EC6: Church in proper sense; Harrison's "disconnect" (1866 Missouri)

     This continues from Part EC5 (Table of Contents in Part EC1), a series restoring availability of English translations of several of Walther's convention essays that have seemingly been abandoned by Concordia Publishing House. — This essay is the first of eight which are the majority of Theses in Walther's book The True Visible Church. These Theses were previewed in advance of the convention in a Der Lutheraner article, vol. 22, pp. 186-187, so the convention was familiar enough to have questions prepared. The book was written "for the convention … at St. Louis, Mo., October 31, 1866", but the next seven convention essays continued on from this first essay, which dealt with Theses I-III.

     The writer of the Forewords to the 1992 CPH Essays I, Prof. Charles Arand, wrote (p. 14) that Walther "draws many, and at times seemingly tedious if not hairsplitting distinctions", yet he at least acknowledged that "The patience and effort it takes to 'plow' [?] through these lectures will be greatly rewarded." It is sad for me that Arand was picked to provide these Forewords because he has virtually ignored Walther for the rest of his professional career.

      This essay is a perfect compliment to my blog series on Walther and the doctrines of Church and Ministry as it provides clarity, and answers several questions.

Notable Quotes:

44: "…the expression was not correct when one said that belonging to the visible orthodox church was necessary for salvation."

50: "Never again are the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, the constituent parts of the Church, and therefore do not belong to the definition of its essence."

50: "The believers make up the Church, [but] the wrong understanding [of the Church] … would have it that the definition of the Church is the gathering of believers around the Word and Sacrament or the orthodox preaching ministry. … Romanizing Lutherans [do not deny this wrong understanding]"

56: "…the Third Article, according to Luther, speaks only of the invisible church".

58: "the Synod expressed its astonishment that there could still be Lutheran theologians today who claim that the doctrine of the church was not yet properly developed at the time of the Reformation, that it still needed to be perfected. [e. g. Loehe] Luther could not have waged the battle against the heresies of his time, which among other things concerned precisely the point of the church, if he had not known exactly what the church actually was according to God's Word."

61: "All the misery, all the confusion in the dispute about the concept of the Church came from the fact that this sentence was not held fast: The church is the congregation [Gemeinde] of saints."

65: "But as long as the preaching of the Word is still there, we can still believe with certainty that the Church is still there, i.e. the children of God through faith, no matter how horrible things may be in life.".

 72: "Dr. Luther deliberately never used the word 'church' [Kirche] in the German Bible, but always 'congregation' [Gemeinde], in order not to encourage the pope, who had made it so that 'church' was understood to mean him, the pope, and his bishops. This, too, is one of the errors of the false Lutherans of our time, that they also make a distinction between 'church' and 'congregation'." [Cp. to Pres. Harrison's statement against J. T. Mueller's translation here on this point, that his translation of Walther was a "disconnect" with Walther's intent. Since Luther never used the word "Kirche" in his Bible, Mueller was correct in sometimes translating it as "congregation" where it was necessary. It is Harrison who is "disconnected" with Walther and Luther. Walther at times uses the terms "church" and "congregation" interchangeably. The reader is especially encouraged to read the section on Thesis III here.]  

The following presentation provides links to each individual page of the original German publication. It follows the paragraph breaks of the 1992 CPH translation:

This file may be directly downloaded >> here <<; German original text >> here <<.

In the next Part EC7…

Dr. Korcok's book on education: helpful but flawed; catechesis, Science, "Biblicism"? (Part 1 of 3)

Lutheran Education (CPH 2011)

      Recent research pointed me to a book that had some interest because of its subject matter and that it included a report of C. F. W. Walther's efforts in the area of Lutheran education. Although it is 12 years old, it treats a subject that is the heart of the upcoming new school in Casper, Wyoming, the Luther Classical College. The book is Lutheran Education: From Wittenberg to the Future by Rev. Dr. Thomas Korcok (CPH 2011, 298 pgs + Foreword by Dr. Gene Edward Veith.) Dr. Korcok is currently serving on the faculty of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario, Canada. He is also on the Board of Scholars of the Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education 🔗.

      Dr. Korcok is quite well read in the history of education and offers a comprehensive view through the ages. In his Preface he states "Thus, direction for the future is to be found in the sources and pedagogues of the past. To look back is to move forward." — How important was theology in education? He says (p. 4): “As the Reformation was primarily a theological movement, theology had a profound affect on how the Lutheran educators interpreted the role of the liberal arts in Lutheran pedagogy.” — What about the Old Missourians, how did they handle education? They went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”

      As examples, I learned about the "trivium" education model: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Also about the history of "scholasticism" or how Aristotle's teachings were incorporated into Christian teaching. Most informative was the history of rationalist German pedagogues Pestalozzi, Fröbel, and Herbart (p. 111 ff.) who have had an enormous impact on American education today, the model on which I was educated.

