History6: Chpt 2. Walther's Church & Ministry saves Emigration; Rast misjudges

      This continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 3), a series presenting an English translation of Pastor Christian Hochstetter's 1885 496-page book entitled (abbreviated) The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884. — Chapter 2 is the most hotly contested portion of this book by later LCMS historians with few exceptions. But I will remind the reader that C.F.W. Walther himself stated that Hochstetter "allowed the facts to speak, facts which simply cannot be gain-sayed."  Let the LCMS historians, especially Walther O. Forster's Zion on the Mississippi (a CPH book!), be seen as directly hostile to Old Missouri.  And I will again call on Drs. Fred Kramer and August Suelflow who praised Hochstetter and his History. — 
Some quotes from Chapter 2: all emphases, except underlining, are mine:

• 18: Two women testify against Pastor Stephan: "…driven by their conscience, on the same day went to Pastor Loeber and made confessions to him, which contained a terrible revelation about Stephan's fleshly sins. It was strange that both persons confessed to Pastor Loeber at different hours and without having arranged to meet each other."
• 20: "Walther was also already willing to protest against Stephan's appearance as a bishop as soon as he wanted to pretend to be a jure divino (by divine right) superior over the pastors."
• 24-25: Pastor Stephan's sin discovered, relieved of his office: "All the listeners noticed that there was an indication of a serious offence that was only now coming to light. Only now did the rumor of Stephan's disgraceful way of life penetrate through the whole settlement,…Stephan was not only relieved of his office, but also declared to have lost his property and was expelled from the State of Missouri… Pastor Loeber visited him again, accompanied by Candidate Brohm, and tried to lead Stephan to repentance, but in vain.… 'If we have now previously defended this man in ignorance and voluntary devotion, we now, since God has opened our eyes to this through his gracious guidance, publicly renounce the fallen'."
• 28: Emigration in confusion: "They were reproached at first that they should have seen through Stephan's goings-on earlier, and instead they had joined in the hierarchical way, because the whole emigration was a sinful step, and so they, the preachers, also ran away from their congregations in Saxony, they had no call here in America, emigration was pure devil's work. One began to denounce the validity of the official pastoral acts, because the romanizing Stephanism had changed into Donatism."
• 31: Walther's great rediscovery of Lutheran doctrine on Church and the Ministry: "'In this distress, when they believed that they were no longer a Christian congregation at all, … it was one man who saved them, the aforementioned Ferd. Walther.'… for it (the congregation) is the bearer and owner of all spiritual goods."
• 37-39: The Altenburg Theses (8), and their result: "As important and meaningful as the Leipzig Disputation of 1519 (Luther with Eck) became for the Reformation, so important — I dare say confidently — this Disputation held here (in Altenburg) at that time has become for the whole subsequent formation and shaping of our Lutheran Church here in the West (of America)."
• 40: "…this new arrangement of things has brought about peace and order and a very pleasant relationship between the pastors and their congregations."
• 42: “… the Missouri Synod is now accused by the people on that side of being unbiblical and un-Lutheran radicalism and independentism. They say that because here in this country 'the curb of the state is missing', so the civil conditions of North America were taken into account, and the democratic desires were yielded to [see p. 48 below] by the fact that the Missouri constitution transfers church government and the power of the keys to the individual congregation!”
• 44: [Walther] …immersed himself in the study of Luther and recognized that the thing that made Luther so strong in his struggles, whereby he not only resisted the Pope but also stood firm against Zwingli, Calvin and the enthusiasts, was Luther's faith in the Bible and Luther's abhorrence of all hierarchism in the church.
• 45: “Walther began to cast light on the decayed conditions with the same light which Luther had once resorted, with the light of Holy Scripture! Therefore, “back to Luther, for whoever goes back to Luther will be led into the Holy Scriptures! His teaching is nothing but the everlasting gospel!”
• 48: “Because Christ dwells and reigns invisibly in the hearts of his believers, only Christocracy [not democracy] practiced by the Word and the Holy Spirit takes place here.”

Images of some men appearing in Chapter 2: 

 G.H. Loeber,    O.H. Walther, C.F.W. Walther, Martin Stephan, J. F. Köstering, E. M. Bürger,  Th. Brohm,      E.G.W. Keyl,       Hoefling

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

The following is an English translation of C. Hochstetter's Geschichte… by BackToLuther utilizing the DeepL Translator with minor assistance from Dr. Fred Kramer's translation.  All hyperlinks, highlighting and red text in square brackets [] are mine. All internal hyperlinks are active in this embedded window, external links should be opened in a new tab or window.

