199211
199211
199211
reformation/october 1992
volume I, number 1
logia
a journal of lutheran theology
REFORMATION/october 1992
volume 1, number 1
..........................................................................................................................................................
Review Essay: Memoirs in Exile: Confessional Hope and Institutional Crisis by John Tietjen
Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 15301580 by Robert Kolb
The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther by Siegbert Becker
.............................................................................................................................................
Lhes Nightmare Consumerism and the Church Fictional Ethics Greener Pastures Just a Big Misunderstanding? Brave New Church Where Is The Mote?
L
A Journal of Lutheran Theology
An Introduction
j
LOGIA. MANY OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
journal because you are on the mailing list of Logia,
Lutheran Confessional Review, or Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter. The editors of these three publications have joined forces to produce the journal you now have
in your hands. We have shared a mutual admiration for each
others journals and have found ourselves printing material
very similar in content and purpose. Since we recognized that
we shared goals and purposes, we decided to join forces editorially and financially.
Logia expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek,
Logia functions either as an adjective meaning eloquent,
learned, or cultured, or as a plural noun meaning divine
revelations, words, or messages. The word is found in
Acts : and Romans :. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confession), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right
relationship). Each of these concepts and all of them together
express the purpose and method of this journal. Logia is committed to providing an independent theological forum normed
by the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions. At the heart of our journal we want our readers to
find a love for the Sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God;
not merely as rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and
life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the
LifeJesus Christ our Lord.
Each editor speaks for himself, not for his church body or
any other group. Formal church fellowship is not implied by
any individuals participation in this journal, nor do we imply
any level of the same. We believe that Gods Word alone
never the labors, intentions, or dreams of peopleunites and
creates fellowship. We do not intend to involve ourselves in the
political issues of any particular church body. In Logia we hope
to provide our readers with a forum for coming to grips with
serious issues which challenge our historic Lutheran faith in a
calm, reasoned atmosphere of responsible Christian scholarship. Our purpose is to encourage study and learning at the
deepest level for busy parish pastors and laymen as well as theologians.
The editors are united in their belief that the church today
needs to recapture the true spirit and nature of historic
Lutheranism. While our roots are in the old Synodical Conference, we are not interested in repristinating a romanticized
past. We need to look deeply into our past and to follow the
example of American Lutherans like Walther, Krauth,
Hnecke, Koren, and others. Especially, we need to return
again to the spiritual father after whom we name ourselves and
our confession, Martin Luther. And if we return to Luther, we
ELCOME TO
insists that even in its forms and ceremonies it will give witness
to and confess the Word and Sacraments in all truth and purity. We rejoice in our freedom in Christ and retain those ceremonies and forms which comprise the historic liturgy. We do
not throw out those forms as worn-out or culturally bound
forms unsuited for this culture. Rather, by our forms and ceremonies we want to be distinguished from the Reformed and
Armenian sects which surround the church of the Augsburg
Confession in America as well as in other countries. Thus, it
will be a goal of this journal to encourage a healthy appreciation for the ancient liturgical forms of the true Evangelical
Lutheran Church and encourage uniformity in their practice
and use, and especially, conformity to the confessions of our
church. We believe that liturgy is not at all irrelevant to the
churchs theology, but is a churchs theology. A pastors private
reflections or convictions do not a churchs confession make.
Proper confession will find expression in appropriate liturgical
forms and ceremonies through which God serves His people
with the treasures of salvation and must always be in conformity with the means of salvation, Gospel and Sacraments.
We want to promote an evangelical zeal for our Lutheran
faith. The Lutheran church today, throughout the world, is in a
great struggle to be faithful to its confession. In this struggle,
the sins of human hearts are repeatedly made manifest, and in
all pride and arrogance, backbiting and jealousies, shame is
brought to the Gospel. We call each other to repentance, especially for those sins which bring dishonor to the Gospel. But at
the same time we rejoice in the growing movement among
Lutherans the world over to recapture the zeal and devotion
for the pure Word and Sacraments of our Reformation fathers.
Our theological roots are in this movement, and we wish to
propagate and reinforce its message for the church today. We
lament the contemporary apathy toward the vigorous and
uncompromising theology, faith, and church life set forth in
the Lutheran Confessions.
We want to contend for our confession without being contentious. The well-intentioned desire for peace in the church
has led to a distaste for open and frank discussion of issues and
trends. We deplore this misguided concept of peace in our
time at the expense of confessional and moral integrity. We
also regret the fact that theological discussion in the church
today has tended to be governed by issues of political power
and fear of financial consequences instead of a search for truth.
This journal intends to provide for an open and frank discussion among Confessional Lutherans and commits itself to the
theological research, reflection, and analysis which are necessary to restore a genuine and honest confessional commitment
in our churches.
Logia will be pan-Lutheran in the sense that we will
address the vital issues which confront all those who bear the
name Lutheran, and we want to be a true forum for all who are
struggling to remain faithful to the theology of the Lutheran
Confessions. But we will not be pan-Lutheran in trying to be
all things to all men. Our goal is a full renewal of the Lutheran
churches to the faith confessed in our Lutheran Confessions.
We believe that both myopic parochialism and turf wars on the
one hand and reckless ecumenism and the practice of church
fellowship without full confessional unity on the other hand
are poisons ready to suffocate true renewal.
In sum, we wish to return to the one sourcethe Holy
Scripture, and our Lutheran understanding of it expressed in
the Book of Concord. That, and that alone, will inform and
mold our thought in this journal. We do that in unity with the
fathers of the church, of both ancient and reformation times as
well as from more recent times. We appreciate their struggles
and we look to them for guidance in our own struggles. We
may not be able to return to the past. Who would want to? But
if there is an ecumenical unity possible, surely we have it with
our confessing fathers. We want to sit at their feet and hear
their teaching and sing with them the praises of Him who is the
same yesterday, today, and forever.
The Editors
logia
Logia will be published four times a year. We hope that
you will find the $. per year subscription fee a fair
price for the quality journal we want to produce. This first
issue is being mailed out widely. We feel the best way for
you to decide if you would like to subscribe to our journal
is for you to have a sample copy in your hands. We hope
that you will fill out the subscription card immediately so
that you will not miss Vol. , No. . You may choose to be
billed for your subscription.
j
Hermann Sasse () was one of the leading voices for confessional Lutheranism in the twentieth century. Though an advocate of the Bekennende Kirche which arose in response to the
oppressive Nazi regime, Sasse was opposed to the Barmen Declaration. Sasse moved away from the classic liberalism of his university training toward the confessional position which caused
him increasing difficulty in Germany. Sasse became involved in a
fierce struggle to prevent his native church, the Lutheran Church
of Bavaria, from joining the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, a federation of churches in Germany, including also the old
Prussian Union churches of Reformed and Lutheran background.
When he realized that there was no stopping the union, he
resigned his post as professor at Erlangen University, a most prestigious position, and joined the small Lutheran Free Church in
Germany. In he emigrated to Australia to accept a position
as professor at Immanuel Theological Seminary in North Adelaide, South Australia, the seminary of the United Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Australia. Sasse, throughout his life, was a
prolific writer. His areas of particular speciality were the Sacrament of the Altar and the Doctrine of the Church. His two most
famous works are Here We Stand and This is My Body. He
wrote many journal articles as well, which are not widely available for two reasons. First, they are, in many cases, available only
in German and second, even when written in English, they often
appeared in journals obscure to American and European Lutherans. It is our desire to make available more of Sasses writings
than have previously been known to American Lutherans. Sasses
witness to a reinvigorated confessionalism is timely, and it is possible that Sasse will find an audience more eager today to hear
him than was his own generation. Sasse never failed to emphasize
that the church and its confessions are inextricably linked. By confession Sasse did not mean to imply that merely a human assent
was adequate; rather by confession he meant the historic confession of the church based on Holy Scripture. Elsewhere Sasse
emphatically asserted, The experience of Christendom shows
that wherever the authority of the ancient confessions has been set
aside, there also the Biblical doctrine of the incarnation of the
eternal Son has been lost. It is not possible to maintain the
authority of Holy Scripture and reject the authority of these confessions. This is so because the authority of the confessions is none
other than the authority of their Scriptural content.
This article was written prior to Sasses professorship at the
University of Erlangen and appeared in Christentum und Wissenschaft, September . Sasse laments the trend toward an
undogmatic Christianity. He demonstrates from the New Testament that the church is always a confessing church or it becomes a
denying church.
developed through a long, difficult struggle against ecclesiastical dogmabe it that of Roman Catholicism or
that of old Protestant Orthodoxy. This explains modern mans
deep aversion toward dogmatic Christianity, indeed toward
everything which confession, doctrine, and dogma mean. This
aversion exists even there where one is rooted, to the very
depth of his being, in the great Christian tradition of the past.
