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.
From page 16 onward, the proceedings with the other German synods follow; first and foremost with regard to Buffalo, especially the senior of the Buffalo Ministerium. Here Hoffmann regrets that here for the first time the friendly impressions received so far are clouded. — But how is it surprising that the Missouri Synod could not come to any union or understanding with a man like Grabau, <page 73> of whom Hoffmann also writes the following [p. 16]:
“Grabau, a domineering man, had the same exaggerated, absolutist concept of the office of Ministry as Stephan had in his time, he and his few followers saw themselves as the church government and excommunicated anyone who would not submit to him.”
Hoffmann continues [p. 16]:
“The Missourians were right to disagree, but also their democratic view of Church and Office [of Ministry], according to which they put the church government in the hands of the individual congregation, will hardly find anyone in agreement.”
First of all, it should be remembered that Hoffmann himself completely approves of Walther's actions against Stephan, not only with regard to Stephan's annoying way of life, but also with regard to the Stephanist false doctrine; the above-mentioned doctrines, which Walther “victoriously” carried out [p. 9], have broken the spell and proved that the preaching office rests in the believing congregation, which as such has the Lord Christ with it; so Hoffmann wrote above. Where does it come from, then, that the congregation has the full right to call itself a preacher?
Certainly because the congregation [Gemeinde], i.e. the believers, “principally and immediately” (according to the Smalcald Articles [Tr 24]) has the Office of the Keys, and accordingly makes use of its competent authority by calling a preacher, or also where a preacher teaches wrongly and persistently denies the Lord Christ by doctrine and life, it deposes him again by virtue of the same right. So if Hoffmann considers the Christians in Perry County to be justified in organizing themselves into congregations after Stephan's deposition, he should also have considered those who had been separated from Grabau, indeed usually expelled from him and his synod, to be justified in calling a preacher into their midst as well, and these would certainly have neglected their duties if they had not taken in and accepted the undeservedly *) excommunicated until an “understanding” had been reached with the Buffalo pastors. Hoffmann wants to declare the proceedings of the Missourians as hasty!
——————
*) To his astonishment, the writer of this book once found on Grabau's desk an official letter from a Missourian pastor in which he reported that 70 men had contacted him (the Missourian preacher) from a Buffalo congregation! If there are those who are in church discipline because of real sins, they should be reported to him, so that they do not go to the sacrament unworthily.
——————
![Hoffmann also criticized [Grabau] as excessive](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSaE_r8P-n74sjWaJJ-3UubZr8T2cD6bRPosTbTdz7ioZJsxVHSVjdc0ae8OxgHU-qauW40UzGo7nv8P-M59-Wj9y8MJAi7oreF3UWVQbSdHq7jsFhfmGZ88J6hJHNSLQVtgpgDHoC64WFyDu1QolNJ8oXTAZ17tJ8XXbTD1mjD4dBlRurUTLdqcapsQ/s197/Hoffmann%20also%20criticized%20%5BGrabau%5D%20as%20excessive.jpg "Hoffmann also criticized [Grabau] as excessive")
He does not seem to have read anything about the fact that the Missourians from the beginning of this protracted dispute desired a personal meeting with Pastor Grabau and his own and demanded a colloquy over and over again with reference to 1 Peter 3:15. In vain, however, they held this Bible text up to Pastor Grabau, who preferred to use not only crude insults in his statements against Missouri, which Hoffmann also criticized as excessive, but also the grossest contradictions. On the one hand <page 74> he [Grabau] declared from the beginning of the dispute with the Missourian preachers that he could not regard them as Lutheran pastors and now had to fight the same battle that he fought in Prussia against the Union, against Missourian liberalism. On the other hand, he said as soon as he was accused of saying that the doctrinal differences that existed on both sides brought about this practice, which was so annoying to him, because of some of the doctrinal differences that agitated the Lutheran Church everywhere and had not yet been decided by the Church do not recognize any division (i.e. no transfer from Buffalo to Missouri) as justified. No so-called church court should be allowed to negotiate the mutual doctrinal differences! After Grabau had persistently rejected the introduction to an understanding with Missouri, and in 1866 by far the largest part of the Buffalo parishes and preachers had turned away from Grabau, the parish in H., Canada, which is currently served by the church, asked Pastor Grabau in 1867 for their sake to hold a religious discussion with Prof. Walther in their midst, so that a split in the local congregation could be avoided; Grabau, however, finally responded to the request of this congregation by saying that he had just as little to negotiate with Prof. Walther as with the priests in Spain! —
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.