In the next Part 7, we present Chapter 3. — After the break below: (1) a commentary on Prof. Lawrence Rast's judgments regarding the subject matter of this Chapter 2, and (2) full very small print version of Chapter 2 for search engine searchability. —

J. C. W. Lindemann vs LC-MS: Postscript

      After reading (in JCWL 8, ToC in Part 1) C.E. Luthardt's incredible quote of “The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”, it was doubly sad that Ludwig Fuerbringer followed Luthardt's judgment in 1932 on the authorship of Copernicus's epitaph.  We can see how Fuerbringer's weakness, even in 1932, is partially responsible for the continued downfall of the later Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Concordia Commentary,  Joshua 

      Prof. (emeritus) Adolph L. Harstad, an ELS theologian, denies the Bible's plain, clear meaning of Joshua 10:13 in his commentary Joshua (CPH 2004 edition, p. 423): 

“When the text speaks of the sun and moon standing still, this does not necessarily imply that the author believed that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the reverse. Rather, it is using language that describes phenomena as they appear to us from our vantage point on the earth.”  – 

This assertion is an accommodation of the Bible to "Science" and is clear proof that the new (English) ELS is not the “little Norwegian” of its fathers Madson and Ylvisaker or even of J.A.O. Preus II.  Indeed J.A.O. Preus, while still at the ELS in 1949, spoke against the “science” of Copernicanism (see here) in a writing against the opponent of the ELS, the ELC.

LC-MS Today (Harrison's “here and now”)

      Schaum and Collver, in their 2019 CPH book Breath of God, Yet Work of Man, essentially trample on the orthodox Lutherans of "Lindemann's List". They say (Look Inside, p. 431): 

"If you trust your physician, the same science suggests that you can trust a physicist. Even if  [Einstein's] general relativity has ended geocentricism for good, the Bible remains true and Christ still has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature."

LCMS    —     ILC     —     LLDP     —     CTSFW
Harrison    —    Collver    —    Schaum    —    Rast

They are following the exact same reasoning as the followers of Copernicanism, that "Science" has proved the Bible to be incorrect in its account of natural history.  CTS-FW President Lawrence Rast Jr. wrote the Foreword to this book, thereby lending his name to its content.  It is offered by the LC-MS to other worldwide Lutheran groups as a teaching aid, as part of their "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP).  Although Dr. Collver's "employment ended" in March 2019, yet his (and Schaum's) book was written while he was general secretary of the International Lutheran Council (ILC) and so this book is apparently still considered LC-MS doctrine… for worldwide Lutheranism.  It is sad that the LC-MS has dug its heels in so firmly. 

“Science” over the Bible… in the seminaries, universities
      In today's modern climate of "Science" over Scripture, a writer for Notre Dame University Press, Nicholas H. Steneck, stated in 1988 the following in his book Science and Creation in the Middle Ages in regard to a naturalist that Lindemann mentioned in Part 1, Henry of Langenstein (p. 42, emphasis mine):

“Laying bare the Creator’s design brings science squarely into focus. The revealed word of itself cannot lead to a full understanding of nature. In this regard Henry would not agree with Luther, for example, when the latter discards the “needless opinions” of the philosophers and turns “to Moses as the better teacher.” Using science and the works of scientists to help interpret Scripture is not only desirable, it is necessary… Ignorance of the way things are leaves the theologian vulnerable to the attacks and ridicules of philosophers. [JCWL: “fear of being considered stupid”] If nature and Sacred Scripture cannot be reconciled, the way is left open for the rejection of the latter’s teachings—even teachings that do not pertain strictly to nature. … No apology is needed for what follows, for unless we fully understand the workings of creation, the Creator too will fall beyond our intellectual and affective grasp.”

Steneck summarizes a position that matches the doctrinal position of the LC-MS.

Luther

Copernicus

< Lindemann's Luther, with Holy Scripture

vs. 

LC-MS replacement, Copernicus? >

May the true confessors of "Lindemann's List" be a strong testimony against today's teachers of the 
LC—MS and the ELS.

[I am planning to open my original Copernicanism series to comments after several years of restricting this.]

