L05–II. 1. The Golden Rule: misconception #1

      This continues from Part L04 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Rather than spend time on the first part, to love God above all things, Walther focuses on love for neighbor. In this segment, he addresses the first of two misconceptions on the "Golden Rule" (Matt. 7:12) — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 335 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      1. “Love your neighbor as yourself” means: “Whatever you want men to do to you, do to them.”

• “There are two main misconceptions about this commandment”
• “First of all,… it is customary in common life to say: Every man is his own neighbor, which some of the Church Fathers (and even some Lutheran theologians have followed them in this…) express thus: …love begins with oneself.”
• “Our self-love should therefore be the pattern for our love for our neighbor; just as we love ourselves, so sincerely, so fervently, so actively and so constantly, we should also love our neighbor”

What Luther says on the true contents of the Ten Commandments and Christian freedom:

• “Therefore, no one can tell you better than you yourself what to do, what not to do, what to say or what to wish for your neighbor.”
• “I understand the commandment to mean that it does not command us to love ourselves, but only to love our neighbor. First of all, because the love of self is first in all men and reigns supreme. Secondly, if God had wanted this order, he would have said thus: Love yourself, and then your neighbor as yourself. But now he says: Love your neighbor as yourself, that is, love him as you already love yourself without any commandment.”
• “Therefore you do not need a book to teach you how to love your neighbor. For you have in your heart the finest and best book, in which you will find described everything that all kinds of laws may teach you, and you need neither a doctor nor a teacher: just ask your own heart, and it will tell you that you should love your neighbor as yourself.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Many years ago, when I was under treatment by psychiatrists/psychologists and counselors for my mental state, much of the counsel was to avoid a lack of "self-esteem", that was the heart of mental and emotional problems. When I was brought back to my Christian faith, I saw all that worldly counsel for what it was, "hogwash". I already loved myself, as everyone does. — In the next Part L06, Walther addresses the second misconception of this teaching. 

Psychology vs Scripture (LC-MS vs OLC): McLaughlin speaks

    In reviewing old issues of the publication of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC), a church body formed from Missouri Synod members who left that erring church, I came across a 1-page blurb from 1953 with the above title.  It highlights what ruled the thinking of LC-MS teachers after they had given up on orthodox teaching — "psychology".  The author was Prof. Wallace McLaughlin of whom this blog has written about many times.  He joined with Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann in leaving the LC-MS.  From The Orthodox Lutheran, August, 1953, p. 166; (bolding and highlighting are mine):

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

Psychology versus Scripture

[by Wallace H. McLaughlin]

Some time ago a rather lengthy correspondence between a Missouri layman, who had been graduated from one of the junior colleges of that Synod, and our dear brother H. F. Koehlinger, known to the readers of this church paper chiefly through his heart-searching devotionals based upon Luther’s exposition of the Twenty-third Psalm, was turned over upon request for publication in this paper. After careful reading and consultation among three or four of us we decided that we could not afford the space in this Scriptural publication to reproduce so much of the Missourian’s scurrilous language as would form the necessary background for printing all of our brother’s fine Scriptural rejoinders. If space were not so precious with us we could indeed cite excellent precedent for publishing the whole correspondence, in Luther’s frequent practice of publishing libels written against him with or without his own detailed reply.

Yet this material is so symptomatic of the attitude of many Missourians today that we could not wholly ignore it. Even before the establishment of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, but in an intensified degree since that time, the so-called “psychological approach” has displaced the old-time Scriptural propaganda and polemics once characteristic of the Missouri Synod. If you disagree with Missouri today and attack her aberrations you are not likely to be regarded as an erring brother who must be set straight from Scripture, or as a heretic whose mouth must be stopped by Scripture, but rather as a “psychoneurotic” who should consult a psychiatrist.