There is scarcely any conviction today so widely held as that
which maintains that if Christianity is to have any future at all,
it must be a religion of the love of God and men, an undogmatic Christianity of sentiment and deed [Gesinnung und der
Tat. Goethe]. This conviction has deeply penetrated the
church itself. It is not an overstatement to say that the great
majority of Protestant churches are actually no longer confessional churches. They would sooner be united by anything but
agreement in pure doctrine, which is what the writings of the
Reformation speak about. Modern theology has provided theoretical justification for this development. It has raised the
question whether the emphasis on pure doctrine is actually
constitutive for the Christian church in the sense which the
confessions of the sixteenth century thought it so. It has
answered in the negative. Religion is not doctrine; consequently, doctrine cannot belong to the essence of Christianity; rather
it must be a secondary expression of Christianity. Doctrine
belongs to the church. As such it is a concretization of Christianity. As is the case with other religions, Christianity forms its
social expression, called churches. It also forms its philosophical-intellectual expression in dogmas, doctrines, and confessions. And in the same way that churches are very imperfect
attempts to bring Christianity to manifestation in the world,
so also Christianity finds a very insufficient expression in
confessions. Indeed, church and confession are always a defection from genuine, living religion. Modern Christendom
strives for a non-dogmatic Christianity and finds its theoretic
justification in these concepts.
Into this situation has come forthapparently at the most
untimely momenta new dogmatic movement. Study of the
Reformation has caused the question of the right and importance of pure doctrine to be raised again. Thus the entire
modern theory of religion and its application to Christianity
has been placed in question. How is Christianity to be
explained if biblical revelation is not a particular case of a general religious-historical phenomenon called revelation?
What is the church if it is not merely a sociological creation,
nor merely a Christian religious society? Should there perhaps be a history of the church which is not just a Christian
history of religion, but is rather a history of the church of
Christ, which is actually what the term says? We cannot enter
into these questions here. But it is clear that the question concerning confession will now be more important. The moment
in which the church comes to occupy the central place in theological thought concerning the Christian religion, confession
will necessarily experience a new critique. Thus the question of
the theological concept of the confessions of the church has
become an important problem. That this problem is not only
theoretical but also has to do with the extremely important
practical problem of the church, needs no further explication
in this year of Jubilee for the Augustana [].
faith, and praise of God ring together. From this wider definition, we distinguish confession in the strict sense as the
churchs confession of faith. It is a particular case of Christian
confession. This confession is not an individual speaking out, it
is the church of Christ speaking. If an individual should
express it, then he does so as a member of the church or in the
name of the church. As far as its content is concerned, this confession is qualified by the fact that it is only confession of faith.
It does not comprise the confession of sin, nor the praise of
God; rather it presupposes that these aspects of confession find
their own expression. Distinct from the confession of sin and
praise which is directed only toward God, confession of the
churchs faith is directed also toward men. It is in this sense
that the oldest formulas of the New Testament are confessions.
The Early Church expressed its faith before God and the world.
This expression of faith is characteristic of the so-called ecumenical creeds, and furthermore, the confessional writings of
the churches of the Reformation and the particular documents
in which an ecclesiastical communion sought to present its
faith as the correct Christian faith. As great as the formal differences between these confessions may be, they essentially belong
together. As churchly confessions, they are distinct from the
the personal confessions of individual Christians. In what follows we are concerned only with these churchly confessions.
Indeed, baptism stands in close connection to confession, but
it is not confession, for then baptism would be understood in
the same sense which Baptists understand it.
Following Christ is also something other than confession,
even though both belong together. The first disciples followed
Jesus before their belief in him had become clear. They did not
know who He was when they followed His calling. Following
Christ was not yet a confession in the strict sense. The origin of
ecclesiastical confession is not in the call, Follow me, but in
the question, Who do you say that I am? It is very significant
that according to the New Testament Jesus himself demanded
confession, indeed, verbal confession from his disciples. This
must be placed in emphatic contradistinction to all modern
attempts to degrade confession to something subordinate to
the practical Christianity of the following of Jesus, or possibly even superfluous (attempts with which a theologian such as
Fendt has nothing to do). It was not the metaphysical curiosity
of men, or the appetite of theologians for speculation which
called forth the formation of the confession of the church, but
rather the question of Jesus to His disciples, Who do you say
that I am? In response to this question followed the first confession of the church, uttered by Simon Peter, You are the
Christ. That we are dealing here with a oJmologiva, a genuine
confession, even if it is yet something formally entirely different from the later symbols, is shown by Jn :, The Jews were
already in agreement that whoever confessed him as the Christ
(auJto;n oJmologhvsh/ Cristovn) would be expelled from the synagog. Jesus answered the confession of Peter, according to Mt
:, by praising him (the only time Jesus praises a particular
individual), Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah. For flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. These words are extraordinarily important for the understanding of confession. The confession of Peter presupposes a
precise knowledge.
What kind of knowledge is this? That Jesus is the Christ is
not a rational knowledge, not some consequence which Peter
had to draw from that which he had experienced with this
Jesus. Justice is not done to this knowledge and the answer of
Jesus is falsely understood if it is placed in the category of the
irrational, and viewed as one sort with the divination by
intuition of the metaphysician, or with the display of the mystic. It is a knowledge which according to its subjective side
must be designated faith-knowledge, according to its transubjective side, revelation-knowledge. The Living God acts in His
revelation, and faith answers Him, not in the sense of an intellectual allowing oneself to be convinced, not in the sense of a
decision accordant with the will, not in the sense of a stimulation of pious feelings. It is rather a matter of faith in which the
man, the entire man, abandons himself to God, or better, is
accepted by God. For it is God Himself who works faith. And
this faith expresses itself immediately in a confession. Confession belongs to the essence of the believer, he cannot be without it. He cannot be silent. According to the New Testament
(Rom :f.) the faith of the heart and the confession of the
mouth belong inseparably together. And how does faith
express itself? Not in a hymn, not in a gush of feeling, but
rather in a confession, a sober judgment of reality, in which the
facts of revelation are attested: You are the Christ! This
sobriety, this objectivity, is characteristic of all genuine confession. Truths speak, not feelings. Its theology is throughout a
theology of facts [Theologie der Tatsachen Vilmar]. There is
nothing more sober, more matter-of-fact, than the great con-
Confession is the response to revelation. To this first characteristic we must add a second: It is always the response of a fellowship (Gemeinschaft) of men, the expression of a consensus.
Thus ecclesiastical confession is distinguished from Christian
confession in the widest and most general sense. And here is
the point at which modern man most deeply misunderstands
the confession of the church. He who knows the faith only as a
private concern can present the confession only as the act of an
individual who expresses his personal faith, his religious experience, with the entire force of Here I stand. I can do no other. His opinion gives rise to a congregation, when men who
have had the same experience and possess the same faith unite
plural: We have believed and are convinced that you are the
Christ. This confession immediately became the confession of
all the disciples, and it is no accident that after the profession
of the first confession, for the first time the church is mentioned: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
ecclesia. Confession and church belong together. This applies
also to the baptismal confession from the first primitive formulas of the New Testament to the final form of the Apostolicum. They appear understandably in the first person singular form of Credo, since they are indeed spoken by every individual Christian. But while the individual speaks this Credo,
which is the confession of the church, he places himself within
the consensus of the church.
As soon as the confession is employed not only in the case
of baptism but also in the worship of the congregation, it has
the tendency to take on the first person plural form. The
Nicaenum of the eastern church has been kept with this form
until today, and it is noteworthy that Luthers composition of
the Credo in song likewise makes use of the first person plural:
We all believe in one true God . . . . The Augustana may be
considered from this viewpoint. What sort of age must that
have been in which a professor of theology could create a confessional writing which began with the words: Ecclesiae magno
consensu apud nos docent, and which was so truly born of the
consensus of the faith that it was immediately accepted by the
churches of the Lutheran Reformation as their confession!
What theologian would dare venture today to formulate what
our Churches teach, and should he venture it, what response
would he get? This consensus, this unity in the great common
possession of the faith, is the mark of all great epochs in the
history of the church, and these are the ages which could create
the confessions. They are the times in which church is not
only an old word or a sociological concept, but rather a reality
which one experiences and in which one lives. They are in no
way times in which the concept of individuality was not yet
developed. What a multiplicity of characters we meet in the
early history of the church, in the epoch of the formation of
dogma, and in Reformation history! What a multiplicity of
antitheses and differences! The present possesses, in spite of all
its individualism (or perhaps for that reason), much more spiritual unity than those times past. But to us is lost that which
was the characteristic feature of the great ages of the history of
the churchthe inner harmony of person and fellowship in
the reality of the church.
