Language 2: Learn English! (& keep German) – Walther

           This continues from Part 1. Lest anyone thinks that these German American Lutherans thought themselves too high in their German pedestal, a few months after the exhortation to preserve the German language came a short blurb, surely by editor Walther, that exhorted these Germans to learn English.  However it ended with a more "sacred duty". From Der Lutheraner, vol. 11 (Feb. 13, 1855), p. 103:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Luther's exhortation to learn to speak English.  

“I do not think much of those,” Luther writes, “who are so fond of only one language and despise all others. For I would gladly raise up such youth and people who could be of use to Christ and speak with the people also in foreign lands” 

(i.e., not only about business matters, as many Christians here [in America], even young immigrants, do not get any further in English); 

“that it may not happen to us as it did to the Waldensians in Bohemia [like Americans!], who have so caught their faith in their own language that they cannot speak intelligibly and clearly with anyone, unless they first learn their language. This is not what the Holy Spirit did in the beginning; He did not wait for all the world to come to Jerusalem and learn the [Hebrew] language, but gave all kinds of tongues for preaching, so that the apostles could speak wherever they went. I would rather follow this example; and it is also right that the youth should practice many languages: who knows how God will use them in time? For this purpose also the schools are endowed.” ("Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdienstes von 1526". Tom. Hal. X, 279.) [“The German Mass and Order of Service”, AE 53, 51-90, ~ p. 57]  

Hereby, however, we by no means want to give the impression to those Germans who put their mother tongue so low in relation to English that they can hardly understand it anymore and even less speak it properly. If a German Lutheran is to learn English in order to be able to serve his neighbors in earthly and spiritual matters, it is of course for his own sake an even more sacred duty to preserve the jewel of the German language. For what language has the treasures of divine scholarship that German has? 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Walther gives the last best answer for American Lutherans – know both languages, English and German. And make sure you do not lose the German language! — We see now how Satan worked his purpose through two World Wars – killing the German language, not only in America, but around the world.

Churchman 3: Against Romanizing; invisible Church; one True Visible Church; Local Congregation

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1936 essay "Walther as Churchman". — Several of the Walther's major writings are highlighted in this segment.  These shook up the erring Lutherans worldwide, including those in Germany.  Several missionaries left the well-known Leipzig Mission because it would not recognize Holy Scripture for what it is… God's Word (not man's word). Fuerbringer lists some of the names of those who left for the Missouri Synod.  Some notable names were not mentioned and I will reveal these after the narrative below.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Original German essay in CTM, vol. 7 (October, 1936), p. 721-730, full text here. Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Fuerbringer's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] are mine.

Walther as Churchman.

[by Ludwig Fuerbringer; continued from Part 2]

Walther's activities and merits as a churchman then found further expression in three main writings, the importance and meaning of which must never be forgotten, and the content of which should also become flesh and blood in our ministry and far-flung congregations in the so-called “New Era” and in the English language. These are the writings: “The Voice of our Church in the Question of Church and Ministry” of 1852, repeatedly published, last in Germany in 1894; furthermore “The Evangelical Lutheran Church, the True Visible Church of God on Earth", first presented as a synod paper in 1866 and then published in book form; and “The Proper Form of an Evangelical Church Independent of the State” of 1852, which was last published in Germany in 1894. If the first writing is mainly dogmatic in content, the second is, so to speak, a continuation; but the third is thoroughly practical and shows the proper application of the right doctrine of Church and Ministry. 

The significance of the first-mentioned <page 725> writing in the time in which it appeared can hardly be overestimated. On the then very controversial questions: What is the Church? What is the Ministry? this writing was positively enlightening against all high church, romanizing views, as they were represented in Germany by leading theologians and in America especially by Grabau and the Buffalo Synod founded by him. Of the Church, the first of the nine theses said: 

“The Church in the proper sense of the word is the congregation of saints, that is, the totality of all those who, through the Gospel, are called out of the lost, damned human race by the Holy Spirit. And of the preaching office [or preaching ministry] the seventh of the ten theses said: “The holy preaching office is the power conferred by God through the congregation as owner of the priesthood and of all ecclesiastical authority to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office of the fellowship”. 4) 

        Zorn      —     Willkomm

It is perhaps not generally known that this writing had the approval of such distinguished Lutheran theologians as Harleß and Guericke and that the Leipzig Mission Director Hardeland warmly recommended this essay to the pupils in the Leipzig Mission House, among whom at that time were Zorn, Willkomm und Zucker, so that they would be able to come out of the confusion. 5)

———————

4) Kirche und Amt [Church and Office], p. 1, 354. [2nd ed. 1, 315; English: The Church and The Office of The Ministry CPH 2012, M. Harrison, translator; Church and Ministry, CPH 1987, J.T. Mueller, translator.]

