norm, those are the normative norm), we are not orthodoxists or confessionalists, for which we are accused, but we also claim that our symbols are in complete agreement with God's Word in terms of their content, and therefore we also demand that when church servants take up their office they commit themselves to the symbols as their own confession. Sihler counters the cry: ‘the Bible and nothing else’, as if everyone were free to interpret the truth of salvation for themselves and to take the words of the sacraments in a figurative way, with the question whether the truth about salvation is ambiguous, vacillating and uncertain, as the heathen said of their oracles. Certainly those Lutherans who take a certain Word of the Bible as it is and base their faith on it show more respect for the revealed truth of Scripture than those who claim the meaning of Scripture to be ambiguous and thus leave it in abeyance as to how Scripture is to be understood!
Finally, Dr. Sihler asks all sincere Lutherans who are seeking truth and whose members are also in the General Synod to immerse themselves in the Lutheran symbols and to compare their teachings and defenses with the Holy Scriptures, so that they will soon come to understand on which side the truth is. But to the frivolous spokesmen who insist in their apostasy from the Scriptures, and who consider the revealed Word of God a secondary matter, sometimes in one way, sometimes in another, Dr. Sihler declares in all seriousness that, inasmuch as they persist in such disloyalty, and continue to disturb the Church, they will also be judged on that day by the Words of the Lord Christ, in which he instituted Holy Communion. — Since The Lutheran Observer further states that the customs prevailing in the congregations of the Missouri Synod are so rigid and the ceremonies so uniform, as such archaic fellows, which is what the so-called Old Lutherans are thought to be,
123 >
and since this reproach recurs more often than not, as if we had forgotten what the Augsburg Confession teaches in Article VII with the: “It is enough,” etc., the following is quoted here from Dr. Sihler's reply: "Our view of the ceremonies is that they are things indifferent [adiaphora, Mitteldinge], neither commanded nor forbidden by the Lord in a certain form, but left to the freedom of the Church and of each individual congregation to order them to their own liking, as they serve for the edification and also for the discipline of the younger generation. In this area, then, we are by no means so stiff as to insist on an unconditional unity and uniformity, except that we do not, of course, agree to any ceremony which, like the sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of the host, and what presupposes doctrine contrary to Scripture, or which is otherwise practised by the opponents of pure doctrine, as for example, the breaking of bread by the Reformed; so that in this, too, we avoid all evil appearances, as if we were indifferent to the falsifications of the doctrine or the false doctrine of the opponents, by secretly accepting their customs. Moreover, we do not at all insist, for instance, that the same agenda and the same hymnal should be used in all congregations, if only both are in accordance with Scripture and the praying and confessing church speaks in them, but not the individual faith or the opinion of this or that spiritual speaker. — The latter is the case with the Reformed and the Methodists, and with the General Synod, where there is usually only a single person who, with his ex corde and clamorous prayers, interposes himself between the Lord and his congregation, and by the captivating, often passionate speech, in which this person cloths his free prayer, which dominates and draws hearts and minds rather than edifying them through the preaching of the pure Word! While the men of the General Synod are indifferent and Reformed in their doctrine, they have become accustomed in their worship practice to the so-called new measures [Otterbein Methodism] and revivals which are common among the Methodists. Rather than rearing the dear youth in the words of
124 >
faith and doctrine, it is more convenient to let the young people grow up without discipline and admonition of the Lord, and consoling oneself with the hope that if a few revivals are hired every year, many a soul will suddenly be shaken and will take refuge in the so-called “mourner's bench” which is respected as far more important than the holy sacrament. One does not consider that the Lord Christ wants to receive his disciples into his kingdom, that they are baptized and that they are taught to keep all that He has commanded. The more the new measures were praised and practiced in the old synods, the less the catechism was practiced; the pastors themselves had long since preferred the English Reformed writings to German Lutheran textbooks. — Since Past. F. Wyneken had belonged for some time to the Synod of the West, which, as a member of the General Synod, also sent delegates to the sessions of the General Synod, he did not fail to bear witness to the truth before this body. In May 1845, a meeting was held in Philadelphia in which he presented a twofold approach to the General Synod in order to purge itself of the accusation that it had fallen away from Lutheran doctrine. Either it should present the books and journals written by Doctors Schmucker and Kurz to the recognized Lutheran doctors Rudelbach and Harleß for examination, or the General Synod should disavow those books and the false doctrine contained therein. The General Synod showed no desire for any of these proposals, but rather revealed an undeniable apostasy from Lutheran doctrine and practice. Since both proposals failed, Pastor Wyneken now broke away from the General Synod and declared that from now on he would warn even more resolutely against this Synod, so that whoever loved the truth would not get involved with it. — It was to be regretted that the old Pennsylvanian Synod, which regards Heinrich Melchior Muehlenberg, who had been sent from Halle, as its founder, also joined the General Synod, which also