      Most refreshing was Dr. Korcok's refutation of the history of Walter O. Forster (Zion on the Mississippi, p. 112) on the primary reason for the emigration of the Missourians from Germany. While Forster opined the reason was "Stephan's personality", Korcok says it was "the desire for confessional freedom". Even more, Korcok refutes the "popular opinion" among LC-MS historians that the Missourians' primary reason for establishing Lutheran schools was to preserve the German language (p. 227). — Curiously Paul E. Kretzmann, who wrote a considerable amount of material on education, was not mentioned.

     I really wanted to like Dr. Korcok’s work, but was disappointed in his criticisms of the Old Missourians. How does he do this? In several ways:

Catechesis (p. 57-61, 210-213, 261-262): 

      While he praises the Missourians for going back to Luther and the Reformation, yet he repeatedly criticizes them for what he states as deficient in this area. And he uses LCMS and a Harvard teachers to support his assertion (p. 57, emphasis mine): 

"…the Small Catechism is treated simply as a didactic [or teaching] tool whose only function was to impart theological knowledge, ignoring or at least downplaying its use as a prayer book.” 

Korcok offers no evidence where the Missourians excluded or "downplayed" the devotional or "prayer book" use of the Small Catechism.  On page 212, Korcok elaborates further:

"The enthusiasm toward the Dietrich catechism and its subsequent incorporation into the Missourians’ education system reveals a stark divergence from Luther’s thought whose understanding of catechesis was much more spiritually oriented. Luther intended the texts of the catechism to be used to develop a proper devotional life and a sense of Evangelical piety."

Again, Korcok offers no evidence of the Missourians ignoring the devotional aspect of the Small Catechism, only implying that the expanded Dietrich catechism was too difficult, too complex. He then quotes from Luther's Preface as evidence of his assertion, but Luther's opening paragraph states"

"The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach…" 

So Luther's first statement of the need was to teach, or didactic. He later speaks of the devotional and prayer life needs.  But if the doctrine is not right, the devotional life will be useless. This line of reasoning is typical for LC-MS theologians, and Korcok's appeal to the writings of Prof. Charles Arand (p. 58) is proof of this. — 

      In the final section we see where Dr. Korcok is headed with this in his recommendations for "Lutheran Education" (p. 261):

"Lutheran catechesis is best described as a life-long nurturing process that endeavors to enable individuals to grow in their identity as Confessional Lutherans. The aims of catechesis have not always been understood in this way. At the time of the early Missourian Lutherans there was a neglect of the original catechetical goals of the sixteenth-century Evangelicals. The Missourians’ catechetical program tended to be more concerned with the inculcation of correct doctrinal formulations and less with a reflective meditation on one’s faith. This is not to say that the Missourians were uninterested in developing thoughtful individuals. They wanted people to think critically, and the arts taught that skill; however, they did not seem to understand that their catechetical program did not fully support this view of the arts. This certainly was not the intent of the earlier Evangelicals. They believed that this catechetical growth is accomplished by the divine teacher working mediately through the Word as it is taught to the child."

So for Dr. Korcok, "correct doctrinal formulations" are less important than "reflective meditation on one's faith".  That is subjectivism, not an objective faith. (Yet he stated on page 4 that the Missourians went “...back to the Reformation era for a confessionalized model of the liberal arts.”) Korcok uses Harvard professor Steven Ozment to support his thesis, that "these [sixteenth century] catechisms served to develop a spirit of humanity [!] — they cultivated spiritual growth." (p. 262) A "spirit of humanity"?

      Incredibly, Dr. Korcok criticized the Missourian's use of Bible history in classrooms because "the nature of these classes further detracted from the devotional nature of instruction." (p. 213) I was shocked by this assertion!  But he refutes himself later when he approvingly pointed out how Luther encouraged the study of history (p. 271). 

      He attempts to recover from his criticism by stating (p. 213) “This is not to say that devotional and spiritual life were completely ignored.” How wonderful to hear that the Old Missourians did not "completely ignore" devotional life! Later he states that "Walther and the Missourians did possess this 'clarity and certainty,'” for "a proper relationship between the liberal arts, Lutheran theology, and catechesis" (p. 213). 

      The devaluing of doctrine in the LCMS has been most corrosive for its spiritual life. It led to the "Walkout" of 1974. It is especially ironic that Dr. Korcok would devalue the didactic role of the Small Catechism in a book entitled "Lutheran Education". — In the next Part 2, we present Dr. Korcok's criticisms of Old Missouri's science education.