5) I know this from Zorn's and Zucker's personal communications, and Willkomm also published it in the “Ev.-Luth. Freikirche”, 52,125. This was the first word heard about Missouri by these three men, who were all later led to Missouri.

———————

To justify the second writing, Walther said at the 1864 Synod Convention that we 

“had so far been compelled chiefly to advance the doctrine of the invisible Church as the congregation of saints, as the one holy Christian catholic church, and to resist the error that the visible Lutheran church was the one holy Christian church. For the sake of this struggle, we have often been regarded and suspected as such who are held low by the true visible Lutheran Church and who are of a united mind, as if we were indifferent to which visible church fellowship one belonged. Now that battle is victoriously fought, God be praised!, in that in recent times no one dares any more to publicly describe the visible Lutheran Church as the one holy Christian Church, except for which there is no salvation; even Pastor Grabau had for a long time not pronounced this as bare and decisive as he had done before. So, in order to overcome that misunderstanding, as if we had nothing to do with the true visible Church, as if all the church fellowships were of equal value to us, we should now go to work with joy, to also discuss  <page 726> the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as the true visible Church of God on earth from Holy Scripture and from the confessions of our Church together and to reproach ourselves for the purpose that we are not only certain of it, but will also be glad that we are not members and servants of a false but of the right church, building on the right Zion”. 6) 

And then Walther shows clearly and in detail in this essay that the Lutheran Church really celebrates the true visible Church. This essay was reprinted in 1920.

———————

6) Twelfth and Thirteenth Synod Reports, 1864 and 1866, p. 39, 40.

———————

In particular, the third essay should either be translated into English or presented in free English to the present generation; for Walther, after preliminary remarks on the concept of an Evangelical Lutheran local congregation independent of the state, treats them in these three chapters: “Of the rights” of such a congregation, “of the duties” thereof, and “of the exercise” of such rights and duties. The third chapter is the main chapter and is divided into seven sections: 

“1. Of the church assemblies. 2. the exercise of the duty of a congregation, to take care that the Word of God dwells abundantly among them and goes forth as prevalent. 3. the exercise of the duty of a congregation to care for the purity of doctrine and life and to discipline its members in relation to both. 4. the exercise of the duty of a congregation to also take care of the earthly life of its members. 6. to take care of the exercise of the duty of a church to be orderly and honest in everything it does. 6. the exercise of the duty of a congregation to work diligently, in the bonds of love and peace, also with the orthodox Church besides her of unity in the Spirit. 7. the exercise of the duty of a congregation to help in its part so that the Church may be built and promoted as a whole”. 7)

———————

7) Die rechte Gestalt, p. IX. [CPH translation: The Proper Form…]

= = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 4  = = = = = = = = =

Others Who Left for Walther's Church

      Fuerbringer did not include later German missionaries who left their German church bodies, ones who came during the time of Franz Pieper's tenure as the head of the Synod and/or the Seminary.  Along with Zorn, Willkomm, and Zucker were Theodore Naether and Franz Mohn.  A brief history of them is properly being highlighted by Concordia Historical Institute (CHI) in their MELIM page (*).  Unfortunately those men, if they were to rise from their graves, would testify against CHI's LCMS on its sorry defense of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.  They staked their spiritual lives on Walther's and Pieper's teaching.

Language Looms on Missouri's Horizon
      Fuerbringer touches on the issue of transitioning from the German to the English language and appears to appeal for more work to be done on this for the rich treasures in Walther's writings so that the laity may read from him.  What puzzles me is that he did not do any of Walther's major writings himself.  Nor did he perform translations of any of Pieper's books.  —  In the next Part 4…

Baier-Walther, Compendium Theologiae Positivae-v.1 digital text

(updated Nov. 24 to add Vol. I  Table of Contents)
NOTE: 2016-07-08 Updated to add links direct to the Google Docs files. See list at bottom.
2017-07-13: added link to Archive copy of Index "Volume IV"
I have previously written about this work on several occasions.  It is a different kind of publication from the old (German) Missouri Synod for it is primarily in Latin, typeset in a Roman font, not the Fraktur font.  But it also has German, Greek, and Hebrew wording as well.  These are the languages of theology through the ages.  The English language is only important in the last century, and even then as secondary to the others.  O, if only I could be a scholar in these languages and not be so tied to the English language!