The Missouri correspondent to whom we are referring is an extreme example of this attitude. We find him constantly insisting that he has no interest whatsoever in our “silly theological debate” but only in the personal “frame of mind” of his former friend. In his letters he uses no Scripture, although Brother Koehlinger’s answers are full of Scripture properly applied, but takes evident pride in the ease with which he has been able to recognize what he considers the peculiar “psychosis” expressed in the actions and publications of our Orthodox Conference.

Such attacks on our church-body, whereby he presumes to enter a public controversy without knowledge of the facts and with professed disinterest in the theological principles involved, are the most objective sections of his extremely subjective tirades. He does once express curiosity as to “what new thought your group is advancing,” but suppresses his curiosity with the remark: “Seems to me you aren’t saying anything new.” In this of course he is right; as Brother Koehlinger’s rejoinder shows: “We believe, teach, and confess only the eternal Bible truths.” That is really all the answer we can make to people who are not interested in “theological debate” on the basis of Scripture. There is no common ground on which we can meet.

The situation delineated above, which is startlingly general, may account in large degree for the failure to “get together and talk things over” between representatives of the Missouri Synod and the O.L.C. When we adduce God’s Word and are met by the suggestion that we have our heads examined there is no basis for discussion. Under such circumstances we are not surprised when our adversaries lose interest and break off discussion, as occurred in this case. With those who regard the fact of taking Bible doctrine seriously as an indication of “fanaticism,” and the willingness to die for it if need be as a “martyr complex,” we have nothing to discuss.

W. H. M., with grateful acknowledgments to H. F. K.

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

By the terms that McLaughlin showed from an LC-MS graduate, I, and my blog, are

• “psychoneurotic” and “should consult a psychiatrist.” I have a
• peculiar “psychosis” and should
• “have my head examined.”

Actually I have been counseled by psychologists and psychiatrists, but that was because I left my Missourian/Lutheran/Christian faith.  Now, after returning to my faith, I no longer need their godless counseling.  Now I am in good company, with those who held to the truth of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. I hold with Luther, Walther, Franz Pieper, and Wallace McLaughlin.  I am back home again, and going Back To Luther.

Psychology today, 150 years ago- Mueller overview: “criticism of modern psychology”

      I have blogged several times where the field of “Psychology” was at least partly the subject matter.  Being a former patient of that field, and having come out of it, I have wondered where and why this field of study went wrong, and why so many Christians are fooled by modern "counseling" today.  Before I comment further, I am republishing Prof. J. T. Mueller's brief book review on this subject – of an author who has been grouped with B. F. Skinner and is labeled a “radical behaviorist.”  Translation was not needed, but I added some reference hyperlinks and an image of the book's author. The text is taken from Concordia Theological Monthly, vol. 1, no. 9, (September 1930), p. 719-720:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Prof. R. H. Wheeler

The Science of Psychology. An Introductory Study. By Prof. R. H. Wheeler, University of Kansas. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York. 556 pages. Price, $3.75.