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

Table of Contents: Part 1: Intro, Catechesis; Part 2: Science; Part 3: "Biblicism", Melanchthon, Papacy

Pilate & Piepkorn: Truth? Inerrancy?: Crime against God's majesty (Part 1)

     Earlier in Part 3 of my series on "Dr. F. Pieper as Theologian", Ludwig Fuerbringer reported that Dr. Franz Pieper

“would not be tired of reproaching modern theology, ... with their apostasy from this supreme principle of theology, from the divinely inspired and therefore inerrant Scripture”.

Then in the last installment, Part 5, we heard Pieper's ultimate charge against those who deny the full divinity of the Holy Scripture, a charge of a

“crime against the divine majesty”.  

Of the approximate 40 theologians who publicly, (Faithful, p. 41), repeatedly (1972 CTM “Editorial: A Declaration of Protest and Confession”) protested their right for a “freedom” to use the “historical critical method” to interpret (and overturn) Holy Scriptures, there are many who deserve “honorable mention”.  But there is particularly one who is still greatly honored in today's LC-MS, among its prominent teachers.  That “award” clearly goes to…

Arthur Carl Piepkorn.

You can read about it in their books. Prof. Charles Arand, in his 1995 book Testing the Boundaries pp. 208-232, repeatedly reports on Piepkorn's teachings yet never once defends against them.  He then (p. 265) strongly implies that, along with ELCA theologians, the LC-MS should “promote an evangelical-catholicism, traceable back to Piepkorn, as our best hope for the future.”  That J. A. O. Preus II encouraged this book (p. 11) is quite saddening.


You can hear about it in their 2010 video lectures (Prof. Erik Herrmann, 14:00 - 24:04: “05b. ‘A Very Different Understanding of What Lutheran Is’: 1969 Part 2”).  Herrmann essentially exonerates Piepkorn from the errors of the other faculty members.

I have come across no teacher in the LC-MS since 1974 who has publicly reprimanded the teaching of... Arthur Carl Piepkorn.


So I, BackToLuther, as a son of the LC-MS who lost his Christian faith in large part because of the theology behind the “historical critical method”, behind Piepkorn's so-called “confessionalism” (but by God's grace was brought back to the faith), will do so now:

“What Is Truth?”	“What Does Inerrancy Mean?”
Pontius Pilate	Arthur Carl Piepkorn, LC–MS theologian
John 18:38	Concordia Theological Monthly (CTM), Sept. 1965

Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn’s article title is a question and it was meant in exactly the same way that Pontius Pilate meant his question.  Neither of them was asking the question – they meant it as a rhetorical question, or as Wikipedia explains it:

“A figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.”

There are no scholarly arguments that could convince me otherwise. Piepkorn's real intent, as boldly communicated in just the title of his CTM essay above, is to question the truth of the Holy Scriptures.  This is confirmed in Piepkorn's “I Believe” “confession” in the 1972 Concordia Seminary faculty “majority” publication Faithful to Our Calling, Faithful to Our Lord, Part II, pp. 112-113, where he essentially affirms what the old Iowa Synod taught as “Open Questions”. And I, a son of the LC-MS, fell from my Christian faith over this... apostasy.

This blog grew to be too long for one post, and so it will be continued in the next Part 2. (Part 3, Part 4)

Fick 11: America, new home; Lutherbuch: Luther's life–Justification (not Kolb/Arand); Fick forgotten by LC-MS

[2019-11-10: added link to Rhegius essay on Christian burial]
      This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1), publishing an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's biography of Pastor C.J. Hermann Fick. —

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

Fick in Detroit

[2019-07-28: added image of young Pastor Fick while in Detroit at right]

      From a small town (Bremen) to the big city Detroit, Fick was now firmly an “American”.  We hear later in this portion just how much his new “fatherland” meant to him after a convalescence trip to Germany and back again to... America.  Also in this portion we are introduced to one of Fick's greatest writings, his book on the life of the Reformer Martin Luther, his Lutherbuch.  This book is very near and dear to my heart. Fick's Lutherbuch included his highlight of Luther's Doctrine of Justification at the 1541 Diet of Regensburg.   — Now we resume our journey with Pastor Fick.

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

This translation by BackToLuther (BTL), taken from Der Lutheraner, Vol. 42, Nos. 14 (July 15, 1886) to 18 (September 15, 1886). All underlining is emphasis from original. All highlighting by BTL. — This portion:– vol. 42, #17-18, p. 130, 137.

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

In Memory of Our Unforgettable Fick.