125 >
made the Gettysburg Seminary a prey of the spirit of unionism. Instead of sitting at the feet of the apostles and prophets and taking from Christ the Lord everything that serves for salvation, they stressed works, hence also the friendship with the Methodists was great at that time, just as the Methodist Church is given the testimony in that official letter that it had also proved useful, but it would be more advisable to direct the local immigrants leaving Germany to the congregations of the General Synod. — [↑] In the course of this century a synod was formed which had its seat in Columbus, Ohio, and which had to come into manifold contact with the Lutherans settled in the West for the simple reason that in the 1940s the State of Ohio was regarded as a very suitable place for the settlement of the Germans. As blessed as Muehlenberg's effectiveness was in the last century, the fruit it had borne was already disturbed and spoiled in most places during the storms of the North American Revolution, and whoever still wanted spiritual life in the Pennsylvania congregations often became prey to the Methodists. The seriousness with which Muehlenberg and his co-workers from Halle had pursued pastoral care in the congregations was gone with the following generation. Most of Muehlenberg's children and descendants converted to the Episcopal Church, which was unfortunately regarded as related to Lutheranism! — Nevertheless, the Spirit of God enlightened some preachers who wanted to adhere to the scriptural doctrine of salvation of the Lutheran Church and the Lutheran sacramental doctrine. Paul Henkel is especially mentioned as a steadfast Lutheran of that time. He had been a member of the Pennsylvanian Synod since 1782 and is portrayed as a tireless missionary and self-denying servant of Christ. Already in 1812, eight pastors and three delegates gathered under his leadership in Pastor Weygand's parish, Washington County, Pennsylvania, for a special conference against the then ruling
method of conversion. In 1818, the same Conference considered it its duty to draw up a defence document on the doctrine of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, conversion and prayer. Paul Henkel was entrusted with this work, and the Ohio Synod, which emerged from these conferences by refusing to enter the General Synod in spite of frequent requests and mutual negotiations, had thus acquired a legitimate position. From 1818 to 1830, this Synod existed under the name of a General Conference; its pastors had such an extensive field among the settlers moving to the West that some served 7-9 congregations in different counties. This conference also employed traveling missionaries who served in Ohio and in. Virginia, and they recognized the need to found their own Lutheran seminary, because the training that individual young people received from the older preachers, who gave private instruction to such students in addition to their ministry, was quite inadequate. A suitable professor was also found in the person of venerable Wilhelm Schmidt, who is regarded as the founder of the Lutheran seminary in Columbus, Ohio. The teaching at this seminary was to be given in the German language, as the Constitution demanded at the time, and this was not only appropriate to the circumstances, since the Center of the Germans was moving more and more from Pennsylvania to Ohio, but there was also a kind of guarantee that 'with the help of this medium the German-Lutheran Catechism and the love for the German-Lutheran Church would remain valid. Prof. W. Schmidt was called early into eternity, and after him Professors Winkler and Schaefer worked with blessing at Columbus. At the same time, however, when Loehe’s first emissaries Adam Ernst, Dr. Sihler and others had entered the Ohio Synod, a so-called English party rose up in the Synod, which thought that the seminary should not remain German and not become Old Lutheran, as it was called.
127 >
Although the forefathers and fathers were German, and almost all members of the Ohio Synod were German-speaking, nativism still prevailed, which looked down on German Lutherans as “foreigners”. When Dr. Sihler thought it was time to get serious about Lutheranism, especially when he reproved the unionistic practice of pastors who, in addition to the Lutherans, also served Reformed, or, more frequently, mixed congregations of Lutherans and Reformed, he was answered, for example by Pastor Lehmann: “You want to impose principles on us that come from the ‘old country’ (from Germany), we cannot use them here.” Sometimes they tried to make a run in the right direction. When it was discovered that the General Synod English translation of the Catechism with its questions and answers mutilated and disregarded in the parts relating to the Lord's Supper, it was decided to organize a literal translation of the Lutheran Catechism. However, at the same time, also by a synod decision, the "common hymnal" (gemeinschaftliche Gesangbuch), as it is called on the title page, published in the territory of the General Synod, was kindly recommended. While it was said that the Synod, as an "Evangelical Lutheran" synod, held to all Lutheran symbols, pastors within the Ohio Synod were not yet committed to the Lutheran Confessions at that time; if the Lutheran-minded urged that this be done, the hearing on such questions was postponed for up to three years. It was finally approved that a few dozen copies of the Book of Concord be sent from Germany, so that the pastors would be enabled to read the Lutheran symbols first, which were very rarely found in a pastor’s library at that time. Much more often a textbook or manual of the Freemasons or the Oddfellow Lodge was found there, because some Ohio preachers were not only notaries and agents of various fire and life insurance companies, but also members of the above-mentioned sworn secret societies. Since these secret orders