If we could ask the men of the New Testament where the
deep consensus rests from which the confession of the church
is born, they would be able to respond to us nothing other than
that which we read today in our New Testament: So in Christ
we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to
all the others (Rom :), or the passage from Eph (:ff.),
which the Augustana quotes when it speaks of the unity of the
church: One body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one Faith, one
baptism, one God and Father. . . . They would say to us that the
unity of the confession does not rest upon our faith, our experiences, nor upon a similarity of human individualities, but
rather upon the one Holy Spirit who works faith and confession in us. Already in the discourse of the sending out of the
disciples in the synoptic gospels, the confession of the martyr
before the judge was designated as a work of the Holy Spirit
(Mt :f.), and Paul said (1 Cor :) that no one could speak
the (liturgical) Kyrios-Confession except by the Holy Spirit.
The church has never forgotten the correspondence between
the designation of Jesus as the Kyrios. They were very tolerant.
All paganism is tolerant. But for the Christians there was only
One who was the Lord! It was because of this Christian intolerance that the great persecutions of the church broke out. Thus
the church delimited itself from all other religions by means of
its confession. Had it not done this it would have been drawn
into the rush of ancient syncretism and ceased to exist, just as
all Christianity ceases to exist in the struggle of the great world
religions, which is played out upon the earth, if it fails to
delimit itself over against all [other] religions by means of its
solid, unambiguous confession. Today the New Testament is
avidly read (selectively, as in Europe), by non-Christian Indians and Chinese, and scarcely any pagan or Jew has any objection to praying the Our Father at inter-religious prayer-meetings. Many American Jews pray it fervently. But the confession
of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the great churchly confessional
formulas, is the boundary between what is church and nonchurch.
And just as the confession distinguishes the church from
strange religions, so also it distinguishesthis its tasktruth
from error, pure doctrine from heresy, the church from sect,
within Christianity. Thus rings the definition of confession in
the introduction of the Formula of Concord, Et quia statim
post apostolorum tempora, imo etiam cum adhuc superstites
essent, falsi doctores et haeretici exorti sunt, contra quos in primitiva ecclesia symbola sunt composita, id est breves et categoricae
confessiones, quae unanimem catholicae christiani fidei consensum et confessionem orthodoxorum et verae ecclesiae complectebantur.. . . This setting of the limit of truth and error belongs
to the essence of confession. If the improbant and the damnant
(by which is designated the impossibility of church fellowship),
which sound so harsh to modern ears, are silenced, the Augustana ceases to be confession.
If this drawing of boundaries is called loveless and
unchristian, then the same reproach is also directed toward
the Apostolicum, every sentence of which was formulated
against some heresy, and, above all, this reproach is directed
toward the Bible itself. Just as the false prophets stand over
against the prophets of God (Jer :ff., :f.; Ez ), the false
apostles stand over against the apostles of Christ ( Cor :),
so the sect and heresy stand over against the church. And just
as the struggle between truth and error rings through all of
Holy Scripture, so also it runs through the history of the
church, and the church would cease to be the church of Christ,
messenger of the redeeming truth of the revelation of God to
men, if it would cease to fight this battle. Here lies the greatest
and most difficult task of the formation of confession. Here is
shown whether or not Christianity still knows what the confession of the church means. The manner in which an age
approaches this task shows what courage and strength of faith,
what humility and love are alive in Christianity. Here is shown
whether the church knows of the reality of the Holy Spirit.
If the men of the Christian West, deep into the rank and
file of the church, have forgotten this last sense of the confession of the church, then the reason for the downfall must not
be overlooked. It happened because this struggle for the truth
of the Gospelthe most difficult struggle which the church in
the world has had to carry outwas not always fought with
pure hearts and unsullied hands. Nowhere has the church
failed so seriously as there where it should have struggled for
the pure teaching of the Gospel. In the fight against apostasy
from the church, the church has itself only too often forsaken
Christ. Thus the confessing church has ever and again become
the denying church. The history of Simon Peter, who was the
first to express the confession of the church and the first to
deny the Lord, has been repeated in the history of the church.
But something else is also repeated therein: the tears of repentance and reinstatement to office, and this the office of confession, of bearing witness, of martyrdom.
logia
hood in the Lutheran Confessions. From one perspective, that has the makings of a very short paper, because
there is very little explicit reference to the universal priesthood
in the Book of Concord. A couple of references occur in connection with the simple idea of sacrifice where Pt : is paired
with Rom :. The other reference to the universal priesthood
comes in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, :
Where the true church is, therefore, the right of electing and
ordaining ministers must of necessity also be.... Finally, this is
confirmed by the declaration of Peter You are a royal priesthood (1 Pt :). These words apply to the true church which,
since it alone possesses the priesthood certainly has the right of
electing and ordaining ministers.
The general subject for this conference is the universal
priesthood of all believers. But behind that is a not very hidden
concern for the doctrine of the ministry, which has from the
very beginning of Lutheranism always been at the forefront of
theological discussion. To raise the question of Tr. - is to
raise the question of the relationship between the universal
priesthood and the Predigtamt [the preaching office, see Augsburg Confession, Article V]. And from that perspective, this
subject has the makings of a very long paper; for therein lies
quite a can of worms. The can of worms may have been
opened by Luther, who in his treatise To the Christian
Nobility opened the discussion of the universal priesthood in
his critique of Rome. Later, in conflict with the Enthusiasts,
Luther placed more emphasis on the call mediated through the
church, as opposed to the inner call of those who swallowed
the Holy Ghost, feathers and all. Since then, Luthers followers
have debated which has primacythe royal priesthood or the
public ministry. Presumably, one can still write a doctoral dissertation on the subjectwhether it be the tension or bipolarity (Prenter) in Luther between universal priesthood and
Predigtamt, or the meaning of this doctrine for Lutheran
church life.
. :
return to confessionalism were products of the Great Awakening, and so naturally found themselves in close company
with early Pietism. Now, in his posthumous Letzte theologische
Bedenken, published in , Spener also demonstrated how in
his mind communing in a particular congregation naturally
implies a sanctioning of the doctrine taught in that congregation, especially of the doctrine of the Sacrament. He maintained this position even in the face of decision of a FrenchReformed national synod (Charenton ; reconfirmed at
Loudun in /, although not without reservations), which
had issued a Decree concerning our Brethren the Lutherans.
And that very same Spener, who is not unrightly accused of
being too indulgent due to his overweening efforts not to harm
anyone and his ever-mindfulness of bringing about Christian
unity, advised the Lutherans against visiting Reformed services
and taking part in the Lords Supper in Reformed congregations. What was the basis of his advice? He could not feel conscionably responsible for Lutherans communing among the
Reformed, thereby separating themselves from their own
Church. Furthermore, speaking in about the union
church service proposed in the territory of the Elector of the
Palatinate (such a union service had parallels elsewhere), Spener indicated that such a Concord Service would only result in
the conversion of the Lutherans to the Reformed Church. Even
if such a Service of the Word could be possible between
Lutherans and the Reformed (which Spener doubts), fellowship in the Lords Supper could hardly be possible. And finally,
any spiritual growth that could take place at all depended upon
instruction in controverted issues; but how could this instruction take place unless the doctrinal divisions were openly pronounced, causing grievances? Stated another way, if the doctrinal divisions are just swept under the carpet, then the spiritual
growth of the congregation is stunted. To be sure, Spener did
not maintain that the Reformed had no Lords Supper; but he
believed that the Reformed celebration was not the true Supper. For the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ in His Supper causes
His Body and His Blood to be present as His promise is not the
only thing which properly belongs to the Lords Supper.
Rather, of much more import in the Lords Supper is what is
demanded both of the administrant and the manducantthat
the one wishes to distribute, the other wishes to receive precisely what the Lord had promised to be present. And there is
where the Reformed go wrong.
Spener certainly sharpened the consciences of the Lutheran ministerium by recommending that they should rather lose
their office than participate in the Concord Service. But he
also rendered a great service to the Lutheran laity in another
one of his Gutachten by instructing them what they ought to
do. He even deals with the fringe issue of the case of death and
answers the question as to whether or not a Lutheran should be
permitted to request a member of the Reformed clergy to
administer the Sacrament to him. His answer is: If a Lutheran
happens to be among only heterodox Christians when he is on
his deathbed, and can find no Lutheran pastor at all, he should
receive the Sacrament from a Lutheran layman, as from a
brother (no matter how dubious this advice might seem),
rather than let a Reformed preacher administer it to him. In
the last century, it was correctly judged that:
Nothing can more strikingly or strongly express the
dismissal of this type of emergency case (which is now
appealed to at the drop of a hat or at the slightest hint
in the fides quae creditur, but rather found that the Reformed
confessed allegiance to a religion in which Spener believed
there were dangerous errors. And so one can hardly be surprised that Spener disapproved of the fact that in Wrttemberg
they were trying to build bridges for the French Reformed by a
mild form of a requested explanation of beliefs which provided the following formula: le vray corps et le vray sang of
Jesus Christ are received avec le pain (the infamous cum!)
and one was to believe that la manire de la manducation is
sacramentaire, mystrieuse, spirituelle et incomprhensible nos
sens. Reflecting on all of this, Spener surmised that the
Swabian church leadership had satisfied itself well enough with
this formula, since they probably just expected that the
Huguenot refugees would still grow in their own perceptions
once they had entered the churches of Wrttemberg.