Rast–Pt 4a: Justification in Am. Lutheranism (Intro)

This post continues from Part 3h in a series (Table of Contents in Part 1) that reviews several essays of Prof. Lawrence A. Rast Jr., president of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana (CTS-FW).  This Part 4a begins a review of the essay "The Doctrine of Justification in American Lutheranism" from a series of essays published in the book A Justification Odyssey (2001) – Congress on the Lutheran Confessions (Luther Academy).  Here is an image of the book, Table of Contents, and the first page (PDF here):

A Justification Odyssey - Congress on the Lutheran Confessions, 2001

As the Table of Contents show, there were a total of 9 essays – Rast's was the 3rd essay, the one this review focuses on.  This book is still available for purchase here, so I will not be able to provide the complete text.  (Contact me privately.)  Only selected quotes will be given.  This essay is dated the year 2001, 3 years before the previously reviewed essay about Franz Pieper.  But the fact that this is out of sequence with the last review should not be a factor.

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

If the reader has followed my other reviews, it will be apparent why I have selected this essay for review.  It is because Prof. Lawrence Rast, Jr. has chosen a subject that concerns the article by which the Church stands or falls.  As in the last essay, I have found that Rast can do a credible job of defending Christian doctrine especially against teachers who have been noted offenders.  But before I proceed further, I would mention that Franz Pieper also defended against false teachings of other American Lutheran theologians of more recent times – I published this in an earlier blog post series The Open Heaven – Parts 6 through 9.
A rather revealing statement is made in Rast's introductory paragraphs (page 39):

...it seems that the title assigned to me gives me the responsibility of bridging the gap between the Reformation period and the later twentieth century. . . . This paper ... does begin to make a start on the central doctrine of Lutheranism from the perspective of three of the "Big Four." [8/22 - C.P. Krauth – article]  What it will ultimately find is that the very concerns Walther expressed in the nineteenth century about errors on the doctrine of justification may now be identified within the Missouri Synod itself.

This last admission by Prof. Rast is rather serious...  he is aware that this is a very important doctrine to discuss.  But to admit that Walther's concerns "may now be identified within the Missouri Synod itself" — one wonders what Prof. Rast intends to do about it.  He later gives further details (page 40) of this concern over errors in the "Missouri Synod" (LC-MS):

Within both traditions [LC-MS & ELCA], however, there are those individuals and congregations more comfortable with the other body's perspective! Hence the tangle of the present day.

OK, the "tangle" seems to be clarified by Prof. Rast – certain "individuals and congregations" of the LC-MS are "more comfortable" with the "perspective" of the ELCA.  At least Prof. Rast identifies the ELCA as having a problem with its "perspective"...  But has he himself overlooked some aspects of the history of the ELCA?  We identified one blind spot on the Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture recently.   And in Part 1 of this series, Rast has a big blind spot on the teaching concerning the Christian congregation.  Maybe Rast (/ John T. Pless) isn't so far from the ELCA on this teaching...  Shouldn't Rast and his LC-MS teachers be instructing these erring "individuals and congregations" so that they learn the truth?... or that they are removed (or remove themselves) from the LC-MS?  Wait a minute – didn't President Matthew Harrison say the LC-MS is "orthodox" in his book At Home in the House of My Fathers, page 628, in the introduction to Pieper's essay "The Difficult Path..."?  (Is "The Difficult Path" too difficult for today's LC-MS?)

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

Before arriving at Rast's section on C.F.W. Walther, he presents 2 antagonists who were noted "Lutheran" teachers in early America –

• Heinrich Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-87)\
• Samuel Simon Schmucker (1799-1873)

If one looks at when these "Lutheran" teachers lived, one might accuse Prof. Rast of being outdated, but that would take away the chance to learn from the errors of these teachers.  (Isn't the "outdated" charge a common one leveled at Franz Pieper?...)

I will not review the details of Rast's portions on either of the above erring "Lutheran" teachers except to say that he brings evidences of

• pietism or personal experience (page 42), 
• the conditional nature of salvation (page 43), 
• the minimizing of the Lutheran Confessions (page 45), 
• the voluntary nature of justifying faith (pg 51)

Schmucker surprisingly used the term "forensic" in a most deceptive way (pg. 51):

"Justification ... is not a change in man, nor even a divine influence exerted on earth, but a forensic act passed in the chancery of heaven."

