RH5: Reproach: restricting church freedom vs. Union Church; Missouri’s growth: districts, mission

   This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — Hochstetter offers a stinging rebuke of the Union or State Church in Germany in the form of a sarcastic re-phrasing of a famous statement of the Augsburg Confession. Any claim on their part to "confessionalism", other than by the Free Church, is a sham. This reminds me of another church body, the LC-MS, that officially teaches that "a synod is in fact 'church'" (p. 65). Better to listen to Hochstetter (and Walther) than to Pres. Matthew Harrison. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Jan. 1882), pp. 9-109 [EN]:

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

Thus the reproach that we are again restricting church freedom too much is rejected in advance. When Hoffmann further writes of the Missourians [p. 11]: “The pure doctrine is the shibboleth of the Synod, whereas everything else essentially recedes”, then this is a testimony according to which the Missourians know what is first important for the constitution and the existence of a true church, and they are completely satisfied with Article VII of the Augsburg Confession [German text:]. “For this is enough [satis est] for true unity of the Christian Church, that the Gospel is preached harmoniously according to pure understanding and that the sacraments may be administered according to the divine Word”. And is it not necessary for the Christian Church to be truly united that uniform ceremonies are held everywhere, instituted by men, as Paul says in Eph 4:5-6: “One body, one Spirit, as you are called to one hope of your profession, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” According to the often prevailing manner of the state-church union [now the LC-MS], this last sentence should read the other way round: 

“It is enough [satis est] that a constitution and ceremonial service is established in the state-church; but that one teaches harmoniously and purely, that is not necessary here; everyone can teach what and how he wants, if he does not reject the false teaching; the Lutheran refutation [Elenchus] is forbidden.” 

Hence the Babel of today's Union [Church]!

From page 12 onwards, Hoffmann notes the progress and the division of the Missouri Synod into different districts. 

“Whoever impartially follows the progress the Synod has made since its inception cannot fail to admire it. <page 10> From the very beginning, the intention was to seek out the scattered German Lutherans.”

Whereupon the foundation of the Heathen Mission, the formation of the Publishing Company, etc. are listed. With great diligence, Hoffmann collected and briefly presented the statistics concerning the institutions of the synod, and also listed the (former) support of the Hermannsburg and Leipzig Mission, which in several years had amounted to the sending of 6000 dollars. In addition to the Negroes, the Emigrant Mission with its agents in New York, Baltimore and Hamburg is also remembered and the following testimony is finally added on pages 15-16: 

“But all this is the work of barely forty years; the small mustard seed has become a tree whose shade many seek; the seed that was once scattered with trembling and fear has given a thousand-fold harvest; no authority has protected the development with its arm, no state provided the means, no coercion has extorted the money; voluntarily the rich and poor have put their mites into the treasury of God, free love has joined one to another; — who could fail to recognize God's blessing? Whose eye would have been clouded by prejudice, that he should not willingly and joyfully admit that the Lord has done this? — Indeed, no matter how important the expositions are that we will have to hold in the following, we will not be able to close our minds to the insight that in the Missouri Synod a homelike asylum was built over there for the German brothers, where they could save their souls from the spiritual dangers that occur there in an even stronger (??) power than in the Fatherland. The Missouri Synod has also recognized these dangers.…”

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Hochstetter gives an extensive quote from Pastor Hoffmann, but even where this grants that "God's blessing" rested on the Missouri Synod, he gives the same judgment to the Union Church in the "Fatherland", albeit a weaker one. — In the next Part 6, Hoffmann gets to the main point of his pamphlet, where he turns his "Yes" into a "No" judgment of Missouri on the doctrines of Church and Ministry.

RH4: Hoffmann’s history from Köstering's book; Constitution and congregations

   This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — While many theologians in Germany mostly ignored the Missouri Synod, or gave small remarks against it, we find that Pastor Hoffmann was mostly well read in Missouri's writings, and gave surprising praise for them.  I call this portion a part of his "Yes" sections. But it does not last long. — The source of his history, Koestering's book on the Saxon emigration, has been conveniently translated and published in 2022 by the Concordia Historical Institute and CPH. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Jan. 1882), pp. 8-9 [EN]: 