There is one more thing necessary to mention in order to
come to a more complete evaluation of Speners position: It is
during Speners lifetime that the Prussian Collegium irenicum
falls. Since this institution, under the leadership of the
Reformed Bishop Benjamin Ursinus (the episcopal title on
account of the desire more closely to resemble the Church of
England), had sought to effect unity between the Lutherans
and the Reformed in Prussia. Now, for Spener the unity of
Gods children was of heartfelt importance; the enduring separation of the churches was another episode of divine judgment against our sins; and only divine grace could bring
Winter , and according to an introductory note, the original German article had been published in the catalog of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary for - and again in -.
Schallers thesis is set out at the very beginning: Among us
no question can arise about the real essence of the New Testament ministry. Christ gave his disciples only one commission.
He has therefore also established only one office, one ministry,
in the church, the ministry of preaching the Gospel ().
Schaller meticulously demonstrates that the proclamation of
the saving Gospel began at Eden, where the Gospel was first
proclaimed. For Schaller, It lies in the very nature of the
Gospel that it is a preaching (). The preaching of the Gospel
does not even have to be commanded: Strictly speaking,
therefore, the ministry of the New Testament is posited by the
Gospel itself and was instituted by God through the Gospel
when He revealed it (). Peter : teaches that through the
gospel He creates preachers of the Gospel. And that, to be sure,
is an inevitable effect which God really intends and therefore in
every case achieves (). The same is true of the age of the
patriarchs: No one had received a special commission from
God to preach publicly, and yet the preaching ministry was
carried on. The preaching ministry had been given with the
Gospel (). Mt and Mk must be understood in that way
too: The New Testament ministry was not thereby established; for it is an institution of God which was given immediately in conjunction with the first revelation of the Gospel of
Christ (). The same is likewise true of St. Pauls preaching:
Paul occupies no exceptional position. Every Christian can
immediately apply Pauls words to himself personally (). Of
course, there must be some sense in which the ministry is instituted: God very obviously wills the preaching of the Gospel.
He accomplished this will by calling people to the fellowship of
the Gospel, and thereby, that is, through regeneration, awakens
them to new spiritual life and makes them true active preachers
of the Gospel. Jesus commands are not the original institution
of the Gospel ministry; they substantiate the fact that it had
been instituted. He couldnt give a command to preach if He
didnt already have preachers ().
Schaller makes it clear that all of the foregoing must be
explicitly applied to the New Testament ministry. One can
form a mental picture of the ministry, but that would be in
abstracto, and God did not institute the ministry in abstracto,
just as much as marriage has not existed in abstracto. Therefore, what God has instituted is the spiritual priesthood. Since
every Christian is a spiritual priest, the special priest class
which God ordained in the Old Testament here finds its antitype and is thereby abolished. But whatever could be said
about the nature of an Old Testament priests responsibility
now applies to every believer on earth by virtue of the fact that
the Holy Ghost applies the term to him ().
Schallers chief concern is the outward form of the ministry. His argument is that no concrete, external form has been
instituted by God. But what of the prophetic and apostolic
offices? Schaller agrees that the prophets and the apostles held a
special, divinely created form of the God-ordained ministry,
but those forms expired at the end of the prophetic and apostolic ages. But for Schaller, the transmission of the apostolic
office is to be denied. The special office and power that the
apostles received was in addition to the ministry common to
all believers, that namely which made them apostles, was a
purely personal possession and ceased with them (). What
was true of the Old Testament believers is also true of the New:
With the apostolic doctrine, which of course is nothing else
than the Gospel, all who accept it receive, as was demonstrated
earlier, the commission to preach, and it produces in them the
corresponding activity, the ministry of the New
Testament(). Schaller quickly dismisses the concept of an
amt [office]: The New Testament ministry [the editor supplies
Predigtamt, literally, office of preaching, better termed service
Predigtdienst, literally service of preaching] began with and
through the first preaching of the Gospel in Paradise and
appears wherever the Gospel is in any way communicated
().
Schallers argument is ostensibly about whether or not certain forms of the ministry are divinely instituted. In the Reformation context, of course, that argument was about whether or
not bishops were divinely placed above the presbyters, and the
Bishop of Rome over the other bishops. But in this context, the
argument is about something else, apparently the difference
between pastor, college instructor, seminary professor, visitation pastor, associate or assistant pastor, catechist, etc. At the
very best, however, Schaller does not make it clear that he is
restricting himself to that issue. He has already dismissed the
notion of any sort of amt other than that which is common to
all Christians, and has even replaced amt with dienst. Schaller
holds that one can speak of an institution of the apostolate
only in an improper sense. God did not command that there
be apostles, but He made apostles, and thereby that special
ministry was established. We can also consider it as settled that
nowhere in the New Testament can a definite command be cited that Christians should establish a particular form of the
public ministry in their midst. But if one wishes to speak about
an institution, one must, of course, be able to cite the instituting command (). But at that point the editor apparently is
nervous and calls attention to the fact that Schaller is speaking
about forms and it should also be noted that Scripture clearly
teaches that it is Gods will that there be a public ministry and
that Christian congregations have shepherds and teachers who
in the name and on behalf of the congregation carry out the
duties of the ministry of the Word in their midst (note, p. ).
But there is no indication in Schallers essay that he would
assent to that. And both in Schaller and in August Pieper, as we
shall see later, there is an indiscriminate movement back and
forth between a definite amt and an abstracted activity common to all.
But Schaller has denied that there is any particular institution of an amt distinct from the universal priesthood. The
Predigtamt Augustana XIV wants to recognize, i.e. the amt
which requires rite vocatus [a rightly ordered call], can only fall
into Schallers category of forms, since the only amt with a
divine command is the universal priesthood, and it is even
doubtful whether one can apply the idea of a command to that
priestly service common to all. Schaller attempts to escape the
dilemma:
We come thus to the indisputable conclusion that
God can indeed recognize something that has been
established under his invisible dominion and yet also
according to human decisions. One cannot immediately infer from this, however, that there is a formal
divine command, a divine institution, for just that
changeable form. When, moreover, we continue to
hold firmly to the truth that whatever involves a
preaching of the Gospel is a form of the New Testament ministry, we will see clearly how these forms
come into existence without Gods special command
and then are recognized by Him ().
Thus the way in which the pastoral office arises is as a
pragmatic response to a moral command; but whether the reference is to Predigtamt or Pfarramt is unclear. When Christians
come together for mutual edification, then a need simply arises
from the nature of the group and that need must be met,
which, presumably, leads to the election of an individual to act
on behalf of all. Schaller can affirm, That this takes place is
essential (), but one finds not a breath that it takes place on
the ground of any divine command. As a conclusion, Schaller
essentially begs the question: These things could also be
arranged in an entirely different way, since the pastorate in the
form which is customary among us was very likely totally
unknown in apostolic times (). And that, of course, is true,
but Schaller has not at all dealt with the question of any kind of
divine command on which the strict rubric of Augustana XIV
is based. If one follows Schallers argumentation, the only reason for asserting Augustana XIV is pragmatic need, and whatever one comes up with, whether it be an arrangement arising
from Church Growth methodology or Episcopalianism, God
will approve of it so long as it is orderly.
While Schaller never cites any of the relevant articles of the
confessional writings, it is certainly clear that he has begun
from the presupposition that there is no unique, distinct
Predigtamt, but that any amt of the Gospel is only derived from
the universal priesthood, since only one office has been instituted.
What is behind the reluctance to refer to a specific New
Testament command? Francis Pieper accuses Hfling of rejecting the idea of an instituting command because if one
assumes a divine command for the administration of the
Means of Grace by public servants, one carries over into the
New Testament Church an Old Testament feature, a legalistic
element, a trace of the Old Testament bondage (III, ). That
this may well be the case for Schaller as well can be seen in an
article which was written by one of his colleagues, August
Pieper. In fact, Francis Pieper in St. Louis may well have been
pointing not so much at Hfling as his brother August at
Wauwatosa. The well-known Missouri-Wisconsin discussion
of Church and Ministry was in progress after and the
Pieper brothers were among the primary antagonists.