There are 132 references to this work in Franz Pieper's 3-volume Christian Dogmatics (C.D.) textbooks:

1. C.D. Vol. 1: 68 references
2. C.D. Vol. 2: 40 references
3. C.D. Vol. 3: 24 references

Clearly, Pieper did not hide the fact that his textbooks used Walther's work as one of his major foundations.  And its contents will be largely understood by following Pieper's references to it.

The Baier-Walther Compendium has been made available again in print in recent years as reproductions of the originals (essentially scanned images) by Emmanuel Press here.  But these do not include the digitized text.  Since this work is considered "Walther's textbook", the one he used during his days of teaching, I consider it to have great value, and I am presenting the digital text, in the original languages.  In previous years this would have no value for laymen because its languages were incomprehensible.  But with today's Internet tools, digitization and Google Translate (even for Latin), it is within our grasp so that the general meaning of the text can be readily determined by copying relevant texts into Google Translate for Latin or German.

I am beginning now with Volume 1.  This text is the output of OCR software from scans of the original books (not from Emmanuel Press) with some corrections of OCR errors in the Latin and German portions.  Although it will be readily seen that this is far from perfect, yet there are far less errors of text than in the Google Books "plain text" OCR copy.  No attempt was made to correct the Greek and Hebrew words because of my lack of familiarity with them.  To get the exact Greek and Hebrew texts, the user will need to either download the book scan from Google Books or purchase the reproductions from Emmanuel Press which are reasonably priced.
             - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents, Vol. I  - - - - - - - -
               CONSPECTUS VOLUMINIS PRIMI.

M. Joh. Casp. Zeumeri Vita Joh. Guil. Baieri, Epist. dedicatoria,

        Praefatio etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.III. sqq.

                     PROLEGOMENA.

CAP. I. De natura et constitutione theologiae. . . . . . . . . .  p.  1. sqq.

          ubi speciatim de theologia naturali . . . . . . . .  .  p.  6. sqq.

                                  de revelata . . . . . . . . . . p. 30. sqq.

CAP. II. De principio theologiae revelatae seu deScriptura sacra  p. 79. sqq.

     Download PDF file (searchable) ==>> here <<==  (7 MB)

     Download DOCX file   ==========> here <==  (.5 MB) (or here)

"Walther's Textbook", Volume I (189 pages)

     There are earlier editions of Baier's work (e.g. Preuss edition), but they do not compare to this edition by Walther, for it is Walther's added quotes that gives this work its real value.  Just as Luther had to judge the Church Fathers where they erred, so Walther had to judge where Baier or other "orthodox Lutheran theologians" went astray and make corrections in their erroneous statements.  As Emmanuel Press says, the Index Volume IV gives “several of Baier’s phrases, opinions, and modes of teaching, of which Dr. Walther did not approve.”  And the one review on Amazon by "John D. Kronen" utterly misses the mark as this work was not for "scholars" but rather for Christian teaching, including the "disastrous doctrines of the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture".
     You will find many points of interest in this text when explored.  For example Walther quotes the Koran on pages 130-131.
= = = = = = = =   Table of Contents   = = = = = = = = =
NOTE: 2016-07-08 Updated to add links direct to the above Google Docs files. —  [HathiTrust list]
Volume I (Prolegomena; updated Nov. 21) (published Google Docs here) [Ggl Books here and here]
Volume II (posted Nov. 20) (published Google Docs here)                  [Ggl Books here]; HathiTrust here]
Volume IIIa (posted Nov. 23) (published Google Docs here)                [Ggl Books here]
Volume IIIb (posted Nov. 24) (published Google Docs here)
Index ("Volume IV") (published Google Docs here)               [Archive- book copy here]

Triglotta– Pieper- English language? (4e); Amish analogy

This continues from Part 4d reviewing the newly available book Concordia Triglotta from CPH. (See Table of Contents here)  This Part 4e continues my translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the appearance of the original book in 1921.  Pieper had just beautifully defended against the attacks of German theologians, who claimed differences between Martin Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, when he opened up the topic of languages.

Pieper's essay is indented. My interspersed comments are in green. 

Underlining is in the original.  Highlighting is mine. 

Hyperlinks added including page links to original essay in Google Books.

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

"Concordia Triglotta"

by Franz Pieper

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 67 (1921), pgs 297-301
(continued from Part 4d)

German?  English?  Which language to choose?  Pieper proceeds...