128 >
in their religious exercises (prayers and common "funeral ceremonies) want to deny Christianity in principle, to accept a "supreme being" instead of the triune God, to commit themselves to be able to fraternize with Jews and such people, to substitute a humanistic world religion in the place of Christianity, while they promote Christianity as something sectarian, and so idolatrously cling to and serve their brotherhood that they trample the first commandment underfoot, it was inevitable that the various spirits would clash in the midst of the Ohio Synod. When at the synod assembly in Zanesville an attempt was made to give the Columbus seminary a different form, it was still possible to overcome the friends of so-called American Lutheranism by invoking the original purpose of this seminary. However, Prof. Winkler was soon ousted from this seminary, the Native Germans who had come to this seminary as students were persuaded to leave it and the seminary was suspended until further notice. The doctors of the General Synod refer to this in their letter sent to Germany and believe that the preachers who come over from Germany should not come with the intention of restructuring the American Lutheran Church according to European standards. This would only cause strife and discord. From this it can be seen that the voting leaders of the General Synod also had friends and comrades-in-arms in the Ohio Synod. Although there was no formal affiliation with the General Synod, they refused to call this obviously apostatized synod an unlutheran synod. Since the General Synod at that time called itself the American Lutheran Church, a conference district in Eastern Ohio had brought the question before the Zanesville Synod in 1844: "Which Synods are Lutheran?” However, the completion and answering of the question was postponed until the next year. The Lutherans were particularly annoyed by the fact that since 1842 an agenda
129 >
was in use in the Ohio Synod, which was equal to the Union Agenda introduced by the Prussian king with regard to the distribution of Holy Communion, and was even more stale and inferior to the Prussian agenda in many prayers and other formulas. Dr. Sihler, together with Pastors J. A. Ernst, A. Selle, W. Richmann, A. Schmidt, had addressed a written petition to the Ohio Synod gathered in Lancaster, Ohio, protesting against the customary distribution of Holy Communion according to the agenda of the time, which was based on the words: “Christ saith: This is my body”. The meaning of this formula is: everyone can believe and keep what Christ has spoken, whatever he wants! It is clear that such a formula provided desirable information for the so-called communal or mixed congregations, which were usually recorded as “Lutheran and Reformed”; however, because it substituted doubt and ambiguity for confession, the Lutheran-minded put the emphasis on the demand that the Holy Sacrament no longer be administered through the above united distribution formula in the Ohio Synod. The other abuses, the lack of doctrinal discipline, the granting of licenses, etc., could have continued for some time if the Ohio Synod had only agreed to this demand! This was followed by the following decision at the Synod meeting in Lancaster [in 1844], and the Ohio Synod itself was sufficiently distinguished by this decision.
Firstly, on the first question against the General Synod, “Which Synods are Lutheran?” the synod simply proceeded with the agenda for the day. Secondly, the requested rejection of the United distribution formula was denied and, on the contrary, the use of the Agenda introduced in 1842, which is unchurchly and Calvinistic in all absolution formulas and does not commit to the confessions of the Lutheran Church in the granting of ordination, was recommended to the members of the Synod as being in accordance with their duties! Thirdly, the petition, which a) demands
130 >
that the Synod profess all the symbols of the Lutheran Church, b) calls for a unanimous witness against the false sacramental doctrine of the General Synod, c) calls for a thorough reform of the system of candidate examination, d) urges no more serving of Reformed Lutheran congregations, and sees in this an approval of the false union of our time, was delayed and returned by the Synod to the reporting committee. Thereupon the petitioners withdrew their petition and instead made the brief proposal: “That the Ohio Synod henceforth profess all the symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and solemnly commit their candidates to them when ordination is granted.” But also the decision on this proposal was again postponed for three years after it had been negotiated in the ministerium. — As strict as one knew how to deal with parliamentary rules and all sorts of shady tricks in the course of such negotiations, one did not hesitate to disloyally violate the constitution of the Columbus Seminary and to deprive it of the German character it had had from the very beginning. It was clear that even the Ohio Synod had neither ear nor eye for oral and written explanations, so it was now a matter of heart and conscience for the petitioners who had submitted the above-mentioned petition to declare their withdrawal from the Ohio Synod. Eight pastors and a schoolteacher named J. C. Schürmann, who was then in Pittsburgh, signed a declaration of resignation in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 18, 1845, which is printed in No. 11 of the second year in Der Lutheraner ([“Kirchliche Nachricht”). The declaration concludes with the heartfelt and urgent request that the Synod should not remain in this state, but should consider the welfare of many dearly bought souls and its own responsibility!