August Pieper, in his article, Are There Legal Regulations
of the mysteries of God ( Cor :). There are specific qualifications for the office, e.g. Tim :, :, Cor :; the office
holders are to have their livelihood by that work ( Tim :)
and they are to be seminary graduates, i.e. not in form, but in
substance, properly trained ( Tim :, Tim :, Ti :). All
of this is distinct from the Pfarramt, the congregational ministry, the specific office which has developed and may continue
to develop. A missionary, a seminary professor, a college or
hospital chaplain, may not have the Pfarramt, but they certainly have the Predigtamt as much as does the pastor in a local
congregation. Luther was not the pastor of a local congregation
in todays sense, but he was certain that as a Doctor of Theology he had Gods call to the Gospel ministry, and he would then
point to his call to the university as his call to preach and teach
the Gospel, not only as a royal priest, but as one called to the
amt.
The most serious deficiency of August Piepers view is that
it calls into question whether or not there can be divine commands or mandata Dei, in the New Testament; ultimately, to
only authority of the public ministry comes from God (Acts
:, Lk :, Eph :, , Rom :). Tr. and Ap XIII take
for granted the divine institution of the Predigtamt. The confessors simply assert that the church has the command to
appoint ministers, which in itself is the divine institution. And
in this connection the question has to be dealt with: What is
the divine institution of the Predigtamt?
The public ministry exists by Gods own institution and
command, but He does not place the office holders immediately. By virtue of their possession of the keys (Mt ), and the
command to proclaim the Gospel (Mt and Mk ), and by
virtue of the office which God has established, it is axiomatic
that the believers have the right and the power to elect and
ordain ministers, and they carry that out in accord with the
command, e.g. of Rom :, Tim :, Ti :. Apology XIII.,
simply refers to Rom : and Is : as the ground for saying that the ministry of the Word has Gods command and glorious promise.
A great deal of the Lutheran literature on the doctrine of
the ministry attempts to answer the question put by Schaller
and others: Where is the divine institution of the Predigtamt?
Not finding any specific and explicit enough, some have gone
to the universal priesthood and simply derived any divine
authority from it. But they have missed the divine institution
that is most important for the confessional writings. In a set of
theses on the ecclesiastical ministry, Tom G.A. Hardt notes in
theses and : The special ministry is created not by the
churchs free choice, but goes back to Christs institution of the
Apostolate (). The command to preach until the end of time
is directed to the special ministry, which thus must also stand
until Christs return (Confessional Lutheran Research Society
Newsletter [Epiphany ]: ). While the form of the apostolic
office is not perpetuated either in Mormon fashion by election
or in an apostolic succession, the ministry is nevertheless
authorized and empowered apostolically. That the church is
built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles means
that not only the church but the ministry as well is in the fullest
sense of the word apostolic. The three contexts in which the
keys are given (Mt ; Mt and Jn ) show a single root for
both the special ministry and the spiritual priesthood which
has the right to call and elect ministers. Schlink is thus right
when he observes that the Word by which Jesus authorizes the
apostles is also the authorization for the entire church ().
Hardt goes on in thesis to note: The Apostles represent
here, at one and the same time, the ministry and the church,
wherefore there is a double institution of the ministry and the
universal priesthood.
What then is the relationship between the Predigtamt and
the universal priesthood according to Tr. -? The right to
elect and call ministers is given exclusively to the church, the
believers. That does not mean that the church or the universal
priesthood establishes the ministry or even instantiates that
which has before existed only in the abstract. The royal priesthood is the unmentioned referent of Romans :, How shall
they preach except they be sent? The universal priesthood is
the means by which God calls and sends particular individuals
into His ministry, the ministry instituted by Him in the Apostolate and which is continued today in the Apostolic Ministry.
Chemnitz says: For the mediate call God ordinarily does not
use the ministry of angels but the ministry of His church,
which is a royal priesthood ( Pt :). For to it as to His spouse
has Christ entrusted the keys of the kingdom (Mt :). Like-
the same way, one can avoid all the problems concerning the relationship between the universal priesthood and the special office of the ministry... ().
It should also be added that Fagerberg cannot be used here to
support the view that AC V refers only to the Means of Grace,
since Fagerberg has previously observed that The ministry of
teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments... (AC
V.) is the technical term for this functional view of the ministry ().
It is quite unnecessary to attempt to include the royal
priesthood in AC V. And to reinterpret Predigtamt to include
the royal priesthood is to empty AC V of its specificity. Marquart is correct in questioning Tapperts note, which suggests
that Vom Predigtamt or De ministerio ecclesiastico is misleading unless one remembers that the confessions thought of
the office of the ministry in other than clerical terms, Tappert, , n. (Cp. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch
Lutherischen Kirche, Gottingen, , : Luther verstand das
Predigtamt nicht klerikar). One can simply ask what in other
than clerical terms is supposed to mean? At best, the note is
unnecessary editorializing on the text. At worst, it applies a disastrous revisionism to the text. Klug and others have made
much of the fact that the titles were not present in the original
texts. But that makes too much of that fact. The titles were
added soon after by people intimately involved with the preparation of the confession who knew what they were talking
about.
The meaning of Predigtamt is certainly clear in the Apology. In Ap. XIII., the Predigtamt is the administration of the
Sacraments to others (Tappert, ), and AC XXVIII describes
das Amt der Predig (): Our teachers hold that according to
the Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a power or command to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins,
and to administer the Sacraments. . . . This power is exercised
only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and by administering
the Sacraments either to many or to individuals, depending on
ones calling (AC XXVIII.,). Finally, Walther certainly
defines Predigtamt rigorously in Church and Ministry, Thesis
VII, as the power, conferred by God through the congregation
as the possessor of the priesthood and all church power, to
exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office in
the name of the congregation ().
AC V simply shows that the Predigtamt, which certainly is
an ontological reality, exists for no other purpose than to serve
the Means of Grace. There is only one Office of the Ministry,
and that is the Word and Sacrament ministry. That Word and
Sacrament ministry is the way in which God himself intends to
distribute the salvation won described in AC IV on Justification. The placement and the construction of AC V certainly
make it clear that the distribution of Word and Sacrament will
not be thought of apart from Predigtamt, and likewise, when
Predigtamt is discussed more concretely later on, it will not be
thought of apart from Word and Sacrament. None of this is to
deny that the royal priesthood possesses, individually and collectively, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. To them belong
all things of Christ, including Word and Sacrament. The universal priesthood is indeed a referent in AC V; they are made
priests by God in Word and Sacrament.
One can observe as Klug does that while the doctrine of the
universal priesthood does not have a separate article in the
Confessions, it is a theme that runs throughout the Confes-
sional writings as it does in Luther and indeed is presupposed
in all discussion of the ministry. But there is nevertheless no
ground in the texts dealing with ministry for asserting that the
universal priesthood is the root out of which the public ministry grows or is derived. The public ministry has its ground on
the one hand in the institution of the apostolate and on the
other hand in the myriad of commands to preach the Gospel
and administer the Sacraments. Some of those who balk at citing a specific New Testament command establishing the
Predigtamt nevertheless recognize that it is Gods will that a
ministry on the public behalf is to function in the church.
The doctrine of the universal priesthood needs to be
asserted and proclaimed. Above all, it means that everything
that belongs to Christ belongs to those made His brothers and
sisters by the Gospel; and that includes preaching and the
administration of the Sacraments. That it is the right, duty, and
function of the priesthood to elect pastors and also to judge
their shepherds is not to be hidden from them. But it needs to
be said in the same breath, not as an appendage, not as a qualifier, not as a higher truth, that God has instituted the office, to
which He wants to call incumbents, specific individuals, to distribute the salvation He has won. And the objects of that service are the royal guests, the kingdom of priests, who are the
banquet guests of the King.
Therein lies the great paradox of the ministry. How beautiful are the feet points to the high honor of the office, as a
divine institution of God, which has received expression in the
term Pfarrherr, The Reverend, and Father. And yet, those
who hold that lofty office are dou'loi, more slaves than servants,
menials who wait on tables at the great banquet attended by
the nation of priests.
logia
The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, .
Chemnitz, Martin. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An
Enchiridion. Translated by Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, .
Schaller, J. The Origin and Development of the New Testament Ministry. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (Winter
): .
Walther, C. F. W. Church and Ministry. Translated by J. T.