(by C.F.W. Walther; Part 11, cont'd from Part 10)

According to God's counsel, it was allotted for our Fick to work only to lay the foundation for the congregation in Bremen. In 1854 he received a call to the congregation in Detroit in the state of Michigan. This had become vacant by the former pastor’s relocation to St. Louis, Mo..  Fick recognized this call as divine and accepted it with the consent of his Bremen congregation. On November 19 of the same year he was installed there in his new office. And on the occasion of the next meeting in June 1855 of the Northern District, he was voted their Vice President. Although the new office was in a much larger congregation than he had served in previously, and so demanded much greater work from him, he remained active in writing. He was firmly convinced that when a man was called by God to serve a local congregation, he would also be required to perform sacred duties for the church in general, and therefore duty bound to serve the latter according to the gifts he had received, indeed, is committed in a sacred way. This is all provided that by doing so he does not break his responsibility for service to the parish that is first owed it.

Fick therefore continued enriching the Der Lutheraner in part with lovely songs and in part with substantial essays. For example from this period comes the longer, more thorough essay, which bears the title: Chiliasm (Millenialism) is False which later also appeared in pamphlet form. [DL 13, p. 46 passim]

To this also belongs his  Lutherbuch, oder Leben und Taten des theuren Mannes Gottes, Doctor Martin Luthers [Luther Book, or the Life and Deeds of the Dear Man of God, Doctor Martin Luther], in our small judgment the most constructive, influential and blessed work of all, which Fick wrote and left for the service of the church of this land.

Really written in the spirit of Luther, and in the proper understanding of him and his work of Reformation, as well as in true Lutheran sobriety and childlike simplicity, no other biography of Luther written for the simple Lutheran Christian people and the elementary school equals Fick’s “Luther book.”

The book, which had long been felt to be in urgent need, found a rapid acceptance as soon as it appeared. It came out at the end of September 1855 as a festival gift to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the religious Peace of Augsburg for the first time in a large edition, which was sold out after a few months, namely at the end of January 1856.

Now followed a new edition of the others. Currently circulating is the 20th edition. The book has also been translated into English by Professor [Matthias] Loy [Ohio Journal.] of Columbus, Ohio, under the title Life and Deeds of Dr. Martin Luther, by Rev. Hermann Fick. Translated from the [page 130, col. 3] German by Rev. Prof. M. Loy, Columbus, O., and was now also so well received among the English-speaking Lutherans, that it had to be published in 1878 for the fourth time. In this book, our American Lutheran Church possesses the best apology (defense) of its own.

Among the products of Fick's iron-willed industry published during his time in Detroit include finally the two first songs of his “Luther Song” (“Lutherlied”, search “Lutherlied” here), published in 1858, a magnificently created epic (heroic poem).  Unfortunately, however, it was not the poet's privilege to continue the wonderfully begun work. Because of exertion, the narrow-chested dear man now collapsed, so that on the advice of his physician he had to give up his post at least temporarily and travel to Germany to find healing there, if it were God's will, in his father's house.

Incidentally also during his work in Detroit he learned of the great heartbreak that his like-minded, splendidly gifted brother Wilhelm Fick, who had succeeded him to America in the late autumn of 1852, and had been blessed with effectiveness in the Zion congregation in New Orleans, was suddenly struck down eight months later by yellow fever on August 15, 1855. And so also by the same disease earlier, on October 24, 1854, his devout sister Dorothea had succumbed, who was so dear to him, the wife of Pastor Metz in service at St. John's congregation in New Orleans. [page 137, col. 1]

To enjoy the benevolent influence of a long sea voyage, Fick made his way through New Orleans to the old home with his entire family. To be sure, here he was still very short with the necessary means for travel; but the noble brothers of faith in New Orleans adequately equipped him in great love; may the LORD remember them on the Day of Judgment.

After a happy journey across the ocean, he arrived in Germany with his family on July 3, 1858.  Now though he enjoyed a care here from the hands of his loved ones, under which he gradually recovered visibly, although slowly. However for a man like Fick to give oneself completely to rest was impossible. Again he worked on several writings.

Among other things, he translated a work by the ancient theologian from Celle Urbanus Rhegius, titled “Disputation on the Restoration of the Kingdom of Israel Against All Chiliasts of All Time” [WorldCat; i.e. against Millenialism][2019-11-10: see also Rhegius essay on Christian burial] from Latin to German, and accompanied it with a biography of that great theologian.   In this writing, Fick included a reprint of the Foreword to volume 15 of Der Lutheraner with a preliminary report under the following title: Why Do We Cling So Firmly to the Lutheran Church? A Testimony From the Ev.-Luth. Church of North America [German: Warum hangen wir so fest an der lutherischen Kirche? Ein Zeugniß aus der ev.-luth. Kirche Nordamerikas]. Hildesheim, 1859.”