This is a Lutheran way of speaking with the term "forensic act" – one often used today.  But Rast does a good job of uncovering the deception in that Schmucker conditions Justification with "a series of steps through which every man proceeds through a number of stages".  Schmucker's teaching sounds a lot like the "12 steps" used in "Alcoholics Anonymous".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Schmucker and Scaer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

An interesting point that Rast makes about Schmucker is this (pg. 48):

The extent of the atonement, affirms Schmucker, is the entire human race, "the whole human family."

It struck me when I read this statement.  This teaching is the same as that claimed for Prof. David Scaer by one of the "Anonymous" commenters last December 23rd when the commenter said:

Scaer talks about the Universal nature of the Atonement so much in his classes that if another teacher mentions "Atonement" someone often jokes that Scaer is about to bust through the door.

I did not publish this comment then because I was tired of these rabid "Jeopardy" scholars.  But I did respond to another portion of this comment on Christmas Day.  Anyway, the above statement struck me, and I did wonder about Prof. David Scaer... I have often wondered about him.  I attacked him in my "Lukewarm Lutheran Report", even though he is considered a teacher of UOJ by the notorious blasphemer "i c h a b o d" (GJ).  But I want to think that he inwardly holds to the true teaching of UOJ.  However, the above statement by (presumably) one of Scaer's students made me wonder: Is Scaer's "Universal Atonement" indicative of the same teaching as Schmucker?  Rast elaborates the problem with Schmucker's teaching on page 49:

For Schmucker, there is a universal atonement, but it does not equal the justification of the sinner before God. Something must happen personally, individually, before one can said to be justified.

It is my hope that Scaer does not fall further with his distracting "All Theology Is Christology", but comes back to the teaching of Pieper, Walther, and Luther... on the Doctrine of Justification.  Pieper taught (Brief Statement, paragraph 17, "Of Justification"):

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.

Here is where all theology begins.  May Scaer "bust through the door" on this doctrine.

- - - - - - - - - - Peter Frampton? - - - - - - - - - - - 

When Rast wanted to highlight the Christian teaching that Conversion is not dependent on something in us, he calls on a most tragic source (page 51):

The Spirit's work, to quote the old Peter Frampton hymn, is to "Show me the way."

Dear God!  Why would Prof. Rast call on Peter Frampton instead of Martin Luther who wrote "the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel"? (Luther's Small Catechism, The Creed, Third Article)  When I read this, I had to research Peter Frampton to see if he had converted to Christianity... all my extensive memory of modern music thought that he had nothing to do with Christianity.  And indeed, there is nothing to suggest that Peter Frampton, the rock music superstar, is a Christian.  So why would Prof. Rast give a jolt to a Christian's sensibilities with this reference?  Oh!... I get it!... It's a joke!... Prof. Rast is joking!... ha, ha!  But Prof. Rast, is this the seriousness with which you treat this subject that deals with spiritual life and death?

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

In Part 4b, I will move on to Rast's portion on C.F.W. Walther and his teaching on Justification – the real reason I chose this essay to review.

Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration – Pieper (for Reformed!) Part 1 Intro

I am interrupting my series of reviews of Prof. Lawrence Rast Jr. to publish a significant and important essay by Franz Pieper that Dr. Rast referenced in his "Connecting Link..." article – page 15, footnotes 16 & 17 – see previous post Part 3b.  Pieper's original essay can be extracted from Google Books pages 249-266 of The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Volume 4, 1893. I will abbreviate the name of this periodical as TP&RR.

Dr. Rast introduces us to Pieper's essay thus:

In an article that appeared in English translation in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, titled “Luther’s Doctrine of the Inspiration,”...

I took Rast's statement at face value for awhile and attempted to find the German original.  I searched the publications of the old German Missouri and found that Pieper had written a similar essay for Lehre und Wehre in 1885 (vol. 31, pgs 329 - 333: "Zu Luthers Lehre von der Inspiration"), but it is a shorter article. Pieper also continued this theme in his foreword ("Vorwort") to Lehre und Wehre at the beginning of 1886, pages 8 - 12 (Google Books).  And Pieper wrote a longer essay entitled "Luther and the Inspiration of Holy Scripture" in his book Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, pgs 334-360 (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs 276-298)... but this book was written in 1924, many years after 1893.

==>> Then it hit me... this was not an "English translation" as Rast had said, but remarkably it appears that it may be the first and only article that Franz Pieper wrote in English for a Reformed publication. Pieper clearly stated the following on the first page:

...being called upon to set forth in this REVIEW, from Luther's writings, Luther's doctrine of inspiration

This was not an "English translation", but rather Franz Pieper wrote it in English, not German.  And it was not for the Lutheran Witness, the English publication for the old Missouri, but for a Reformed publication in English.  — Pieper wrote this essay in English!  Why did he not write more in English instead of German since he knew English so well?  This question has already been addressed in a previous post here, where Pieper gave his own answers.