Mueller, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, .
front Lutheranism in our day: questions about ecumenical relationships, about the call into the ministry, about
lay ministry about women in the church, about Church
Growth, about the propriety of certain evangelism and stewardship approaches, about the role of liturgy in church life,
about whether we should adopt certain practices of the socalled Evangelicals to enhance mission activity, and about
administrative machinery and its place in day-to-day church
work. Really, these are not disconnected items, especially when
seen from the standpoint of what the Church is supposed to do
in the world. It comes as no accident that we face these challenges simultaneously, for in their present forms they all manifest one perspective on what the Church does. This essay aims
to summarize that perspective and show how it contrasts with
the truly Gospel-centered view which our fathers found in the
Scriptures and left to us. The subject can perhaps best be
approached by raising this question: Is the Church like a hospital or like a gymnasium?
How we conceive of the Churchs work will go hand in
hand with another question, namely, does the Church have
effective Means of Grace? Do the Gospel and the Sacraments
actually deliver the forgiveness of sins to people, or dont they?
Depending on the answer to this question, we will think of the
visible Church either as a saving agency, or as a sanctifying
institution.
But suppose for a moment that the opposite is the case, that
the Means of Grace do not actually deliver the goods of salvation. What impact would that eventuality have on the visible
Church and its work? In this case the Church would be comparable to a hospital without medicine, or like a hospital whose
medicine supply consists of mere sugar pills. Obviously, there
would remain no overriding need for this institution to be concerned with medicine on a day-to-day basis. So what would it
do? What could it do? Whats left if you take away effective
medicine from a hospital?
The hospital would then have little choice but to put its
emphasis on physical therapy. In effect, the hospital would
become a gymnasium or health club, a place where those who
are well enough to work out can exercise themselves. Needless
to say, such a facility could only serve those who are in basically
good health already, but who want to improve. What exercises
should these folks do? In the main, any exercises are good:
push-ups, sit-ups, running, or whatever. Some may suit one
persons situation well, while others might appeal to someone
else. The decision to do a particular exercise might depend on
where an individuals talents or gifts lie. Or there could be
some workout which one feels he especially needs at a given
time in order to exercise a set of muscles which has grown flabby. Overall, however, the choice of an exercise ranks far lower
in importance than the fact that people are exercising. You
never know what God may do with a body that is exercising.
In broad strokes, this illustration sums up the position of
:
medicine, effective Means of Grace do not ask a person
whether he wants the cure or whether he will decide to get well;
they simply deliver the cure. Now, certainly we should not forget that what the Means of Grace deliver can be rejected by
people. But synergists are insulted when they are not asked to
accept salvation. In fact, they hold that you cant be saved
unless you have been asked to accept it and said yes by an act
of your will. At best, synergists want medicine that will stimulate them to make the decisive contribution themselves. They
too are looking for a gym more than a hospital.
And they want a gym for the Christian life after conversion, too. They think the decisive thing in their conversion, the
start of their Christian life, was a task or feat within their power
to perform. To them it was not an intervention from outside in
which God gave them something they could not in the slightest
degree achieve or attain for themselves. Not surprisingly, this
same idea comes to serve as a model for their ongoing Christian lives. The crucial question continues to be: Are you
responding with your will to what God has done for you? As
in our Savior. The contrast between the two views of what the
Church does is most sharp when we ask: Where does Christ fit
in?
In the next section of this essay we will extend the illustration from part one still further, in a number of directions, to
show how a non-Lutheran model of the Church can cause no
end of trouble when it emerges within Lutheranism. Such a
model ought to stick out like a proverbial sore thumb, standing
out as incompatible with the rest of our doctrine; for example,
it conflicts with the effectiveness of the Means of Grace. But do
we recognize a Protestant model of the Church as an alien
teaching among us or do we tend instead to embrace it and
adjust matters of theology and practice so as to fit in with it?
:
superficial effort, like putting a band-aid on cancer. But there is
no reason to remain superficial, for the doctors at the hospitalthe pastors of the Church in our illustrationhave precisely the medicine needed to cure what truly ails the patient:
They can give forgiveness on account of Christ, concretely
available and offered by God in the Gospel and Sacraments.
And as Luther said, where there is forgiveness of sin, there is
also life and salvation. The Gospel is the medicine which physicians of souls should use without getting sidetracked by shallow diagnoses.
But in the Reformed view the Church is like a gym where
people exercise themselves in all manner of good works, and it
should do more than any hospital does to tailor its services to
the felt needs of its clientele. Find the needs and meet them
becomes a slogannot only among the Reformed but also in
some of our own churches.
But to what end? That the clients be saved? Not in the
Reformed understanding which says that God either will or
will not save people apart from any effective means to which
we have access. So what turns out to be the goals behind meeting felt needs? One is that church members will be able to do
still more good works by extending themselves to people. The
other is that the people whose needs are met might join the
outward fellowship of the Reformed church, feel cared-for and
well-assimilated there, and hopefully join in the spiritual exercise program at this gym. Therefore it becomes essential that
a great many activities exist in a Reformed church so that each
individual can plug in at a spiritual exercise level comfortable
for him or her. Even if one of those activities is Bible study, the
emphasis there will likely rest on the dynamics of the group or
the amount of data learned, not on the forgiveness which
Christ gives poor sinners through His Gospel in the Bible
study. In other words, even when someone at the gym reaches
for the real medicine, the gym does not encourage it as a matter of life and death. Just thank God that the medicine of His
Gospel is used among the Reformed at all! That way, in spite of
their protestations, He works through it.
But someone will say, We do not have Reformed thoughts
in mind when we take the advice to find the needs and meet
them. Perhaps not. I certainly do not wish to dismiss all preevangelism efforts; in fact, I think we must grow more sophisticated as we engage in pre-evangelism. But I hold that it is crucial for us to keep pre-evangelism efforts in proper perspective,
appreciating them for what they are and realizing what they are
not. If we dont, the emphasis which our congregations quite
properly and evangelically place on the Means of Grace can be
compromised in practice, for they will run the activities of a
spiritual gym in order to attract people to the church and hold
them there. Who of us has not heard the suggestion, We
could get more people to come to our church if only . . .? We
must beware how we complete that sentence! If we complete it
by saying there is something more we can do to bring the
Means of Grace to sinners, that is like a hospital rightly concerned about getting medicine to sick people in the best way it
can. If we complete the sentence with anything else, we must
realize that we risk acting as a mere gym. But nothing endears
the Church to people like good Gospel-packed preaching,
according to our Lutheran fathers. If we regard the Gospel and
Sacraments as the crucial medicine through which Christ heals
sin-sick people and by which He gathers His Church, why
should we look to other means to bring varieties of salvation
(such as meeting felt needs) and to build the Church?
In these days of medical licensing and supervision, a sick person can be assured of getting at least adequate care at any hospital. But suppose no such regulation existed, leaving people
more or less on their own to find a hospital which provides
good medical care. If you knew of the hospital in our illustration, one which had medicine able to cure the worst disease of
all people, and which used that medicine purely and properly,
why would you subject yourself to treatment at any other hospital? If you were a doctor at that hospital, would you want to
approve publicly of the way other hospitals and doctors might
dilute or contaminate the all-important medicine? Would you
suggest to patients even faintly that there is little difference
between the treatment they receive from you and a workout at
the local gym?
Briefly, this indicates the Lutheran position on church fellowship. Its import for the individual Christian is precisely the
same as Jesus warning to beware of false prophets. It bears
repeating that if we regard the Church as a hospital, administration of the wrong medicine or of contaminated medicine
that is, the teaching of false doctrinehas to stand out as a
matter of paramount importance. And when false doctrine is
taught consistently, it is at least as incumbent upon orthodox
pastors and their churches to dissociate themselves from that
faulty doctrine and its public representatives as it is incumbent
upon medical doctors and their hospitals to denounce the
bogus practices of a quack or charlatan. While a doctor may
attend the meetings of the same civic organization which some
unsound medical practitioner attends, it would be unconscionable for the legitimate doctor to participate with the
quack in the practice of medicine: working together on a case,
publishing a jointly written article, etc. Just so, it is unthinkable
for pastors who proclaim the Gospel in all its sweetness and
comfort to join with those who do not in an effort to proclaim
the Gospel or administer the Sacraments. The purity of our
medicine is a matter of life and deathif we look upon the
Church as a hospital for sin-sick people.
But if churches are gyms where Christians exercise themselves in good works, there can be no big difference between
them. Broadly speaking, one is no better than another; about
the most you can say is that they are different. Someone might
choose a gym because it offers the exercise routine which he
thinks he needs. Similarly, among the Reformed, ones choice
of congregation easily comes to depend less on theological
positions which the churches hold and more on the programs
and challenges available at each. Church-hopping, even
across denominational or theological lines, is rather common.
For in the main all the Protestant gyms recognize each other
as equally legitimate. Ecumenical activityeven the jointproclamation of differing versions of the Gospelstirs up rela-
tively little problem for them, since in their view the Gospel
they proclaim is not Gods means of salvation.
