CM1b: Walther reviews Harless II (Romanism); Harrison's & Lieberg's unbalanced, Romanizing teaching

      This continues from Part CM1 (Table of Contents in Part CM1) in a series defending Walther against a false portrayal by LC-MS President Matthew Harrison on the doctrines of Church and Ministry. — This continues Walther's book review of Dr. Adolf Harless's pamphlet on the "hot topic" of Church and Ministry. Walther is practically ecstatic to find a theologian in Germany who recognizes the true Lutheran teaching on these doctrines. One will note that he does not give even a hint of caution against Harless's teaching, and therefore considers his doctrine the same, the same as what he taught in his own famous book of 2 years earlier. Yet Pres. Harrison claims that Harless "denies the positive divine institution of the office [of ministry]" all the while claiming Walther supports his own assertions towards sacerdotalism and Romanism, towards the views of Wilhelm Loehe (and Theodor Kliefoth). Walther disagrees. — From Der Lutheraner, vol. 10 (1854), pp. 170-172: 

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

Church and Ministry

by Dr. G. Chr. Adolph Harless

[Review by C. F. W. Walther, Part 2]

It is curious what Dr. Harless says about the fact that he accompanied his theses only with testimonies from Luther. He writes about this: 

"I start from the often made experience that in this dispute about what is according to the Lutheran way, it is often spoken and written in a way as if one had not read Luther's writings and public testimonies or had not understood them properly. And yet these are the historical foundation of our public church confession." †) 

———————

†) As sad as it is that quite a few theologians who call themselves Lutherans now confess outright that they can no longer agree with Luther's and our symbols' teaching on Church and Ministry, the honesty of such men deserves their respect; much more deplorable, however, is the fact that there are now also a number of those who, although they depart from that teaching in a Romanizing way [Loehe, Kliefoth, Vilmark, Dieckhoff, etc.?; see Preger here and here], nevertheless still maintain it through all kinds of dialectical (i.e. disputational) arts to persuade people that they agree with Luther and the Lutheran Confessions. It is impossible to say what havoc such a procedure causes. All sense of strict truthfulness, all honesty, must perish; and such "adherence" to the Confession on the part of its "friends" must necessarily undermine the Confession, its authority, and its usefulness for the preservation of doctrinal unity and purity, more than can be done by the most determined enemies of it. As far as these persons are concerned, we have the hope and the consolation that many of them do violence to Luther's writings and symbols unconsciously, blinded by preconceived opinions. This must, of course, soften the judgment of such persons, but the matter nevertheless remains highly dangerous and pernicious. The Editor.

———————

"If the two contradict each other, this must first be investigated and proven. If the Scriptures testify against both ecclesiastical authorities, I would have to submit. [!] But I have found neither the one nor the other so far. If the latter were the case (that the Lutheran doctrine contradicts Scripture), the dispute would take a completely different turn. It would then be about the truth of Scripture against Luther. Whether it would stand that way or whether it wanted to be put that way would first have to be clarified. I make an attempt at clarification with the following pages. They do not deal with anything but what seems to me to be one of the highest principles of the pending question. I am deliberately not going to go into the further conclusions arising from this, e.g. with regard to the ordination, church discipline and the like to be undertaken by the external church. As far as I am able to do so and God gives me time and strength, I will not withdraw from this service later. 

But first I must secure the principle (the basic doctrine). You have to bridle the horse where the bridle belongs. So that you now know what I mean, I will give my view in short basic sentences. If I then quote Luther in more detail, please do not regard this as a mere quotation of someone else's statement. I let Luther speak for me; for he speaks better than I am able to speak. It is also the case with men of such profession that what they have said for certain times, they seem to have spoken ‘as for all generations by providential dispensation’ (i.e. by the fact that God, who foreknew everything, has so ordained it). In this sense I introduce it, and in heartfelt opinion for both contending parties. May the Lord God grant blessing and peace in the growth towards a blessed unity of faith and confession."