The fact that the Triglotta also presents the English text of the Lutheran Confessions besides the Latin and German, should not draw the accusation that we want to hastily turn the American Lutheran Church into an English one.  We hold, as it befits a Synod in principle, that the Church of God does not serve the language, but the language is to serve the Church.  We engage ourselves in each language which serves the doctrines of the Gospel.  In India we speak Indian, in China, Chinese.  Here in America we speak German where one understands German the best, English where the English language is understood the best or is preferred.  We also do not refuse, as everyone knows, to speak in some Slavic languages.  We so-called Missourians are now here in America, where English has taken root for a long time as the national language.  So we owe our wonderful Lutheran confessional writings in English to both those within and those outside the Lutheran Church.

A careful reading of this paragraph reveals that there were some in the old (German) Missouri Synod who resisted the changeover from German to English for the wrong reason... perhaps nationalism. Pieper squashes this thought with the imperative that 

"the Church of God does not serve the language, but the language is to serve the Church"

The question might then be: 

"Why did the old (German) Missouri Synod hang on to the German language so long in America?"

Pieper answered that question above and elsewhere by saying that the language to use is the "language which serves the doctrines of the Gospel."  Two World Wars have sadly pushed this question far too quickly.  And so the German language for me, a full German descendant, is totally foreign...  the language of Luther and the Reformation is outside my comprehension, and so probably for most of today's American Lutheran pastors... and probably so even for many of the Lutheran teachers.  Thank God the old (German) Missouri Synod produced the Concordia Triglotta (with an authoritative English translation) before the old Missouri was superseded by today's LC-MS.  And thank God they produced all 3 languages synchronized in 3 parallel columns so one can see, compare, and reference the old original languages.  

There is a religious group today that is partially analogous to the old (German) Missouri Synod – the Amish, and others like them – the "old order" societies.  Along with maintaining the old farming practices, they maintain the old German language among themselves.  One of their stated reasons for maintaining a separation from modern society is to maintain separation from "the English".  On the face of it, they have been successful, and so modern society by the millions go to visit their areas to get a taste of the "old ways".  Their lifestyle is now so popular that the Discovery Channel even attempts to cash in with a sensationalistic depiction of them ("Amish Mafia"), a depiction that is widely discredited.  One wonders that if the German language was still evident in today's LC-MS in certain areas of America, the Discovery Channel would also falsely depict them.  It is sad for me that the Amish, although they maintain separation from "the English", have separated from the Lutheran Reformation, and so became a sect, a sect that went back to a doctrine of works.  But I envy them in this respect, that they largely understand the German language.  Hmmm...  I wonder if they use Luther's translation of the Bible in the German language?

Pieper then ends his essay on the physical aspects of the book itself:

As for the exterior features of the Concordia Triglotta, our Concordia Publishing House has particularly succeeded this time in providing a suitable dress for the "golden Concordia".       

F.[ranz] P.[ieper]

- - - - - - - - - End of Pieper's essay - - - - - - - - -

The original Concordia Triglotta was hardback whereas today's CPH version is "Print on Demand" paperback (2-4 weeks delivery)...  much cheaper to produce in smaller volumes.  I would not fault CPH for producing it this way if it allows a wider audience to purchase the book.  But a $70 price tag would rather present a barrier to a purchase... something they seemingly would have attempted to avoid.  So I suggest the reader look for used copies of the older version on Amazon or elsewhere first.  But if none are available, I recommend purchasing this new one because it is the "gold standard", the "golden Concordia".  Then one will understand the Reformation... the Lutheran Reformation, from the Reformation century, ... then one will understand Martin Luther.

May Pieper's introductory essay serve as today's introduction to the newly available Concordia Triglotta, even if this new book lacks Bente's "Historical Introductions" (free version here).  And if today's CPH has added its own introduction and attempted to do a better job than Pieper, may the reader ignore it and do what Pieper says:

"Just read the Confessions, check their Scripture evidence and convince yourself..."

In the next Part 5a of this series, I begin to review the essay by Prof. Roland Ziegler concerning the Book of Concord... and a detractor of the old Missouri Synod.

Triglotta–Pieper–Luther, Scripture, detractors (4d); Bente's Historical Intro

This continues from Part 4c reviewing the newly available book Concordia Triglotta from CPH. (See Table of Contents here)  This Part 4d continues my translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the appearance of the original book in 1921.  Pieper previously pointed out how the Lutheran Confessions demonstrate that the Lutheran Church is the Bible Church.   And now Pieper quotes Martin Luther to bolster this claim...  Yes, Prof. Pieper, tell us again what Luther says about Scripture itself... for you are the best one to point us to

What Luther Says:

Pieper's essay is indented. My interspersed comments are in green. 