So why would Franz Pieper, the Twentieth Century Luther, write in English for a Reformed publication?  He answers this in his own words:

...being called upon to set forth in this REVIEW

It took me awhile to realize that the the word "REVIEW" is in all caps -- Pieper was telling us that he wrote this essay not as a review, but for this REVIEW, the The Presbyterian and Reformed REVIEW.  But not only that, Franz Pieper wrote this essay because he was

...being called upon

So Franz Pieper, the foremost Lutheran teacher in the world in 1893 (the Twentieth Century Luther), was asked by the The Presbyterian and Reformed Review , the foremost Calvinist publication in America, to write on "Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration"!  Remarkable!  In all my readings of Pieper, I had never seen where he wrote for a Reformed publication... and in English!  Pieper is the "Twentieth Century Luther"...  he is the strongest defender against the errors of Calvinism since C.F.W. Walther, and here he was asked by Calvinists to write an article for them.  This is a major event in true Church History!

The first name in the list of 22 editors' names for TP&RR was Benjamin B. Warfield.  Franz Pieper recorded in his Christian Dogmatics, vol 1, pgs 271-272, footnote # 83, [PNG image] the trials that Benjamin B. Warfield suffered for his strong stand on Inspiration and Inerrancy:

Because of this stand [on inspiration and absolute infallibility of Scripture] he had to endure opposition and derision from many in his own church body; in these trials he found much comfort in the fact that "an entire Lutheran Synod" unanimously subscribed to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. [i.e. the old (German) Missouri Synod] 

In return for Pieper's encouragement, I suspect that it was Prof. Warfield who called on Franz Pieper, the president of Concordia Seminary (of that "Lutheran Synod"), to write the essay "Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration" for his own periodical, the REVIEW (TP&RR).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Prof. David Scaer also wrote for a Reformed publication, like Pieper, when in 1993 he wrote his article "Francis Pieper" for the book Handbook of Evangelical Theologians (Baker Book House) [2025-04-06: updated links].  But there is a difference between Scaer and Pieper, for Pieper brought the true Martin Luther to our times.  But Prof. Scaer mixed in misleading theology (see here and here) when attempting to introduce Franz Pieper to today's Reformed world of theology.  More will be brought out on this later.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Many of the references to Luther's writings in Pieper's essay are to the Erlangen Edition instead of the St. Louis Edition because it was still in progress in 1893.  This presents a good incentive for the reader to purchase Pieper's Christian Dogmatics books (if not already done) because the chapter "Luther and the Inspiration of Holy Scripture" has nearly all of Luther's writings referenced to the newer St. Louis Edition, and it is even more extensive.

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

The LC-MS published the book What Luther Says by Ewald Plass in 1959.  Although it can be quite useful for the general public, at times Plass mixed poor theology with Luther's theology.  But Franz Pieper never does this, and in fact Pieper understood Martin Luther so well that he is to be considered The Twentieth Century Luther.  No modern theologian since Pieper comes as close to Martin Luther... most do not come close at all.

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

But now on to the actual essay itself, in the concluding Part 2.

Lawrence Rast - Pt 3a: Pieper- Connecting Link to Lutheran Fathers

This post continues from Part 2b in a series (Table of Contents in Part 1) reviewing several essays of Prof. Lawrence A. Rast Jr., president of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana (CTS-FW).  This Part 3 is a review of an essay that Rast delivered in 2004 on the subject of Franz Pieper, "A Connecting Link...".  The 27-page essay, one of several essays, can be downloaded here (1 MB PDF file).

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

Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931):

“A Connecting Link between the Present Age

and that of the Fathers and Founders of Lutheranism”

Lawrence R. Rast Jr.