May God be praised and glorified for all eternity that in these last sad times, when it seemed as if all the influential theologians of our church, under the pretense of stricter orthodoxy and churchliness, wanted to drop not only our Luther, but also our dear confession in one of the most important doctrines, and to reintroduce the old leaven of Roman papist heresy into our church as a little by little lost <page 171> jewel, He has given a man in the dear Dr. Harless, a man who has not only vividly recognized the high responsibility that his high office of guardianship in our beloved Church of the pure confession imposes on him, but who also possesses just as great loyalty and simplicity as a talent in every respect to stand at the head of the other fighters as a pioneer for the dearly won jewel of the pure doctrine of our Church. —

We will now follow with Harless's theses themselves, without the testimonies from Luther's writings after them; not because we considered this superfluous because of the testimonies from Luther already given in our [1852] writing: The Voice of Our Church [on the Question of Church and Ministry]; rather, we must confess that there are quite a number of Lutheran references in Harless's writing which we have not listed and which shed light on several important points which we have left dark. It is only because of the limited space of our paper that we do not include the quotations, and we hope that at least all our pastors will obtain the book for themselves, in order to be introduced more and more deeply into a doctrine which is in itself of such great importance, and about which a struggle is being waged [by Loehe and others!] at this very time and in this very place which is so incisive for the development of our church. We at least must recognize and confess with thanksgiving to God that we owe to this writing not only strengthening in the already recognized truth, but also highly important further instruction.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in the next Part CM1c  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther offers no criticisms of Dr. Harless's book, only heart-felt praise. And Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer reported that Walther's "writing (Kirche und Amt) had the approval of such distinguished Lutheran theologians as Harless…". 

But Pres. Matthew Harrison follows not Harless, and thereby Walther, but a later German pastor, Hellmut Lieberg, who in an extensive dissertation in 1962 largely defended the divine character of the Office of Ministry. Lieberg, and Harrison by reference, criticizes Harless, saying:

G. C. A. Harleß (Kirche und Amt nach luth. Lehre [Stuttgart, 1853]) sees in Luther only the divine institution of the function of the office, of the ministry of Word and Sacrament (cf. pp. 21 and 25), which, however, necessarily leads then to the appointment of the concrete office. But he does not attempt to relate this necessity back to a positive divine arrangement. (Office and Ordination in Luther and Melanchthon, CPH 2020, p. 91)

Pastor Lieberg and Pres. Matthew Harrison tip their hands towards the "high church" opinion that does little to defend the congregation's rights. Lieberg overreacts to one, such as Harless, who defends against Romanizing sacerdotalism. We will see further evidence of Lieberg's, and Harrison's, bias which will be presented in a later post. — Such is all too predictable, as Dr. John Wohlrabe documented the post-WWII Bad Boll confernces in Germany and the strong hierarchial position of the German Lutheran theologians (p. 331 ff.). 

And how much did the LCMS / CPH / Pres. Harrison spend to get the above Lieberg book translated and published in 2020?… a book that "has not been submitted to the process for doctrinal review"?  A book where even Rev. Dr. Ken Schurb judges:

"Highly debatable as some of Lieberg’s claims are, to say the very least, I hope they do not tug the LCMS away from its established position on Church and Ministry. That would be a consequential impact and a tragic one." (CHIQ Summer 2021, p. 72)

A "tragic impact"? It appears that there is serious disagreement between Dr. Schurb and Pres. Harrison. How ironic it is that Harrison injected himself into the CHI book Rediscovering the Issues Surrounding the 1974 Walkout by writing the "Historical Introduction" for Editor Schurb. — One may also note that Schurb's book of essays includes one by Dr. John Wohlrabe on Church and Ministry that describes (e.g. pages 227-228) the theology of Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, a Walkout sympathizer, that matches the editorial comments of Pres. Harrison (p. xiv)!

      In the following Part CM1c, we present a subset of Harless's 18 Theses that highlights the differences between him and Pres. Harrison's position, followed by a full translation of all 18 Theses.