[BTL: ref. from Carl S. Meyer's translated and published Walther’s 1860 letter from Zurich, CTM 1961, p. 655, n. 57: “While in Germany Hermann Fick published a 48-page booklet, Zeugniss aus der ev.-luth. Kirche Nordamerikas, in Beantwortung der Frage: Warum hangen wir so fest an der lutherischen Kirche.  In this booklet he included the introduction to Der Lutheraner, XV (24 Aug. 1858), 1—3; ibid., XV (7 Sept. 1858) , 9—11; ibid., XV (21 Sept. 1858), 17—19; ibid., XV (5 Oct. 1858), 25, 26. In this article Walther gave 18 reasons for remaining true to the Lutheran Church.” These excerpts from Der Lutheraner were also reprinted in another booklet Warum hangen wir so fest an der lutherischen Kirche? (Archive)]

This paper showed that our Synod had never had a more faithful and intimately connected member than our Fick. And yet it not only found a wide distribution in Germany, especially in northern Germany, but also acquired many friends even from the circle of former adversaries there. We have seen this from a number of exceedingly favorable reports of that “Testimony” published in German papers.

As refreshing as the days were for our Fick during his stay in the old homeland, with the abundant goodwill prepared for him by friends and family, nevertheless his heart was and remained

[page 137, col. 2] in America, which had become a new homeland to him. A testimony to this is a song that preceded his return to America, and was published under the heading “Homesickness” [Heimweh]  in the Der Lutheraner of June 28, 1859 [p. 182-183]`. In it Fick sings among other things:

To be sure, it is beautiful in the old fatherland: —

I enter the gothic church halls,

Magnificently stretched out on high columns,

And hear the mighty tones the organ resounding.

But my mind pulls me

To the new homeland,

Where Christ founded our dear Church

And where the royal priesthood,

Allied with pure doctrine and freedom,

The Church adorns our God's glory.

- - - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fick and the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification
      It is quite ironic that Prof. Matthias Loy (Wikipedia, Ohio History.) should be the one to translate Fick's Lutherbuch into English as he would later, in 1881, write a scathing attack on Missouri's doctrine of the Election of Grace (see this blog post).  Walther makes no mention of this attack in this 1885 biography, preferring to remember the Prof. Loy who originally joined with the Missouri Synod in fellowship.  But it is especially ironic that in Fick's book Luther's pure Doctrine of Justification is given prominence, and yet this was the very doctrine on which the Ohio Synod eventually fell, as Franz Pieper clearly exposed in 1889.  Now the ELCA is only continuing the free-fall that started with Matthias Loy and his Ohio Synod.

Dr. Robert Kolb:
“justification”
not understood by
our culture

Dr. Charles Arand:
“Is Justification 
Really Enough?”

      It seems so strange to me that Dr. Robert Kolb thinks the term “Justification” is not understood by “our culture” in his 1993 book The Christian Faith, p. 157...  And why, in the Summer 2013 issue of the Concordia Journal (p. 201), would Dr. Charles Arand entitle an essay “Is Justification Really Enough?”.  But this belittling of The Doctrine of Justification is not so for our Fick or Luther, or our Lord – it seems everyone understands the story of the Good Samaritan and the lawyer who wanted to “justify himself” (Luke 10:29). [2019-01-14: See also President Matthew Harrison's blog (🔗) on the term "Justification" that repudiates Dr. Kolb and Prof. Arand on this doctrine.]

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

"Fick forgotten"

      Carl S. Meyer reported, in his August 1972 article in CHIQ (p. 206), that of the two biographies that Walther wrote, only the one on J. F. Buenger was widely reported by LC-MS historians.  But

‘‘‘Our unforgettable Fick’ on the other hand, has been forgotten.”

Although Meyer was at a loss to explain this oversight by the LC-MS historians, it is quite clear to me.  Pastor C.J. Hermann Fick was far too orthodox, far too Lutheran, far too much against rationalism and syncretism... for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.  The LC-MS was quite content to bury him.  Even Meyer who reports on Fick, included veiled criticisms of Fick, for example on p. 198:

“… in sharp contrast to Fick’s lack of such activities [in founding societies and institutions]”

The more I consider Dr. Carl S. Meyer, the more I fear that he should have aspired to be a librarian instead of a theologian and the Historian of the LC–MS. — So be it!  All the more honor for me, almost too much honor, to be the first to translate and publish Walther's biography of the “forgotten” “unforgettable Fick”.  — In the next Part 12…