While Der Lutheraner made this announcement with sadness, while the Ohio Synod, which still seemed most inclined to Lutheranism, hereby indicated that it could not totally agree with righteous Lutherans on the basis of the divine Word, the Lutheran Standard,
131 >
the organ of the Ohio Synod, judged the resignation of those who had previously seemed repugnant to it as a happy event lying before it. Pastor Loehe was also surprised that this editorial staff, which consisted of Pastors Lehmann, Spielmann and Gruenwald, spoke down from their high horses. [↑] Meanwhile, the departure of the above-mentioned men from the Ohio Synod by God's will also served as an encouragement. In view of the upswing that Lutheranism was now taking place in the West of the country, the Ohio people wanted to show themselves to be Lutheran, and when in 1848 a meeting of the Ohio Synod in Columbus took place, it was decided there: “The Ministry of the General Synod of Ohio undertakes to confess the symbolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, both individually and as an ecclesial body, and to interpret Sacred Scripture in accordance with them,” and all those who are licensed or ordained shall henceforth be bound by these confessional documents after prior examination. — Since the organ of the General Synod, the Lutheran Observer, from its unionist standpoint, immediately accused its dear Ohio brethren of narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness for the sake of this decision, Dr. Sihler took up the pen to defend the Ohio pastors against these unjust attacks of the men of the General Synod. In No. 2 Vol. 5 of Der Lutheraner he proves that this does not mean at all that one wants to grant the symbolic books a position above the Holy Scriptures, since precisely the Lutheran confessional writings in all humility subordinate themselves without exception to the Holy Scriptures and reject the belief in authority based on Papist tradition as anti-Christian. They only want to be witnesses of the "the form of pure words, contained in the Scripture itself.” Furthermore, in number 3 of the same periodical, Dr. Sihler demonstrates to the Lutheran Ohio Synod what ecclesial action would be related to that important decision. First of all, as a result of this public and solemn confession, no more mixed congregations should be served, especially
132 >
Holy Communion should no longer be given to the Reformed as such, because nobody can approve the doctrine of the Lutheran Church and yet belong to a false teaching church; secondly, the unionist formula of distribution and the use of the unionist Agenda must now also be stopped; thirdly, the so-called united hymnal must be got rid of as soon as possible; fourthly, when distributing Holy Communion, one should refrain from inviting members of other fellowships to enjoy it (which on festive occasions was often done from the altar by the preacher); fifthly, announcement for Holy Communion should be introduced in the congregations; sixthly, the pastors of the Ohio Synod should consider that the call they have received through the congregation is a divine one, it follows that 1) the preacher should spend his whole life in the service of the congregation, that is, he should not be hired or hired out, thus becoming a servant of man, 2) the congregation should also listen to its appointed shepherd throughout his life, provided that he faithfully fulfills his ministry in doctrine and life. The carelessness with which pastors leave their congregations for the sake of external benefit should also cease. “This abominable and unworthy renting and hiring on the part of the congregations and the no less disgraceful Lutheran pastors who let themselves be rented or hired is one of the worst stains of shame on most congregations and synodical constitutions of this land,” exclaims Dr. Sihler and says, after he has recommended to the Ohio pastors the conscientious examination of the candidates and the establishment of the so necessary congregational schools, it would be advisable for them to draft a new synodical constitution. He concludes with the heartfelt wish that the confessional-practical reform of the entire previous ecclesiastical system, in keeping with the commitment to the symbols, may soon and thoroughly take place. One sees from this essay that Sihler, who at that time was already Vice President of the Missouri Synod, still bore a cordial love for his old Ohio colleagues. [↑] The
133 >
Ohioans, however, paid little heed to this well-meant advice; rather, in the Der Lutheraner numbers of the following month, November 1848 [vol. 5, p. 45 ff., “Die Generalsynode und der Lutheran Standard.”], one can read that the Lutheran Standard contains an article in which the leaders of the Ohio Synod give ten reasons why it is desirable for the Ohio Synod to join the General Synod. The Ohio body did not seem to understand that such a union would approve of the false teachings of the General Synod such as its Calvinist sacramental doctrine, the rejection of actual absolution, and other unscriptural violations. Pastor Brohm therefore proclaims in Der Lutheraner that since the Ohio journal wanted to be a Lutheran Standard, we would have expected a completely different response to the General Synod's proposals for unification, and the editor of Der Lutheraner finally asks how the recent commitment of Ohio to all symbolic books can be harmonized with a unification with the General Synod? He reminds us of some important passages of the symbols, as well as of the first petition of the holy Lord’s Prayer, together with the explanation of this petition, in the Smalcald Articles [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, § 42, from the German]: “Paul commands, ... ... here stands God's command that everyone should beware and not be in agreement with those who teach unjust doctrines.” Furthermore, two important points from the Formula of Concord were brought out. — Although the formal connection to the General Synod was not made at that time, the Ohio pastors did not like their words to be taken in the above-mentioned manner, and it often seemed as if there was no inclination to take the pledge to the symbols seriously in practice. As it was well proven to them that the licensing of pastors system, which was customary with them, militates against the symbols, as for example Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession, they nevertheless continued to adhere to it for many years. They wanted to let the prospective preachers go through degrees before they could be ordained. — Since some preachers proved to be unfit to do so, the Ohio Synod wanted to withhold ordination for a considerable time also from such as had been regularly called by a congregation.
134 >
The Missouri Synod, on the other hand, advises that the candidates should be all the more thoroughly examined and researched in their beliefs and moral standpoint. Licenses, however, are something non-Lutheran, for they speak 1) against the apostolic and ecclesiastical practice, which knows only of ordination; 2) presuppose a distrust of the attitude of the licentiates; where this would be justified, the office should not be committed to them at all; 3) presuppose an improper difference between the ordained and the licentiate; 4) prevent a firm, cheerful conscience of office in the licentiate, since he is unable to discover in the license any confirmation of his call.