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

It is to be expected that the first part, which describes the “origin and development of Missouri up to the present”, was more thorough and unprejudiced than the following part. Hoffmann [R. H.] followed Köstering's book [CHI/CPH 2022] about the emigration of the Saxon pastors. In just a few, marked features, M. [Martin] Stephan from Dresden is described as a man of eminent gifts and wonderful power over the hearts of men, who gathered many souls awakened by him around himself. In 1837 he declared that the hour had come to shake the dust off the feet of the people in Germany and emigrate to America. Although his followers there sought ecclesiastical freedom, they had nevertheless fallen into physical and spiritual misery under Stephan's rule, who not only taught that the preaching office was a means of grace, but had also conspired to act as bishop in the new settlement. — Under his orders, everything seemed to rush towards inevitable ruin. [p. 8:] 

“But then God saw His hour to expose the great hypocrite. The young pastor Carl Ferd. Wilh. Walther traveled to Perry County, the evidence for Stephan's conviction in hand.… They now felt that they had done wrong to put their trust in one man; one thought one was no longer a Christian congregation at all, but a congregational crowd, one was lost in time and eternity. … At his brother-in-law's, who had an excellent library, he (Walther) had delved into the writings of the fathers (especially into Luther's writings), and … Stephan's mistakes were soon recognized. In a public disputation, Walther victoriously argued 1) that the congregation [Gemeinde], though afflicted with many sins, was nonetheless a Christian church, 2) that despite all aberrations, Christ was still among them with his means of grace, 3) that the congregation had the full right to call preachers. Article VII of the Augsburg Confession served as a basis for this: The true church is an invisible one, the totality of all believers, this church and not a single state has received all rights and promises from the Lord. — Walther's theses had resounding success, the spell was broken, the inner distress was lifted, and gradually the outer distress gave way. A gradual blossoming began…”

Hoffmann further reports the emergence of the theological seminary, which was first founded by Pastor Löber in Altenburg, moved to St. Louis in 1849, and then raises the question: How did the Missouri Synod come about? The answer is that the foundation of Der Lutheraner, a popular church newspaper, which, although often vilified from the beginning, nevertheless acquired a considerable readership, had contributed much to it; in 1847 <page 9> the first synodical meetings took place in Chicago, in which they united to draft a constitution. The five demands which are a condition for joining the Synod are then listed by name: First the profession of the Holy Scripture, then the acceptance of all the symbolic books of the Lutheran Church, thirdly the renunciation of all church unionism and syncretism. — 

Hoffmann thinks that although the Missouri Synod is only a basic [beruhender] body in relation to the individual congregations, the freedom of the congregation is in turn very limited by the confessional determination, for if a congregation does not agree with the doctrine of the Synod, it is excluded from the synodical association. Meanwhile it must be noted here: It goes without saying that the same thing that is a condition for membership must also be a condition for remaining in the synodical association. The Missourians also know how to distinguish between error and heresy; every Christian can be challenged by the latter [heresy], and it is unreasonable that Hoffmann, on p. 11 of his writing, instead of emphasizing the unity in all fundamental articles of faith, which the Missourians recognize as sufficient especially for “private Christians”, writes of an agreement to all “doctrinal points” as a conditio sine qua non. [indispensable and essential condition]. — 

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Hochstetter begins to call out where Hoffmann is coming from, for while he seems to say "Yes" to Missouri, he actually is heading the other way, i.e. he is going to say "No!". — In the next Part 5, Hochstetter elaborates on his defense

RH3: Missourians disturb United Church in Germany; "must we sit at their feet?"

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — We begin now with a translation of Pastor Hochstetter's review and critique. Someone had to respond to this direct offensive against Missouri. And because of Pastor Hochstetter's intimate involvement in matters of Church and Ministry against Pastor Grabau of the Buffalo Synod, the matter that prompted Walther to write his famous book  in 1852, he is imminently qualified for the task. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Jan. 1882), pp. 6-8 [EN]: 

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

“The ashes will not cease, they are scattering in all lands!”  With these words Luther once sang the praises of the death of the first Lutheran martyrs [Voes and Esch] who had been burned at the stake in the Netherlands for their faith. Now the Lutherans of today are not worthy to be blood witnesses, the faithful Lutheran Free Church of North America must once again fulfill its duty, so that the confession of word and deed that emanates from it will shine into the United state churches of Germany [Prussian Union]. As a testimony to those who see in the “Missourians” <page 7> a people who are devoid of all piety because they dare to teach contrary to the dignitaries and luminaries of today's state church, it must be said what [Christoph Ernst] Luthardt’s Kirchenzeitung, No. 39 of the previous year [1879, p. 926, 3rd paragraph] reported in the following: 

“As everywhere in Lutheran assemblies, some Missourian followers were present, without anyone knowing it, who felt that the time had come to prepare the ground for the direction they were taking.” [German text of full paragraph; December 1879 Lehre und Wehre report] — 