Underlining is in the original.  Highlighting is mine. 

Hyperlinks added including page links to original essay in Google Books.

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

"Concordia Triglotta"

by Franz Pieper

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 67 (1921), pgs 297-301
(continued from Part 4c)

Yes, Prof. Pieper, tell us again what Luther says about Scripture itself... for you are the best one to point us to What Luther Says:

"It is a different study in the Scripture when one lays out obscure passages and figures; that becomes thought of as a kind of hunting, because one understands it to be some fun [for entertainment], as they look for and catch wild game.  But the kind of study useful for battle is that one that is learned in Scripture, as Paul says [Titus 1:9]. It means to fight powerfully and with many clear passages, as with a drawn and naked sword, without any glosses and interpretations. This was the significance of the golden spears in Solomon’s temple. Thus the opponent, overcome by the bright light, must see and confess that God’s sayings stand alone and need no human interpretation.  The foe who does not believe clear Scripture will certainly not believe the glosses of any of the fathers either."

And shortly before:

"How could they [the fathers] have overcome the heretics if they had fought with their own glosses?  They would have been regarded as fools and senseless people. But since they cited such clear passages, which did not need glosses, that all reason was captivated by them, the evil spirit himself, along with all the heresies, had to retreat before them." (St. Louis Edition, 18, 1293 f.; Luther's Works, Am. Edition, v. 39, page165 [PNG file] – "Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser...") 

In summary, the Lutheran church has by God's mercy a confession which identifies itself in the strictest examination as a vow to the doctrine revealed in the Holy Scripture.

Ah, how refreshing it is to hear Luther in relation to Scripture and the essence of the Lutheran Confessions which include Luther's Small and Large Catechism.  Now we understand Luther.

But there are those who would try to put a wedge between Luther and the Lutheran Confessions.  And Pieper points them out, this time from a different German theologian than in the last section (von Frank).

The Triglotta also offers in 256 pages the "Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church."  We particularly refer to these historical introductions.  They have been presented for a quarter century by Prof. Bente to the Symbolics classes at our St. Louis institution.  An examination of these introductory remarks will show that the author thoroughly knows and completely understands the historical material, especially the dogmatic history.  Unfortunately, newer theologians, Lutherans included, e.g. misrepresent the relationship between Luther and the Formula of Concord, and especially concerning the disputes surrounding the drafting of the Formula of Concord, and so do not [Page 301] judge properly.  The reason is that they themselves do not hold to the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions.  So they were then always tempted to reinterpret the disputed issues and confessional statements for the purposes of their own divergent doctrinal positions.  For example, Dieckhoff claimed that Luther was in mind when the 2nd Article of the Formula of Concord discarded "the Stoic and Manichaean absurdity". (See the article in Lehre und Wehre. 1886, p 193 ff.: "Luther and the Formula of Concord.")  And Dieckhoff stands there with the assertion that a contrast existing between the Formula of Concord and Luther – Luther's De Servo Arbitrio [The Bondage of the Will] – is not the only difference.  We now see what Professor Bente proves otherwise with documentary evidence under the sub-headings "The Synergistic Controversy" (p.124 ff.), "The Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord" (p. 195 ff.), "Luther and Article XI of the Formula of Concord" (p. 209 ff).  Altogether we have in Prof. Bente's "Historic Introductions" such an expert and thorough dogmatic history over the whole time period of Luther up to the Formula of Concord, that we European theologians who are not so strong in the English language desire a separate edition to appear in the German language.

Even my blog has received comments from would-be theologians like the German theologian Dieckhoff that Pieper points out above.  These commenters are supporters of the theology of CTS-FW, e.g. Profs. David Scaer and Cameron MacKenzie... I call them my "Jeopardy" theologians.  You can read about them on this blog post: "Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther", blog post of December 15, 2012... from my "Dieckhoff-Jeopardy" theologians.  Although their specific so-called "difference" between Luther and the Lutheran Confessions is not the same point that Pieper defends against, yet their whole idea of this "difference" is ridiculous and so I have not even taken the time (yet) to investigate it.   If I get time, I will translate Pieper's 1886 essay in Lehre und Wehre where he gave more specifics of Luther's detractors.  
I think that I will call my detractors of last December my "Jeopardy-Dieckhoff" theologians.  Hmmm, the commenters didn't say where they got this idea of theirs, that the Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther... could it be an idea dreamed up by Prof. Cameron MacKenzie?  