[↑] Such a licenced pastor [or Licentiate] not only became a hybrid between a candidate and an ordained person, he was also considered, along with his official acts, to be a creature of the Synod that had licenced him, as if the truth of the Gospel and the nature of the sacrament (the validity of Baptism and the Holy Communion) were dependent on a synodical decision. Since there were also cases in which candidates continued to hold office even after the year for which they had been licensed had expired, an Ohio conference convened in Columbus once took the liberty of passing the following resolution: “Resolved, that all Actus Ministeriales (all official acts, as baptism, administration of the Holy Communion, etc.) of Wilhelm N. and Konrad M. and all others who have the same relationship with the Church are invalid in the opinion of this conference.” Although the Ohio pastors want to be zealous for the glory of Christ and His Church with this resolution, which they published in the Lutheran Standard under January 6, 1847 [sic, February 9], this resolution contains, as Der Lutheraner testifies loudly [Vol. 3, 1846-47 No. 12, February 9, 1847, p. 69 f., “The Columbus Conference”], a manifest desecration of the divine name, the Gospel, and the holy foundations of God. For such conference members hereby declare that as soon as our authority has expired, then the right seal (which we have to give) is missing, then God's Word is invalid, God's institution is nothing, God's promise is in vain! Pastor Walther proves that even the
135 >
Papists do not have such a despicable doctrine and, on the other hand, draws on Luther's writing of the 1533 “The Private Mass and the Consecration of the Priests” [AE 38, 139-214], "neither priests nor Christians, not even the holy Christian Church itself can perform any sacrament.” So Luther. When Walther himself asks: does the Columbus Conference not know that there is a huge difference between rectum and ratum, i.e. between legitimacy and validity, then Ohio’s theology is being asked to do too much. But he is right to ask whether they do not know Augustine's saying: “The Word comes to the element, and so it becomes a sacrament? According to his genuinely evangelical way, Walther continues: “Has not the Conference also thought how terribly it would offend and confuse consciences by such a decision, for who can be certain of his baptism, his communion, if that Conference decision were true?
In June 1850, Dr. Sihler had arrived in New Bremen as a guest at the West-Ohio Synod, because he wanted to make it clear to the Ohio Synod, together with his brother in office Pastor Heid, that abuses were taking place in their ecclesiastical practices that were in direct contradiction to the publicly accepted Lutheran Confessions; in particular, it concerned the Missourian pastors to protest against the exception of a preacher named Gockelen, who had crept in from Pennsylvania and who was bringing a bunch of rude people with the holy sacrament, although they had left their Pastor Heid because he wanted to have a friendly pastoral conversation with these people before the Lord's Supper. But they had rejected him, although he wanted to visit them in their homes. Meanwhile, however, the decisive negotiation with Gockelen and his acceptance into the Ohio Synod took place in the so-called Ministerium (the closed meeting of pastors), so Pastor Heid was not allowed to do so, although he had communicated his protest in detail to the Ohio Synod president. At the same time, an Ohio pastor awakened to the truth asked his
136 >
Synod how he should conduct himself towards his United congregation? The answer was that he should behave as a Lutheran pastor and that no more united (mixed) congregations should be formed in the future. But this pastor was not told “how” he should behave as a Lutheran pastor, how he should help the Reformed and United people to recognize and break down their false standpoint. When Dr. Sihler pointed this out, this interference was interpreted by him as immodesty. Sihler sent a memoir from the assembly of the West Ohio Synod to Der Lutheraner, Vol. 7, No. 14, *) in which he finally reproached the Ohio Synod
-----------------------------
*) A certain Ohio Pastor Spengler had written to Pastor Heid concerning another congregation: “Forcing people to accept their previous pastor (a Missourian) again is not what is done in America”, (an expression taken from the English language). The pain for the souls, which are strengthened in their impenitence by such practice, then gives Dr. Sihler the following fervent words to write, which give a faithful picture of the carelessness with which such American businessmen administer their preaching ministry: “What can one respond to such words, which measure the Word and ordinance of God by American disorder, instead of measuring this disorder by the Word of God? Where is the command of Christ to act thus in such a case? Matt. 7:5. This however will do – and in this loving surrender to American taste the Ohio Synod exercises itself more than a little together with her like-minded sister synods – this will do, to make a hired preacher, baptiser, confirmer, communion dispenser, marriage performer and funeral orator; but this will not do, to take an interest in the particular spiritual need of individuals as a father in Christ, to rebuke, to comfort, and to admonish; this will do, to confirm people who, although they are not feeble-minded, have nevertheless not learned the ten commandments and the creed, and are admitted to the Lord's Supper although incapable of self examination; however it will not do to teach also the weak the one thing needful; this will do, to accept a large number of congregations, and every four weeks preach to them according to American taste a loose mixture of Law and Gospel, (according to the proverb: Wash my hide, but don't get it wet), to conduct no instruction of children, and then quickly to ride home; this however will not do, to minister to one or at most two congregations thoroughly and painstakingly, without fear of men and care for one's own belly to rebuke also the pet sins of Americans, and to comfort with the Gospel only such as hunger and thirst after
137 >
for using the Lutheran Confessions only as a figurehead, behind which it continued to pursue its loose, frivolous course, and let the poor congregations degenerate and spoil more and more. In No. 20 of the same year, the reader finds a parallel essay in which Pastor Lehmann, who had now become professor of the Columbus seminary, presents Dr. Sihler with a flood of abusive words, personal failures and gross abuse, that it is not true that the Ohio Synod accepts such preachers who just speak out too unionistically (as Gockelen had done), that no advice from Dr. Sihler was sought, also no defense or praise in its relationship to the General Synod (with reference to the article mentioned above), that the members of the Ohio Synod resist hierarchical despotism, and Missourian auricular confession (this is what the confessional was called). Sihler, he stated, could only tear down, etc. Dr. Sihler answered to the right of Lehmann's printed essay, point by point, stating the facts, and kindly asks Prof. Lehmann to come to Fort Wayne during the holiday season, to see the seminary, the congregational meetings, etc. with his own eyes, so that he would find there neither hierarchical despotism nor democratic arbitrariness, but a harmonious cooperation of teachers and listeners on the basis of the divine Word. In regard to the practice of the Ohio Synod, however, names and
-----------------------------
righteousness. This will do, to neglect the poor children, and to leave them wholly to the district schools, and thereafter also to conclude confirmation instruction as quickly as possible. But this will not do, by means of friendly instruction and admonition of parents to institute parish schools, and to instruct the children themselves from little on in the Word of God, in Bible History and Catechism, and to raise them as the nursery and hope of the church; this will do, to let oneself be hired temporarily by congregations, and thus to be hired preachers, and hired servants; but this will not do, to secure a regular call, and as servants of God and ministers of Christ to rebuke, to threaten, to admonish, and to practice the church discipline ordained by the Lord all the way to excommunication.”