There is an abysmal difference between the psychology of half a century ago [~1882] and that of the present time. The old psychology, known as mental philosophy, purposed to “ascertain the facts and laws of mental operation” and occupied the middle ground between metaphysics and natural science. It presupposed the “soul” to be an entity distinct from the body and regarded man as endowed by his Creator with a “moral consciousness,” or conscience, which functioned on the basis of a natural knowledge of God and His divine Law. (Cp. Dr. J. Haven’s Mental Philosophy.) [p. 15] The theory of Evolution, with its corollary of man’s descent from the primates, has wielded so tremendous an influence also on the science of psychology that its metaphysical content has been entirely eliminated. Psychology has become a matter of biological study, of laboratory and experimental investigations, of reactions to stimuli, of (page 720) social attitudes, etc. Professor Wheeler’s text-book is one of the most modern and forward-reaching of any published on the subject. It is written from the so-called configurational and organismic standpoints. Psychology, according to the author, is the “study, first, of social behavior with its various limited and specialized activities, and second, of those forms of behavior which can be abstracted from it” (p. 3). Behavior is “the activity of an organism-as-a-whole.” The organism is living in an environment which furnishes constant stimulation. Stimulations are the “activating influences of physical forces or social situations upon the organism.” Whatever the organism does as a result of this stimulation is called a response. The mechanisms of response in man are the nervous system, the muscles, and the glands. With these bodily structures the human being sees, hears, thinks, fears, loves, hates, and carries out all forms of overt action, such as locomotion, manipulation of objects, and talking. From the time of its conception the organism commences to grow and mature in certain definite directions which are laid down in the history of the species or race. The history of the species or race is therefore a remote condition of behavior (p. 3). These are some of the guiding principles of modern organismic psychology as presented in this book. Of course, the Christian student cannot satisfy himself with such a foundation for his psychological studies. It leaves out the fundamental facts of man’s original creation in the image of God, of the tremendous problem of sin as sin, of the divine Law inscribed in the heart, of conscience, etc. The human being “sees, hears, thinks, fears, loves, hates,” etc., not merely with the “bodily structures of nerves, muscles, and glands.” To understand his intellectual, volitional, and emotional acts, we must go beyond the “bodily structures” to the hidden realm of the soul. Psychology is more than a “biological science from the standpoint of the individual.” The “physical, chemical, and physiological facts” do not explain all the causes of “human behavior,” nor do the “social stimulations” account for it. All this must be stated in criticism of modern psychology, which is built up entirely on evolutionistic premises. But although the student of the Bible cannot agree with such psychology, he will recognize Prof. Wheeler’s Science of Psychology as a notable text-book on modern psychology.

J. T. Mueller

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
      Prof. Mueller's identification of the “theory of Evolution” as the major contributing factor in the downfall of “psychology” showed that he was not blind to what was actually happening 90 years ago. It was refreshing for me to read that this “psychology today” means something quite different than in times past.  And Mueller at least partially answers the question: “Just what was psychology in times past?” I read in one of C.F.W. Walther's articles where he used the old field of “Psychology” when discussing a matter, before it changed into what “psychology” is today.  But today it is used as the source of “counseling” when people, including children, are in greatest distress, like I was.  I was in that group a few decades ago, and I sought counsel from my LC-MS pastor, which was helpful.  But I recall now that he did not warn against secular counseling and I ended up going to the care of a psychiatrist and a psychologist, attending “Group Therapy” for a number of years.  I always felt ashamed that I, a born-and-raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, would go to… worldly counseling.  Now I know why I felt ashamed, for I knew even then that this was a matter for spiritual counsel, something that modern secular counseling knows nothing about.  But even today's “spiritual counsel” is woefully lacking because it does not trust the Word alone, but mixes it with the methodology of modern psychology.  I recall distinctly how one of my psychological “counselors” groaned when I told them I attended a Lutheran church. They knew that their counseling did not mix with Christian counsel. 

      May other Christians caught in the trap of modern psychological “counseling” rather seek counsel and comfort from the Holy Scriptures, i.e. Christ's Word, and from those counselors faithful to it.  

Fundament 15: Means 6: “experience theologian”, bad psychologists, “insanity”; Julius Stahl

      This continues from Part 14 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — Pieper got my attention when he mentions the field of psychology since I had been a patient in the past under both a psychiatrist and an psychologist for past distresses in my life. I wanted to hear from Pieper a Christian response to the worldly methods used in these fields for counseling.  — We are also introduced to a German man, Julius Friedrich Stahl, who had once been a Jew but became a Lutheran and defended the doctrine of the Means of Grace.  More information on him will follow later.  But I am reminded of other Jews who became notable Christians, some Lutherans, like Felix Mendelssohn (Evangelical) and Friedrich Philippi (Lutheran).

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

Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.