Indeed, at the August Conference in Berlin, as we read in the beginning of the document before us, some members were astonished to hear a recommendation of the Missouri Synod from the mouths of some members; even more were indignant and rejected the idea of modeling the domestic situation on Missouri models. The excitement about it spread beyond the conference, the Missourians became the talk of the day for some time, and so on. Finally, a young pastor, Rudolph Hoffmann [April 19, 1849 — December 21, 1880], who had studied the church situation in North America before others, was asked to prepare a lecture on the Lutheran Missouri Synod. This lecture, titled The Missouri Synod in North America [WorldCat; see RH2], was submitted for printing in Gütersloh in 1881 by the friends of R. Hoffmann, because the author himself was called from this world before he could hand over his work to the district synod.

Far be it from us to judge the legacy of a deceased person unjustly! Although we must deplore the unionistic standpoint of the author, and every reader of the writing can see that the task set to the author was to answer the question, and for a United [Prussian Union] district synod, of course, to answer No [p. 5]: 

“Are there possible dangers which we face here (in the recommendation of the Missouri Synod), should that friend who stood up for these Americans be right?  [p. 6] Must we have to sit at the feet of Missouri to learn?” 

Nevertheless, to this day no report from German state-church circles has appeared in print which acknowledges so much about the Missouri Synod as this lecture by the late Pastor R. Hoffmann. His writing is divided into a “historical description” of the synod, and a “critical illumination”. As many reproaches as the latter contains, so that the above-mentioned danger may not appear great, it nevertheless says at the end [p. 34]: 

“One must not overlook the fact that among those friends the love for the Missouri Synod originated from the love for the Lutheran Church and her confession, the purest expression of which they believe to recognize in the Missouri Synod (no Missourian will claim any other love for our Synod).” *) 

——————

*) What is enclosed in parentheses in the above is from the pen of the reviewer, who is one of the followers of the Missourians, since he did not join the Missouri Synod until 1866–1867. 

——————

To this <Page 8> R. Hoffmann added that one must not only appreciate the outward blessing that God has given to this Lutheran Church fellowship, but also the reverence with which it has up to this hour preserved the sanctuaries of Old Lutheran doctrine!

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      We get the first taste of where this "young pastor" is going, as we find out that the Germans "were indignant and rejected the idea of modeling the domestic situation on Missouri models." One could say that many in today's LC-MS would agree with these Germans, e.g. Prof. David Scaer, Pres. Matthew Harrison, and those who follow Wilhelm Loehe in the doctrines of Church and Ministry. In the next Part 4… we find that Pastor Hoffmann begins by going in a surprising direction… in praise of the Missouri Synod.

RH2: "So much about the Missouri Synod": Hoffmann's report

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of a German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — In this post we present an English translation of the full 33-page pamphlet that acknowledged "so much about the Missouri Synod." 

    On the first page of Pastor Rudolf Hoffmann's narrative is a quote from Prof. C. E. Luthardt's German state church newspaper that provided his motivation. It spoke of some Missourian leaning pastors in Germany who were disturbing a conference. I located the source of the quote and found the following sentences to show how these "Missourians" were received at the conference:

The tone in which this happened is so well known that we need to qualify it in more detail. But because the closing prayer of Superintendent Fauck asked us to forget the discord in an extremely heartfelt and pleasant way, we should not take it upon ourselves to refresh our memory of the addresses in question by quoting the offensive statements here.

So these "Missourians" had ruffled the feathers of the state churchmen. Pastor Hoffmann thus poses the question: "Would we [in Germany] have to sit learning at the feet of Missouri?". He uses this question to launch his investigation. — The following is my English translation, using machine translators, from the original German. Because there are no chapters, only long narratives, I have added my own "Table of Contents" to allow the reader quick access to various sections:

A DOCX file of the above is available >>  here  <<. PDF of original here.

Because the writing above is focused on the old Missouri Synod (not the LC-MS) and its doctrinal differences with the German United, or Union, Church, I would encourage the reader to read Hoffmann's small 34-page pamphlet to get the full background of what was being said in Germany. — 

      A year after the above pamphlet appeared, in January and February of 1882, Pastor Christian Hochstetter would provide his critique in the pages of Lehre und Wehre.  In the following blog posts, I present an enhanced translation of Hochstetter's 16-page article. I will reserve my comments on Hoffmann's writing until then. The presentation starts with the next Part 3.