138 >
evidence are at his service, which he, out of prudence, still withholds. By the way, Dr. Sihler asks Prof. Lehmann there to name pastors of his association who are not hired preachers and have a "regular call", who have regular parish schooling and have the church discipline commanded by Christ, and thus do not conduct their ministry according to American taste, but according to God's order. — Towards the end Dr. Sihler exclaims: “If only some willingness on the part of the Synod and my fellow witnesses had met our first request, perhaps everything would have been different.” —
We break off now and reserve the right to present the further history of the Ohio Synod and its relationship to the Missouri Synod in a later chapter. [Chapter XI]
[↑] The withdrawal of the Franconian Lutherans from the Michigan Synod.
One year after Dr. Sihler and his fellow witnesses had resigned from the Ohio Synod, on June 25, 1846, the day of the delivery of the Augsburg Confession [June 25], four pastors sent by Pastor Loehe to serve the local Lutheran Church signed a document, W. Hattstaedt, A. Craemer, Fr. Lochner and J. Trautmann, signed a document, resigning from the Michigan Synod. Since this Synod was originally formed by congregations whose members were gathered by Lutherans who had immigrated from Germany, it was hoped that better elements were found in it than in the Ohio Synod. Pastor Schmidt in Ann Arbor was the founder of the synod, which he called the Missions Synod, while he and the young helpers he trained in a short time, focused his attention on the mission among the Indians of Michigan. Later this synod called itself the German-Lutheran Synod of Michigan. Pastor Loehe had corresponded with Pastor Schmidt, who promised that in this synod he would commit himself to all the symbolic books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Pastor Hattstädt was the first of the Loehe emissaries who entered this synod, and since Pastor Schmidt declared that the Indian mission should also be carried out from the Lutheran Church point of view, it was also possible, as mentioned above, to meet Pastor A. Craemer, who had left Franconia with a small German Lutheran missionary congregation, at the river Cass in Saginaw Co, Michigan, to work united with the missionaries from Ann Arbor among the pagan Indians. The Franconian Lutherans also supported this mission with donations, so that a mission farm could be acquired there. In the meantime, a pupil of the Basel Mission Institute, Pastor Dumser, who had been ordained in his old homeland but had not been committed to the symbols of the Lutheran Church, had arrived for this station. He declared at the synod that a complete commitment to our symbolic books was a moral constraint for him. It also turned out that the so-called Lutheran Synod of Michigan had obviously served several mixed congregations as such with Word and sacrament. Against these abuses a unanimous protest was immediately lodged by the four above-mentioned pastors, in which was requested the exclusion of the un-Lutheran missionary Dumser and the cleansing of the synod due to the unchurchly ministry to mixed congregations. First a letter was sent to the then president of the synod, and then the motion was renewed in a public synod meeting because of the unlutheran missionary Mr. Dumser. Meanwhile the mission committee, even before this application had been settled, had already cast its vote to confirm Pastor Dumser in his office, even though he himself repeatedly and publicly declared that he would not allow himself to be committed to the Lutheran symbols without reservations. Since finally also approval of Reformed customs at Holy Communion were condoned and the synod wanted to transplant the “United-Evangelical” stance of the Basel Missions House to the Synod of Michigan, the above-mentioned resignation declaration came about, in which the
140
undersigned pastors assert that they have come to America from their homeland to serve the Lutheran Church and Mission and it alone, and only in response to the statement that the Synod of Michigan is a purely Lutheran Synod did they join this Synod. But now they had to leave with deep sorrow at the un-Lutheran position which the Synod, despite all the counter-testimonies which they (the Lutheran preachers) had given; such a position was a very dangerous one, especially in the ecclesiastical circumstances of this country, because determination and firmness in doctrine and practice were highly necessary for a fruitful work. — [↑] The above-mentioned four Lutheran preachers withdrew from the Michigan Synod, but the Synod did not benefit from this; it was necessary to learn in Michigan that many souls die spiritually because of laxity in doctrine and life, and that this works into the hands of the sects, especially the Methodists. Since Pastor Schmidt, who was in Ann Arbor, was considered a friend of the pious Pietists, many Christians from Württemberg in particular, who had belonged to the so-called "ecclesial communities" there, followed him. Meanwhile, these newly immigrated congregations under the leadership of the Basel pupils, who served them, did not come to the realization of their ecclesiastical rights and duties. One who grew up there and was subsequently trained theologically in a Missourian seminary judges from those conditions: "One heard there a lot of pious talk there; this also took the place of doctrine in confirmation instruction.” — Prayer from the heart, certain fruits of godliness, were promoted even before the foundation of faith was laid in the heart. It was right to say that conversion was necessary, but they wanted to be assured of conversion through all kinds of spiritual skills and experiences, and they mixed sanctification and justification with it. How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification when he has heard the Word of absolution and the word of salvation? How can the poor sinner be assured of his justification if he disregards the word of absolution and the holy sacrament? What good is all the talk of