37th Annual Reformation Lectures, (download here==>> LSQ 45:1, pgs 5-31)

sponsored jointly by Bethany Lutheran College and Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary,

October 28-29, 2004 in Mankato, Minnesota

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

***  A review by BackToLuther  ***

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

This essay, which purports to side with and praise Pieper, is very difficult for me to review.  On the one hand are the many references to the writings of Pieper and Walther...  I must confess that a first reading of this essay brought mostly joy to my heart.  For it seemed that Rast was giving voice to both Pieper and Walther... bringing praise to Franz Pieper, the teacher of the church whom I have given the title Twentieth Century Luther.  I made note of the fact that Prof. Rast did not gloss over Pieper’s life with a few biographical details, but actually seemed to commend several of his important theological teachings.  It seemed to me that perhaps here was a teacher in the LC-MS who could give it some hope for its future, that could perhaps take a lead in turning it around...  that perhaps he could, with the aid of Prof. Roland Ziegler, produce a “renaissance”.  But since reading and reviewing the 2 prior essays in Parts 1 and 2 (“Demagoguery...” and “Collecting Autographs”) and other essays, that initial joy has turned to sadness, and now even anger, and so my comments were crossed out and corrected.  So on the other hand, there is a most troubling discrepancy between Pieper’s teaching as Rast reports and Rast’s own teaching.  Examples will be given throughout this extended review.  As I reflect on this experience, I recall that this scenario of joy-to-sadness-to-anger has happened before to me several times as I read other essayists from the LC-MS, for example David Scaer, and Matthew Harrison.  It grieves me how today’s LC-MS can suck the Christian faith out of even its teachers... and so also the sheep under their care.

I wonder... Dr. Rast – did Prof. David Scaer give you some tidbits of info to include in this essay of yours... you know, since he also wrote about Pieper in his 1993 essay “Francis Pieper” for the Reformed book Handbook of Evangelical Theologians by Baker Book House?

This essay is different than the essays of Part 1 and Part 2 that were delivered to followers of Prof. David Scaer and the audience of Concordia Theological Quarterly (CTQ) – it was delivered to the lecture series sponsored by the Evangelical Lutheran Synod – the ELS.  This synod continues to be separated from the LC-MS – Rast’s synod.  (Hmmm... why did they separate anyway?)  Did Prof. Rast feel safer delivering this essay on Pieper to an ELS sponsored event than the other audiences? — Prof. Rast was also President of Concordia Historical Institute in 2004 and so he perhaps commanded respect from the ELS, a former member of the Synodical Conference.  But does he deserve their respect?

But let us move on to the actual essay...

Introduction (pgs 5-9)

On page 5, Rast quotes Theodore Graebner’s comments printed in the Lutheran Witness at the death of Franz Pieper in 1931.  I wonder if Dr. Rast has ever discovered that his synod, the new (English) LC-MS, was started by Prof. Graebner, the professor who eventually railed against the central teaching of Christianity that Walther and Pieper brought to light again?... the professor who secretly impugned the teaching of Pieper on church fellowship?  He should research this since he was president of Concordia Historical Institute for so many years (2001-2007).

On page 6, Rast says:

Certainly there are different emphases evident in the work of the two men—the questions they faced and the nature of the institutions they led differed markedly in some respects.

Rast does not elaborate on this comment of “different emphases” between the work of Walther and Pieper.  What was it that Pieper “differed markedly” from Walther?  Ah, but Rast calms us down and says:

Yet Pieper’s expressed principle was that what he taught was not anything “new,” either differing from the theology of Walther or from the Lutheran Reformation back through the early church to the Scriptures themselves.

Oh well, I guess we will have to assume Rast meant well with his phrases “different emphases” and “differed markedly” ... surely he would not try to drive a wedge between these two, would he? But let us proceed further...

Rast quotes from Pieper’s 1897 essay “Church Government” (pgs 6-7), a doctrine for which Rast is at sharp odds with Pieper and Walther.  In Pieper’s essay, he speaks of a peace in the Missouri church, a peace brought about by a “church government [guided] solely by the Word of God”.  But Rast’s 1999 essay “Demogoguery...” would claim the old Missouri was guided by their environment – American democracy.  But let us proceed...

On page 7, Rast gives a stunning quote from Pieper reproduced in part below:

We Missourians only then hold a church body as such to be orthodox when the true doctrine sounds forth from all its pulpits and professors’ chairs and in all writings which are published within the church body, and every false doctrine, on the contrary, as soon as it makes its appearance, is eliminated in the way which God directs.

How Dr. Rast could keep a straight face while giving this quote from Pieper to this audience is truly amazing!  Surely there were some snickers in the audience when he spoke these words?!  Ah, but Dr. Rast has an answer for those who might use this against today's LC-MS for he says in footnote # 3:

... simply wrenching the text from its historical context misses Pieper's overall point.