But this thinking proves disastrous within Lutheranism,
where the biblical teaching on the Means of Grace flies in the
face of the ecumenical impulse. Yet there is no denying that
this impulse has turned out to be the most enduring unLutheran temptation in the th century, older and more basic
than flirtations with historical criticism of the Scriptures.
j
Martin Wittenberg is Professor Emeritus of the AugustanaHochschule in Neuendettelsau, Germany, the little Bavarian
town made famous by the th century pastor Wilhelm Lhe. This
essay, though quite lengthy, is presented to our readers complete
in this issue because of its very important subject. Tracing the history of church and altar fellowship from the days of the Early
Church, Wittenberg reveals the catholic understanding that altar
fellowship flows from unity in doctrine. He then presents the
struggle to retain and to articulate this position in the confessional
crisis in Germany, particularly Lhes struggle. Wittenberg leaves
the application of the lessons of history to the reader, but it is clear
that this essay speaks to the pressing challenges which are faced in
worldwide Lutheranism today. A careful reading of Wittenbergs
presentation will be of great benefit.
The essay was translated by John S. Bruss, Mankato, Minnesota, with the authors permission. The essay was first printed
in Lutherischer Rundblick, Vol. , No. & , , and was
reprinted in by Flacius-Verlag. The translator would like to
express his indebtedness both to the Confessional Lutheran
Research Society for bringing to his attention the value of this
article, as well as to Dr. Tom Hardt, without whose close scrutiny
of the translation in a few critical passages, the value of the English version of the work would have been greatly diminished. For
the convenience of our readers a glossary of the foreign words and
phrases in the article is provided at the end of the article.
tions. I. John Damascenus, in Book Four of De fide orthodoxa, writes, With all of our might we resolve to hold
ourselves to this: that we not receive communion from heretics
nor give it to them. II. Dr. Martin Luther, in Open Letter to
the Congregation of the City of Frankfurt am Main in the year
, writes, We do not want to make a pig-pen out of
Christs Church and let everyone come to the Sacrament, as
sows to the trough, without having been previously examinedsuch churches we leave to the enthusiasts. And this we
have received from the Early Church. III. The Schwabacher
Erklrung of October , , entitled Erklrung mehrerer
Geistlicher ber ihr Verhltnis zur bayerisch-protestantischen
Landeskirche (Nrnberg, ). In this document, nine theologians under the leadership of Lhe state: There is no emergency situation which demands mixed communion. And so we
maintain that there cannot be any such situation. Emergency
knows no commandment; but it knows the Commandment of
God. Gods Word is above emergency. Gods Word prohibits
Altar Fellowship with those who have different teachings and
will not desist from them; it prohibits such a narrow fellowship
organization was quite famous! The very same creedal statement is also a rejection of all gnostic communities and, as Hermann Sasse again and again correctly emphasizes, their
tremendously imposing and ornately designed rites. The capricious initiations of the anthroposophs are a boring thing in
comparison to some gnostic services. In the ancient world, if
someone longed for sthetics and sought the magic effect of a
perfectly celebrated liturgy, he went to a gnostic congregation,
where on top of that, he found the attraction of the priestesses.
However, the presence of the creed in the mass is an implicit
refusal of all such sectarians from the Lords Tableprovided
that they are honest and do not look at confessional statements
merely as religious poetry. And of course, vice versa, none of
the sects permits any adherent of the Nicene Creed to commune at the Lords Tabledisregarding some obvious exceptions.
Now, after all of that, I have something else to take up: a
fact, I believe that although well-known in our circles, we must
make ourselves clear on again and again. The nice, often captivatingly presented thesis which states that in the Ancient
Church, up to the point of the schism between the East and
Rome, there was only the One Church, uno corde credens, uno
ore confitens, with only a few heretical or national groups on
the fringes, is simply not true!
Rather, it is often much more disturbing to see, even in the
days of the Ancient Church, how Christian fellowships, some
of which were often downright different and some of which
differed perceptibly only for the initiated Christians, existed
side-by-side in one and the same place. And these differing fellowships each claimed that they were the true Church, since
they had the true doctrine. It is also disturbing to see that even
already by the decline of antiquity, a heathen who comes to
Christ must ask the question, What really, then, is genuine
Christianity? But this also means that in matters of Church
Fellowship and Altar Fellowship the Ancient Church exercised
her strict exclusivity in a world and in an ecclesiastical situation
very much similar to ours today. Envious competition, power
struggles, politics, turncoats, confessionalism, territorialism,
caesaro-papism, misuse of state power at the hands of ambitious priestsall of that is there. And it occurs only very rarely
that the death of some worthy and spirit-filled man would
draw the various confessions and groups together at his grave
in the face of eternity. There at the grave, in the face of eternity,
they would sing psalms together and pray, thereby hinting at
the unity of all confessors of Christ which was otherwise hardly
evident in their general praxis and certainly not realized in
their Altar praxis at all.
What happens now in the face of the fact that even the Church
of late antiquity lived in a realm in which there was very heavy
exchange between East and West, North and South? In this situation, there is something like a Church pass, the so-called
peace letters. These peace letters came to be a different thing
from the letters of recommendation; however, note that the
ejpistolai; sustatikaiv from the days of the Apostle Paul are
obviously nothing other than precisely such letters from congregation to congregation stating, You can accept this person! To maintain the purity of her altars, the Ancient Church
developed a careful system whereby she gave to her relocating
members a testimony as to what was believed in the home con-
gregation in order to make it possible for these members to
commune in congregations of the same confession. And so no
stranger was permitted to commune unless he could produce a
libellum pacisthat is, the proof that he is in such a position as
to exchange with the confessors of a certain faith the kiss of
brotherhood, the kiss of peace during the communion service.
And so you see that it is really not as if the congregations
each lived out their own secluded lives. Indeed, there was a
great fluctuation in Christendom, from Egypt to Gaul, from
Spain to Mesopotamia; so much so that it is cause for concern.
Nevertheless, in the face of all this fluctuation, there remains
an aide in maintaining Altar Fellowship with those who confess
the same doctrinethe letters of peace. And so, for this reason,
letters of peace illegibly undersigned were not accepted! And
when it comes to the clergy, the letter alone did not suffice;
rather, in many instances, they had to sit a colloquy before they
were permitted to celebrate the Lords Supper. Even bishops
were accepted into the koinwniva only after they had demonstrated themselves to be heralds of the truth and God-fearing
matically determined altar discipline; the Ancient Church also
considered ethics in their determination of who would or
would not receive Baptism. And concerning this strongly ethical aspect of the Churchs considerations, note that already
from the time of The Didache, appealing to Mt :f., the Early
Church sometimes even demanded under certain conditions
that the worship service be interrupted for the purpose of reconciling estranged parties!
However, what we are particularly concerned with here
today is the question as to what happens when the baptized
from various groups, from various confessions, encounter one
another. Here the rule of Damascenus applies: that we not
receive communion from heretics nor give it to them.
this is the genuine Lutheran principle in the question of admission to the Eucharistpronounced in The Small Catechism
and undergirded by innumerable other writings of Luther
that there is only one unworthiness, namely, unbelief toward
the words for you; and only one worthiness, namely, the
worthiness of poor sinners who desire their Savior. Is that correct? As we continue on this thought, we cannot overlook the
sense in which the Fifth Part of The Small Catechism brings its
explanation to bear on matters of worthiness and preparation. It is brought expressly against late-medieval popular
piety according to which the worthiness of ones participation
in communion was effected through fasting and bodily selfpreparation. If we fail to see that the reference to Christs
words for you and faith in them ought to be seen within this
framework, divorcing the reference from the greater context,
we do violence to the text of The Small Catechism and to at
least a good share of the other passages produced in favor of
this argument. We are therefore still going to have to deal with
the question, whether or not and to what extent our Reforma-
merely by his reception of both kinds. Nevertheless, the
Lutherans do regard his reception of both kinds as being signatory of his conversion! Certainly then, the issue was originally
centered upon the sub utraque specie. But then it became an
issue of whether or not one celebrated the Mass with men who
desired both species; that is, later the issue was whether or not
one shared a common understanding of the Evangel and a
common confession concerning Gods great gifts which the
Church administers. This later development proved its worth
from year to year in justifiable measure. However, the understanding of the Evangel and confession concerning the Means
of Grace just mentioned did not deal with mere opinions, but
rather with the truth. They dealt with membership in the Body
of Christ, the Christian Church! Along these same lines, the
frequently cited question, What is the Sacrament? and the
instruction recorded in Augustana X concerning sacramental
doctrine both make clear that the issue does not revolve merely
around the pro me. And the force of idoneus in Augustana
XXIV. clearly has to do with more than just hunger and thirst.
In Sixteenth century Lutheranism, it was not only a denial of
the Biblical conception of the gift-character of the Sacrament
that made one unworthy, but also a denial of the EST. Therefore, generally speaking, the Lutheran Reformation sees matters in the following way: A correct confession concerning the
Lords Supper is a prerequisite for admission to the Eucharist.