grace, when this grace is conditioned by the works of man? The pastors of this Michigan Synod brought with them already from Germany the erroneous opinion that, especially in a mission field, the confessional difference between the existing churches must be dropped. When the Lutherans wanted to preserve the truth revealed in Word and sacraments according to the command: "Keep that which is committed to thy trust," [1 Tim 6:20], they were told: "You want to quarrel about words!” But while one did not want to have Lutherans who praise the salvation that came through Christ and leave the glory to God alone, who through the power of the Word, which is spirit and life, works the faith in the hearts of those who hear the Word, the Methodists in Michigan, also in Ann Arbor, where Pastor Schmidt stood for 40 years, were to find the field open to their activities. While in Perry County, Missouri, all where souls are led to the right pasture, no German Methodist community has been able to arise until this day, in Michigan, on the other hand, the Albright Brethren [Albrechtbrüder, Albright’s People, Jacob Albrecht] [pic] and the Episcopal Methodists became so powerful that they found their way from there to Germany, especially to Wuerttemberg. The inner kinship between these and the United Evangelicals, who put their "spiritual life" in the place of the faith based on the Word, is evident. On both sides one wants to see conversion itself in what is only the fruit and consequence of faith and to place Christianity in a coarser or finer works righteousness. Those Albright’s People also call themselves the Evangelicals (Evangelical Brethren) [or Evangelical Association], but they should rather, as Dr. Walther says, be called the legalists, because they want to base the consolation that the sinner, who has been crushed by the law, can obtain through faith in God's grace given in the Gospel alone, on emotional impressions, heartfelt sorrows, prayer exercises, wrestling, fighting and seeking sanctification. Instead of right conversion, this rather causes excitement, and in the fire of temptation such stubble is soon consumed. The growing up
young people fall the more easily into the rough world, and among the elderly, miserliness becomes the prevailing sin.
[↑] The fight against the Methodists.
Especially the first years of Der Lutheraner show that the founders of the Missouri Synod had to fight Methodists, Baptists and similar enthusiasts [Schwarmgeister]. Especially the first of them acted as the ruling church in North America at that time. The main Methodist organ, The Apologist [Der Christliche Apologete] published in Cincinnati, attacked the Lutherans as literalists, who made the main thing out of several secondary doctrines (namely of baptism and the Lord's Supper) and the celebration of the holy sacrament in the manner of the Papists into a mere work performed (opus operatum), regardless of whether it was received with or without faith. On the other hand, Mr.[Wilhelm] Nast, the editor of The Apologist in Der Lutheraner, is proved that they, the Methodists, are the ones who despise God's Word and setup their own work, that they do not accept Holy Baptism as an act of the Triune God, and thereby weaken the Gospel and raise up their own legalistic schmear, so that they align their feelings of repentance and faith as a kind of contributory merit, severely damage the article of justification, and thereby rob many thousands of souls of the most glorious and solid comfort of grace!
The second volume of Der Lutheraner contains a series of ongoing articles under the heading “Holy Absolution rescued from the blasphemies of the Methodists.” There Dr. Walther first expresses his horror at the fact that The Apologist did not shy away from calling absolution “one of the devil's main tricks”, and of the granting of absolution in the name of the Triune God, and writes that those who take comfort in absolution are warned that “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,… whose heart departeth from the Lord!” [Jer. 17:5] Afterwards Walther proves that absolution is based on God's clear Word, that it was exercised by the prophets and apostles and in
the best times of the Church, and that it is by no means a remnant of the Papacy. After all the objections of The Apologist had been refuted, Mr. Näst responded to this essay as follows: “With people who, instead of letting their reason be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, do not want to use it at all, like the so-called Old Lutherans, every argument is in vain. Their pope is the dead letter and their faith is a blind delusion of man, not a conviction brought about by the Holy Spirit. We can do nothing but pray that God may open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to the living God.” Whereupon Dr. Walther again in No. 25 Vol. 2 of Der Lutheraner replies [Vol. II, No. 25 "Methodism", p. 100]: “Hereupon we have only this to explain that by God's grace we will never stop recognizing ‘the letter’ [Buchstaben] of God's Word for our pope, under His right sceptre (Ps. 45:7) it is better to live than under the crooked staff of a Methodist Pope like Mr. Nast, who, from a good Roman background, terribly judges and condemns an entire church fellowship, and who strips off all the members of the same faith, that is, grace and salvation, and declares that they are covered with hellish darkness and handed over to the devil, and that they do not even use their reason, that is, they have sunk completely into cattle.”