But let us proceed on to Pieper's last point in this paragraph:

Altogether we have in Prof. Bente's "Historic Introductions" such an expert and thorough dogmatic history over the whole time period of Luther up to the Formula of Concord, that we European theologians who are not so strong in the English language desire a separate edition to appear in the German language.

Pieper almost floored me with this comment...  he seems to be almost expressing jealousy that Bente wrote the "Historical Introductions" in English and not German.  He seems to say that he himself is not so strong in the English language.  But I know that is not the case for he wrote a wonderful essay "Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration" in the English language for The Presbyterian & Reformed Review a few years earlier.  But this raised a question of language... what language should the old (German) Missouri Synod use for the future, beyond 1921?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - continued in Part 4e - - -

In the next Part 4e, Pieper addresses the issues surrounding the languages... specifically that the Triglotta included.......  English language!  Is the English language important today?  I suppose so...  it's the only language I can speak...  sigh.

Pieper – Foreword 1891 – Pt 2: German or English language?

This continues from Part 1, Franz Pieper's foreword to the 1891 Lehre und Wehre journal.  In this portion of his essay, he brings out the subject of why the Missourians maintained the use of the "foreign" German language.  I have blogged on this subject before here and here but Pieper hammers home the spiritual reasons even more in this article.  The reason was not because of convenience:

     It is also charged against us Missourians as "un-American" that we do not accelerate the process of anglicization in our mostly German congregations.  With regard to this point, we repeat here what has already been often spoken by us: we do not consider it our mission to get a German Lutheran church here in America in all circumstances.  For our holy duty, applied to us by God, we hold only so far to us is to ensure that the Lutheran Church will remain in this country.  Thereto we strive.  To achieve this goal, we seek to be diligent in the training of orthodox preachers and teachers.  Whether the Lutheran Church speaks English or German, is not essential to us.  To us everything comes on the fact that she is Lutheran.  We subordinate to this aim everything, also the language.  If it stood in such a way that we would have to accept as quickly as possible the English language to receive in this country the Lutheran church and to spread out, we would not hesitate for a moment to offer quickly to anglicize our congregations.  But now it is generally the reverse that is the case.  The target set us by God, the preservation and propagation of the Lutheran Church, imperiously demands that we still cling to the German language as a church language.  The attempt to introduce the English language would destroy not only most of our existing congregations, but would also take the possibility from us to gather the scattered material, which we turn first our concern, into Lutheran congregations.  The fact that here in America much unchurched German material exists which can be reached only by the medium of the German language is already illuminated by the fact that also the English-speaking sects feel constrained to form German congregations to supply the Germans ecclesiastically and to win them for their fellowships.  It is also a mistaken view if one believes that the Lutheran church has lost so many members to the sects in this country in 17th and 18th centuries because she held too long and too tenaciously to the German, or Swedish or Dutch language.  The reason for this deplorable fact lay in the neglect of the youth in the higher education of pure Lutheran doctrine, particularly in the neglect of congregational schools, and in the unionistic direction of the majority of immigrant Lutherans.  We want to make nothing artificial of what concerns the language question, but allow the Lord of the church to lead us.  Where the Lord of the Church calls to our stated goal, namely the preservation and expansion of the Church of the Reformation, there we want to make use of the English language.  Among the English-speaking Negros we missionize in English language.  Also we enter with joy where a door opens to us among the English-speaking whites with the (page 5) English language.  Where, however, the aim put to us demands the retention of the German language, there we want to pursue this, and not to be deterred by the foolish accusation that we harbored "un-American" feelings.  That we are reduced to the necessity of having to understand two languages harms neither us nor our new fatherland.     F.P.

(continuation follows) [in February issue]

(continued in Part 3a)
--------------------------
Yes, today's LC-MS, you are the "anglicized" version of the old (German) Missouri Synod... not so much because you now use entirely the English language, but you have given up the doctrine of the pure Lutheran church.  Franz Pieper could speak and write English fluently, so also C.F.W. Walther.  But they chose to stay with German language for spiritual reasons.
And it need not be hardly mentioned that the old (German) Missouri Synod had a heart for the black people as Pieper describes, to bring the Saviour to them.  Unfortunately most black people have been influenced by the Reformed doctrine, and Methodism.
Part 3a follows next where Pieper hammers home the importance of congregational schools.