[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 14 - page 253]

Luther is the personified type of the proper “experience theologian”. He advises every Christian and every theologian that “one should think about the letters [of Scripture], how to hold one's fist to a tree or a wall, so that we do not glide or flutter too far, and go astray with one's own thoughts. That is lacking in our enthusiasts, that they think, when they drive into their high spiritual thoughts, they have met it, and do not see how they go the wrong way without the Word, letting vain false wisps seduce them”.

In the same sermon, Luther declares all to be bad psychologists who do not know the erratic and torn nature of the human heart corrupted by sin, if they gain the courage to even think about spiritual things without a word of Scripture. Luther cites as an example what was reported about Saint Bernard. 

“This I must speak of as an example, as one reads of St. Bernard, who had tried such and complained for a time to a good friend that he would be angry to pray aright, and could not pray one ‘Our Father’ without strange hazards. The friend took this very much meaning that that would take no art or work at all. St. Bernard bet with him that he should try, and that he would wager a good stallion, only that he should tell him [immediately confess honestly if other thoughts occurred to him while praying]. He figured to do it without any effort and began to pray: 'Our Father' etc.; but before he got beyond the first petition, it occurred to him that if he gained the horse, whether he also had saddle and bridle for it. In short, he comes so far with thoughts that he soon had to let go and give St. Bernard the win. In short, if you can speak the Lord's Prayer without some other thoughts, I will think of you as a master; I cannot; yes, I will be glad if I think of thoughts that they will fall away again as they have come. I say this because one does not chatter over such texts like the raw spirits, but learns why we need such an outward Word and manner, namely that one holds the heart together with it, that it is not scattered.”

“So pitifully torn is the thing about man's heart; it goes, weaves, and wobbles, that no wind nor water is so movable.” In view of this fact, Luther calls it an “insanity” if we ourselves abandon [page 254] the outer Word of Scripture as the only foundation of the Christian faith. (St. L.VIII, 787 ff. [not in old series Am. Ed.]) Luther comments on John 17:8, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” etc. the following: 

“Behold how Christ speaks clearly of the outward verbal Word, by the bodily voice, spoken by Christ, and put into the ears, that no one should heed it as little or unnecessary; how many now mad spirits deceive themselves, and think that God must travel with them in a special way, by the secret revelation of the Spirit, etc. [to this belong also the modern theologians who speak of an experience of God and Christ without the means of grace] and thus lead themselves from God and Christ to the devil.” 

With regard to the opposite proper method, according to which only “Christ's Word” is allowed to be the foundation of faith, Luther adds: 

“Now I know that I have a gracious, kind Father in heaven, who through inexpressible, cordial love and goodness has sent and given me his dear Son, Christ, with all that He has acquired and directed, that I may fear neither sin nor death nor devil. Only, that one should abide by the word, and reject all other thoughts, and hear not other things of God, nor know without what Christ speaketh. For as I have always said, this is the single way to deal with God, that one should not tarnish, and the right step or bridge, on which one should go to heaven, that one should remain here and cling to this flesh and blood [to Christ as Deus incarnatus], yes, to the Words and letters that go from his mouth, whereby He leads us up to the Father in the finest way, that we may find and feel no wrath nor terrible image, but pure comfort, joy, and peace.” 

Let us repeat once again: Luther, with his clinging to the outer Word and the means of grace as the foundation of the faith, is the proper, normal “experience theologian”  over against all old and modern enthusiasm. May all also listen to the Reformer of the Church sent by God on this matter!

Rudolf Kögel vs. Friedrich Julius Stahl

From the different positions on the means of grace we can see the fundamental difference between Luther's Reformation and the Reformation which Zwingli and Calvin set in motion and continued alongside and against Luther. Rudolf Kögel judged harshly in his judgment against the lawyer Dr. [Friedrich Julius] Stahl, 83) because Stahl claimed in his paper “The Lutheran Church and the Union” that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church, and also justified this irreconcilable contradiction with the fact “that the Lutheran Church believes in the bestowal of grace by means and tools and draws comfort from it, 

-------------- 

83) RE.2 XIV, 579-590. About [Friedrich Julius] Stahl see also L. u. W. 6, 141 ff. [“The Lutheran Church and the Union”; on Stahl see German Wikipedia; Jewish Encyclopedia]

[page 255] 

the Reformed Church denies it.” [see LuW p. 144]  On other points, Stahl did not see clearly concerning “church and state” and “church and union”. [see LuW essay; this holds for Stahl’s follower Peter Drucker] But in this point the “theological dilettante”, as Stahl was well known to be, is right against the “theologian” Kögel that the opposite position on the means of grace implies a difference which makes a doctrinal union or confessional union between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church impossible. 