In 1847, Der Lutheraner had a battle with The Apologist about Holy Communion, on which occasion a very learned Methodist in The Apologist had the mishap of trying to teach the Lutherans the doctrine of contransubstantiation (!) [instead of transubstantiation]. After also Dr. Nast had printed something about Holy Communion in The Apologist, he boastfully challenged Prof. Walther to print this Methodist gibberish in Der Lutheraner, for which then Walther's refutation, which was to take just as much space, would also appear in The Apologist. As can even be seen from the words accompanying this challenge, Dr. Nast was filled with the sweet
hope that Prof. Walther would not have the heart to present such balderdash to Der Lutheraner readers, and therefore he exclaimed at the close of his challenge: “Pastor Walther will probably show his shame and nakedness on this occasion. But unfortunately! The readers of Der Lutheraner will remain in the fog, whatever The Apologist writes etc.”. — But what does Walther do? Certainly not to the joy of Nast, he accepts the challenge “with great joy” in the number of Der Lutheraner of August 10, 1847, and in Der Lutheraner publishes ”A Contemplation of Mr. Nast on Holy Communion.” [p. 21], writes about it under the title: “Why are the words of institution: ‘This is my body; this is my blood’ a thorough refutation of the Methodist doctrine of the Lord's Supper” (in Der Lutheraner, volume IV [p. 27]; ) and now waits for the publication of this refutation in The Apologist. There finally follows Nast's equally dishonorable as well as cowardly explanation that he does not want to include Walther's refutation in his paper. Walther wrote at the time about this broken promise, but genuinely Methodist prank: “We lose nothing in the process but the last vestige of our confidence in the honesty and uprightness of the Methodist leaders. Mr. Nast could not have explained more clearly in public that he, against his will, was convinced of the good cause of the Lutheran doctrine in the matter of the Holy Communion, and beaten out of the field in the most shameful way with his Methodist “chatter”, had to humbly stretch out his arms. Mr. Nast, by the way, did not only begin his unfortunate retreat with insult and disgrace, but also, like all cowards who take to their heels, with insults and disgrace. For he throws with him: ‘Lutheran scholasticism, Jesuitism, Roman-Lutheran scribes, papistical and Jewish ministerial brethren, endless torrent of words’ and with similar outpourings of an irritated bile around him. According to our small judgment, it would have been wiser if Mr. Nast had left quietly and not grumbled and scolded so much, for in doing so he
betrayed all the more the desperate mood into which the reproach of truth had put him.” This exposure had at least such an effect that Mr. Nast, for the sake of shame before men, included a part of Walther's essay in The Apologist, but at the same time he had a spiteful article published in the St. Louis German Tribune [Die Deutsche Tribuene], in which he accused Prof. Walther of wanting to make his readers believe that he (Nast) had refused to include any reply in his paper, that Walther was therefore “a double deceiver” who dealt with “palpable and knowledgeable untruths and impudent lies.” The very next day, however, the following was read in the Tribune: “Dr. Nast bases the legitimacy of his earlier refusal to include even a little of our essay in The Apologist on the fact that he had agreed, if we were to write another essay, to give it space in his paper. However, every person of sound mind understands that Mr. Nast is trying to take advantage of us with this explanation, but was wisely pulling himself out of the noose. For Mr. Nast could well have imagined that we would not quickly work out another essay at his request and thus make ourselves ridiculous in front of our readers. — However Mr. Nast may twist and turn, the first unconditional refusal to accept even a single letter from our essay, after we, in good faith in Mr. Nast's word and German honesty, had completely and unalteredly published his essay in our paper, is and remains an infamous, dishonourable way of dealing.” F. Walther, editor of Der Lutheraner (See Der Lutheraner vol. IV p. 88; [“Herrn Dr. Nast betreffend.”.)] — — With that this matter was over.
A booklet written by Dr. W. Sihler proved to be particularly helpful against the seduction to modern Methodism: Conversations between two Lutherans about Methodism [WorldCat]. This booklet was written after Dr. Sihler made personal acquaintance with a Methodist preacher named
Mueller; the same has not only appeared in repeated editions in the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis, but has also been translated into several languages. Dr. Sihler writes there, among other things, p. 34: “What in individual cases was the free working of the Spirit of God in Wesley's and Whitefield's time, their weak descendants now seek to make into a general form and to raise it to the right way and manner.” The pressing and driving of their preachers is as if man could repent of his own will and come forward as repentant in a certain place, as if the Holy Spirit was bound to a certain place, time and manner. (See also Pastor F. Wyneken's experiences regarding the Methodists in Chapter IV).
Although 40 years ago the Methodist leaders looked down on these “Old Lutherans” and on the whole Lutheran Church with contempt, now, however, due to the strong flourishing of the pure Lutheran Church, which refused to deal with the Methodists in a brotherly way, the propaganda of the Methodist circuit riders is so strongly controlled by it here, that they themselves must complain and admit that their missionary work is mostly at a standstill among the Germans here.
— In the next Part 10, Chapter 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.