Well now, look who's warning against "wrenching the text"!...  the very one who calls Walther's teaching on church polity "democracy" because of its "historical context"!  Rast goes into overdrive in footnote # 3 to attempt to hide his LC-MS from the glaring truth by using his knowledge as President of Concordia Historical Institute (CHI) to try to explain away today's LC-MS because of a so-called "historical context".  It is not the first time CHI has been used this way.  Prof. Theodore Graebner was a charter member and W.G. Polack the secretary in 1927.  Make no mistake... Pieper meant exactly what he said!  The reader should read the whole quote (on page 7) of Pieper and learn the Christian teaching of Church Fellowship.  But let us proceed...

On page 8, Rast gives another similar quote from Pieper and then makes this statement:

Pieper’s statement reflected a conviction on the part of Missouri that they had been singularly blessed by God in being able not only to articulate a biblical theology, but to practice it, as well. That is to say, Missouri’s doctrine had its origin not in human activity, but in the gracious blessing of God, which enabled the Missourians to confess the true doctrine both in word and in deed.

That is a good description of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  But Dr. Rast... you could have injected the words  “we have been” at this point to claim the same status, but you did not.  You remain the “reporter on the beat”... just reporting how it was “in the old days”.  Could it be that you are admitting today’s LC-MS is not “singularly blessed by God”?  Could it be that you want to give your LC-MS license to not “practice” church/congregational polity like the old (German) Missouri Synod?

Now Rast even highlights the fact that old Missouri even practiced its doctrine saying:

“For doctrine practiced was what the Missouri Synod was all about.”

But Dr. Rast, didn’t the old Missouri practice its warnings against modern dance?...  and not allowing lodge members to have communion...  not allowing women suffrage in congregations?  Maybe while you were “beat reporting”, you could have also mentioned these?  But Dr. Rast, because the old (German) Missouri Synod practiced an apostolic form for its congregations, maybe its doctrine was not quite right since you say it was determined by “historical context” (American democracy) rather than the Bible’s teaching?  But let us proceed...

On page 9, Rast attempts to defend Pieper against various attacks on his teaching:

Others dismiss him as a source for fundamentalistic thought within the confessional Lutheran tradition in America, specifically the Missouri Synod.

I have already spoken in Part 2 on Rast’s attempts to discredit “fundamentalism” while not praising its teaching on the Bible’s Inspiration and Inerrancy.  Pieper would not mind being called “fundamentalistic” if the charge came from those who attacked the Bible!  

But the other term that Rast uses in this sentence is “tradition”.  Although this term can be understood rightly, yet it can give the notion that being a “confessional Lutheran” is just one item on the buffet of many “traditions” – take your pick.  Jaroslav Pelikan also freely used the term “tradition” -- I will comment further on this later.  But let us proceed...

Continuing (page 9) his seeming defense of Pieper, Rast makes perhaps his grandest statement for the whole essay:

...Pieper believed that the Missouri Synod, along with its partners in the Synodical Conference (the Norwegians [ELS] and the Synods that later formed the WELS) had recaptured faithfully this unchanging truth. In a way, it was a very simple matter for him. If God is the author of the Scriptures—and He is—then what they say is true. And if it was true when they were written, it was still true for the faithful early church, still true for Luther, still true for Walther, still true today, and will always be true. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).  In this respect Pieper simply saw himself as providing a link to the unchanging chain of those whom God had enabled to make the faithful, scriptural confession.

On first reading, I was thrilled at this.  I wrote in the margin:  “good paragraph” and “Dear God, Dr. Rast, you sound so wonderful here!  I hope you are making it your own!”.  I was stunned when he wrote:

If God is the author of the Scriptures—and He is—...

Again, on my first reading of this, I thought Rast was making a public confession here... you know, that he believed that God is the author of the Scriptures.  But as I have re-read this paragraph many times, Rast has given me reason to wonder that this is not his confession, but rather he was only being a “beat reporter”, just reporting what “Pieper believed”, what was a simple matter “for him”, what Pieper confessed when Pieper said “and He is”, what “Pieper simply saw”... only about Pieper and not about himself.  This is the standard practice, the modus operendi, for reports on the old (German) Missouri Synod by writers for the Concordia Historical Institute – the house that Prof. Theo. Graebner built.

--------------------------- continued on Part 3b --------------

My review of this essay continues in Part 3b where Dr. Rast covers Pieper's biography and his literary legacy...