"Holy Spirit needs no 'vehicle'"

Let us once again look back at the contrast between Zwingli and Calvin, on the one hand, and Luther, on the other, in their position in relation to the means of grace that opposed us. According to Zwingli and Calvin, the Holy Spirit has no necessary “vehicle”, that is, no means of grace. According to Luther, the Holy Spirit comes only through the means of grace. Accordingly, we found in Zwingli and Calvin the explicit admonition not to want to judge from God's gracious attitude toward us men from the external Word or even from the sacraments, from baptism and the Lord's Supper, on the grounds that these external things do not bring grace and spirit (advehunt). 

With Luther, on the other hand, we found the opposite instruction, namely the constant admonition to flee to the objective means of grace, on the grounds that the Holy Spirit brings God's grace only through these external means ordered by God and works and maintains faith in grace. Stahl rightly reminds us that not both can be true: the gift of grace without means and the gift of grace only by means: “It can only be either that is truth and that is error or vice versa”.

The Scriptures, as we saw, decide very clearly that the truth is found on Luther's side, while Zwingli and Calvin represent the error. And this Zwinglian-Calvinist error is not located on the periphery, but is of central and far-reaching [radical? Franzmann’s “radical Gospel”? Franzmann resorts to terminology of “enthusiasm”] importance. It means nothing less than an actual reversal of the house rules in God's kingdom of grace here on earth. God wants to offer and appropriate his grace to the sinner through the external means ordered by Him. Zwingli and Calvin together with their appendages to our time reject this method as the majesty of God, are not decent and are harmful to the sinner. This principled rebellion against the divine house rules includes the apostasy from the Christian doctrine of grace, the apostasy from the divine justification by faith without works, and the return to the Papist doctrine of works. 

Luther rightly says: 84) “The enthusiasts do not take away the confidence of works, but strengthen the works even more and leave the confidence in them.” Why is Luther's judgment correct? We must not let the real situation be obscured by the fact that the enthusiasts often and much use the word “grace”. 

--------------- 

84) St. L. XI,1415. [§ 28; not in old series Am. Ed.]

= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 16  = = = = = = = = = =

      Pieper's praise of the German statesman Julius Stahl reveals a notable man with far-reaching effects even for today.  How refreshing to note that a converted Jew became a defender of the Lutheran "Means of Grace".  But Pieper also cautions that Stahl "did not see clearly concerning 'church and state' and 'church and union'."  The Swedish theologian Bengt Hägglund, in his History of Theology, p. 364 only notes Stahl's "legal basis" for a "new concept of the church", and sadly does not emphasize Stahl's praiseworthy defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the "Means of Grace"… too bad. More will be said of Julius Stahl in the future Part 17. —  In the next Part 16…

Memories 11: Joyful- “lay the heart… on justification” (not psychology)

      This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series by Prof. Ludwig Fürbringer of his personal memories of the departed Franz Pieper in the 1931 Der Lutheraner magazine. — We learn more of Pieper's writing career and preference for the journal Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense) over Der Lutheraner in his later years.  We then learn more of his family.  But of great interest is the description of Pieper's state of mind, and we learn how a Christian thinks...