RH1: German pastor: Yes & No on Missouri; Hochstetter's critique (Part 1 of 14)

Pr. Christian Hochstetter

      While reviewing the essays in the Old Missouri Synod journal Lehre und Wehre, a lively article from 1882 caught my eye, for it concerned how Germany's pastors and theologians viewed the Missouri Synod in Walther's day, in the 19th century. The essay was by Pastor Christian Hochstetter, the one who would 3 years later write the well-known book The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884 in 1885. This 1882 essay was prompted by a pamphlet published in Germany in 1881 by a young pastor. Here is what Pastor Hochstetter stated about this pamphlet: 

To this day no report from German state-church circles has appeared in print which acknowledges so much about the Missouri Synod as this lecture by the late Pastor R. [Rudolf] Hoffmann [RH].

I suspect that Pastor Hochstetter became motivated to write his later great history in part because of the false judgments reported in this pamphlet. But the striking part about the pamphlet was just what Hochstetter alluded to, that Hoffmann did not ignore the incredible successes evident in the (Old) Missouri Synod. And so this pamphlet represents what I would call a "Yes and No" judgment on the Missouri Synod. Hochstetter uses this to reveal the remarkable ironies that Pastor Hoffmann presents.

    Hoffmann's 33-page pamphlet was entitled The Missouri Synod in North America, Historically and Critically Examined: A Lecture (Gütersloh, 1881) (WorldCat). Although there was no online availability of the original publication before, there is now: >> here <<. One discovers that Pastor Hoffmann was young when he wrote this pamphlet, about the age of 31. And he passed away at the end of 1880, just before his writing was published. His history is remarkable for his depth of reading in Old Missouri's early writings. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain a picture of him.

      Here are some examples of Hoffmann's "Yes and No" judgment of the Old Missouri Synod, most of which Hochstetter addresses in his critique:

"Yes":

• "Walther's [Altenburg] theses were a resounding success" (p. 9)
• "The greater right lay on the side of Missouri" vs. Pastor Grabau (p. 16)
• "The doctrinal unity is built on the Lutheran Confession" (p. 20)
• "the unshakeable consistency with which they rest on the symbolic books" (p. 23)
• Walther's "astonishing wealth of thorough scholarship" (p. 24)
• "highly commendable that they have uncovered the hidden treasures of doctrine" (p. 25)

"No":

• "… difficult for anyone to agree with their democratic conception of Church and Ministry" (p. 16)
• "excessive language" (p. 19)
• Confessions are a "paper pope" (p. 28)
• "exaggerated Lutheranism" (p. 28)
• "arrogance of having pure doctrine" (p. 29)
• "unbiblical and un-Lutheran radicalism" (p. 32)

We find judgmental "whiplash" throughout Hoffmann's writing that will be evident to the reader, German or American. — I first translated Hochstetter's critique, and learned much of what Pastor Hoffmann wrote about.  So I became motivated to locate and scan a copy of Hoffmann's pamphlet because I wanted to learn all of what was being said about Missouri in Germany, because so little was written in Germany about the Missouri Synod, other than by Friedrich Brunn's Free Church. In the next Part 2, we publish the translated text of Pastor Hoffmann, then in subsequent posts, we present Hochstetter's incisive critique of it translated into the English language. 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RH1: Introduction; "Yes" and "No" judgments against the Missouri Synod

RH2: Hoffmann's pamphlet: The Missouri Synod in North America, historically and critically examined.

RH3: Missourians disturb United Church in Germany; "must we sit at their feet?" 

RH4: “historical description” sourced from Köstering's book; constitution and congregations

RH5: Missouri restricting church freedom?… compared to United (or Union) Church; Missouri grows

RH6: Clouded impressions: "democratic view of Church &, Ministry" finds no agreement

RH7: Hochstetter defends against Grabau (and Hoffmann); Grabau’s use of erring Lutheran teachers

RH8: Not constitutional question, but doctrinal; calling not by Church as a whole, but whole Church

RH9: Christocracy, not democracy; State churchmen = servants of state authority, "only a glittering misery"

RH10: Walther: Hoffmann criticizes, “Thank God Missouri also errs”; Hochstetter defends; Yes & No theology

RH11: Irony of Hoffmann and his United (State) Church; Repristination theology?; Chiliasm

RH12: Walther’s lament—don’t be another United Church; Iowa & Ohio shamed by German pastor

RH13: Appendix: Exegesis; Revelation; Confessionalism

RH14: Antichrist, Usury, Lutheran Orthodoxy, Predestination, Regeneration, Sunday/Sabbath