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

(page 300, col. 1)

Memories of Dr. Franz Pieper.

by Ludwig Fürbringer – [4.] (Part 11 of 16)

So it was when, as often happens, one was asked what one should hold on the teaching on tithing, and whether we Christians should not be anxious and act to give the tithe of our fortune. Not only did he give the right instruction that no commandment should be made of it, but also a heartfelt encouragement, and he usually said: “We want to start with what the Jews have ended with. They had to give tithing, we have no definite commandment of God in the New Testament; the whole law of ceremonies is dismissed, but it is certainly pleasing to God if we voluntarily at least tithe and out of love for God and the kingdom of God, out of gratitude for the good Gospel, possibly progress from tithing [the tenth] to the fifth.” And on this occasion I may say that I know very well, not from him but in another way, that he also acted on his own words when giving for church and charitable purposes.

In his clear, generally understandable and popular manner, he also wrote, especially in earlier years, often for the Der Lutheraner – short, absorbing and convincing. Older readers may remember that some of the articles, which, as was usually the case with him, bore a captivating title, such as "The Christian Church Is Aggressive." (Vol. 52, page 5). Later, when his work was steadily piling up and he continued to write numerous articles for Lehre und Wehre – almost every number had a longer or shorter contribution – he no longer found the time to speak directly to our Christian people also in the Der Lutheraner. And if, in this way, I let his long busy life, which I was quite able to observe during the last thirty-eight years in almost daily dealings with him, pass before my mind, (page 300, col. 2) that is how…

the memory of his joyful, sacred, hallowed disposition keeps coming back to me. He was an optimist in the best biblical sense of the word. The Church has often called the The Letter to Philippians an “Epistle of Joy,” because in this letter the apostle Paul, while imprisoned in Rome, repeatedly speaks of joy in spite of all the tribulations. And so to cheer myself up, I have thought more than once about how this also suited our Dr. Pieper. He lived in the Gospel of the free grace of God, and even the heavy experiences he had to go through – and these were not few – could not stifle him. Again and again he became joyous in looking up to his God and Savior. He could say to one or the other student, who was disgruntled and showed it outwardly, as in one case I know:

“You have to get another face, a Christian must always be cheerful.” I remember, as he said once during the years of his illness in 1910 or 1911 that as  his feelings were also depressed according to their nature, the dear God however gave him a little proverb every day in which he could stand up and with which he could console himself.  

There were sometimes sad experiences in the institutional life as well; but they only moved him more earnestly to lay the heart of the student on the doctrine of justification and the spiritual life of the Christian; and his beautiful lectures held before the students were first mimeographed and later appeared in print. And I know that in his happy family life he always expressed this joyful disposition sanctified in God. In 1877, he married Minna Köhn [2019-07-14: Minnie Koehn Pieper] of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, with whom he could then also celebrate quietly some years ago in the family circle the rare golden wedding anniversary. She was a particularly loving, caring life companion to him all his life into the days of his last illness. A large crowd of children blossomed from him, in whom he had his heartfelt joy. I remember how, when his eldest daughter had married and followed her husband to North Dakota, he was quite sad on the day of farewell that he “must give” her away”; but the greater was the joy when children and grandchildren came to the parental home and grandparent's house for the visit, or he could visit the children, who were scattered throughout the United States. But even then he was not spared serious suffering. He has had to bury the youngest daughter in childhood and later an adult child after long, severe suffering. And at the burial of the latter in May 1926, he showed me in the churchyard the place on which he would once rest. But from his last days I would like to later report some things. L[udwig] F[ürbringer].

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

      Fürbringer reveals that Pieper went through "heavy experiences"... as all Christians do.  It was reported elsewhere that his colleague George Stoeckhardt also went through very "heavy experiences".  Unfortunately that report on Stoeckhardt did not record the same sources of recovery that Fürbringer did: a) using Philippians, the “Epistle of Joy”, as a source of comfort and b) to "lay the heart… on the doctrine of justification".  Today's LC-MS would rather send parishioners-patients with "heavy experiences" to a "professional" psychologist.  What a shame… to turn away from God in the hour of need. —  In the next part 12…