And the Reformation Church practiced that, toojust look at
the history preceding the Wittenberg Conkord and its (if I
might be so bold as to say it) sacramental ratification of those
who, as everyone knows, used the Sacrament only as a remembrance!
But not only the Lutherans were familiar with limits
around the altar. Even Calvin believed that it was an outrageous profanation to let those who had not previously made a
confession of the true faith commune. (If someone is a
stranger somewhere, he must do it before the ministerium and
the elders of the congregation.) Profanatur sancta coena
promiscua exhibitione (Institutio IV.,)! When the Strasbourgers signed the Wittenberg Concord, the Zrichers forbade
their students to commune in Strasbourg. Why? The Strasbourgers Altar Fellowship with the Wittenbergers made it
impossible for correct-believing Zrichers to receive the Lords
Supper in Strasbourg. This is also the report from around
of Hermann Hamelmann, the Generalsuperintendent of Oldenburg, who tells us that the Reformed preachers would seek
from their communicants a clear and open confession that
Christs Body and Blood were not present in the Holy Sacrament! From his point of view, Rietschel saw the Reformed perspective in much the same light. Nevertheless, to conduct oneself in such a manner could be perceived to be Reformed. But
is it necessarily Lutheran? Where does Luther stand on the
question?
Blood which has with it the Word. For the same, we say, is the
treasure through which such forgiveness has been won.
Luther would never have conceded that one could believe in
the grace won through Christs sacrifice and yet deny that we
receive in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of the Lord by
which that grace was won for us. And practically speaking, this
concept is presented most strongly in the aforementioned letter of Luther to the congregation in Frankfurt. However, I can
cite here only the most important sections of this letter which
takes up fourteen pages in the Weimar Ausgabe. It is telling that
Luther, in the face of the popular obscuring of the doctrinal
divisions, goes so far as to impress it upon the Christians there,
Ask your preacher what it is that he has in his hand in the
Sacrament! Luther challenges every purely Biblical answer,
every mere recitation of the Words of Christ, with the sentence, We wish to receive what the Saviour has instituted. He
counsels and urges the laity to ask the celebrant what he has in
his hand when he distributes the Lords Supper. (N.B. This
sentence is important in the discussion with those theologians
who permit the Body and Blood of the Lord to be present only
upon reception of the consecrated gift. Luthers question,
What do you have in your hand? would well express Luthers
view to the contrary!) On this first point, the reformer says
something like: If someone cites the bare Words of Christ, but
will not say that he is distributing Christs Body and Blood,
then he is playing a satanic trick with the Words of Christ and
shamefully deceiving and robbing simple hearts. On this basis,
in his opinion, this classifies as a double hell: first of all, since
such church servants lie against Gods Word; and secondly,
since they deny and hide from the laity their own teaching
(which they extol as Gods very Word). The second point
which Luther deals with in this letter is the question on registration, confession, preparation, and absolution. On both
points he sees clearly the practical consequences. The sentence
which best elucidates the first point, as is well known, is:
In summary. . . it is frightening for me to hear that in
the churches of one party, or at the altar of one party,
both parties are taking and receiving the Sacrament of
that one party, and that one group should believe that
it is receiving mere bread and wine while the other
group believes that it is receiving the true Body and
Blood of Christ. And I often wonder if it is believable
that a preacher or Seelsorger could be so callous and
evil as to maintain silence on this issue and to permit
Whereas, before Christmas of the Duke had pointed to the
Lutheran confession on the Eucharist and had exhorted the
refugees to be conscientious (ne quid dubitante conscientia facerent), he now thought (according to his later assessment of
the situation) that the doctrinal discussion would help them to
rest their consciences on the Biblical foundation of the Lutheran confession of the Sacrament. Similarly, during the discussion, whenever the Duke was entreated by Beza for Altar Fellowship and asked to release his own opinion on the doctrine,
he would point to Wrttembergs Confession and Church
Order, which was well-known to Beza and his group, and insist
that whoever wishes by virtue of the Confession and Order
in Mmpelgarten to go to the Lords Supper should not be
rejected.
Of course, in the answer to Beza, something of this nature
was clearly expressed: that the opinion and view of communing by virtue of that Confession and Order must be presented and reported to the Lutheran pastor so that the answer
would not operate with the fiction of a silent conversion. In
the previously mentioned volume, Koinonia, of . Professor
Balduin, who came from Dresden to Wittenberg, is famous for
his Christlicher Unterricht vom Balgen, an address which he
gave on the occasion of the burial of a student who was killed
in a duel. However, more noteworthy is his Tractatus de casibus
conscientiae which was published in Wittenberg in , a
reworking of the rich material from the Gutachten of orthodox
theologians, faculties, and church councils which had been collected by Philippus Nicolais sometime deacon, Georg
Dedeken. Balduins treatise filled a certain hiatus which had
come into being as a result of the absence of a black-on-white
theological ethics in the Lutheran Church. Now, in the sections
of Balduins work presented in Kimmes essay, Balduin deals
with the intolerable situation of a Lutheran Christian communing with the Romans and the Reformed. He deals with the
situation as an opponent of syncretism, much as the Faculty at
Helmstedt, the school of the active Schleswig-Holsteinian pastors son Georg Calixtwho was always ready to form some
new alliance, always ready to take part in new commissions
and sessionsalmost unswervingly defended it. In Balduins
estimation, the Ecclesia Calviniana is no more vera ecclesia
than the Ecclesia Romana. And neither have veram eucharistiam (quia substantiam hujus sacramenti corrumpunt). He
maintains, Abstinendum est a sacris eorum quorum religionem..
.verbo Dei contrariam ese certi sumus. One cannot receive the
Sacrament with an unscathed conscience (salva conscientia)
in a church whose doctrine he does not recognize as being true.
In passing, we note something which is important also for the
present-day discussions: that Balduin, as I understand him, is
not speaking merely of the Sacramental doctrine of the churches in question, although Kimmes presentation would seem to
indicate that that is the case. Rather, it is apparent that for Balduin, communing in a church which teaches false doctrine is a
hypocrisy; and even more, an inner untruthfulness superceding the implicit lack of integrity concerning the Eucharist. Nevertheless, Kimme opines, and not without just cause, that a
Lutherans eucharistic participation in a non-Lutheran fellowship has broad ramifications and fundamental significance. On
this note, one may quietly ruminate over the fact that Balduin
believed that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not of tantae
necessitatis as was Baptism. However, we should not wrest
ourselves from the deep, scrupulous earnestness with which
this Lutheran ethicist makes clear what Altar Fellowship with
the heterodox actually implies and involves.
The opportunity here arises to draw our attention to a few
points mentioned by Tom Hardt. Luther himself could write
a letter of recommendation for the Ethiopian Deacon Michael
only after Michael had said that all of our [sc. those of the
Wittenbergers] articles are representative of the faith.
Another example of the early Lutheran conviction concerning
the breadth of fellowship relations is the fact that the three parties involved in the Collegium caritativum in in Thorn
(which Calixtus described to his Duke as being not so much
carititative as irritative) each held separate worship services. But on top of that, the Lutherans already at this point
refused to have joint prayer with the Roman and Reformed
delegates (and so implicitly also with their more prominent
representatives). Why? If the Lutherans were to practice prayer
fellowship in this situation, they would have been in fellowship
with the darkness! Hardt has also demonstrated from the
Nordic Church Orders of the sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries that Scandinavian Lutheranism strictly upheld the fun-
return to confessionalism were products of the Great Awakening, and so naturally found themselves in close company
with early Pietism. Now, in his posthumous Letzte theologische
Bedenken, published in , Spener also demonstrated how in
his mind communing in a particular congregation naturally
implies a sanctioning of the doctrine taught in that congregation, especially of the doctrine of the Sacrament. He maintained this position even in the face of decision of a FrenchReformed national synod (Charenton ; reconfirmed at
Loudun in /, although not without reservations), which
had issued a Decree concerning our Brethren the Lutherans.
And that very same Spener, who is not unrightly accused of
being too indulgent due to his overweening efforts not to harm
anyone and his ever-mindfulness of bringing about Christian
unity, advised the Lutherans against visiting Reformed services
and taking part in the Lords Supper in Reformed congregations. What was the basis of his advice? He could not feel conscionably responsible for Lutherans communing among the
Reformed, thereby separating themselves from their own
Church. Furthermore, speaking in about the union
church service proposed in the territory of the Elector of the
Palatinate (such a union service had parallels elsewhere), Spener indicated that such a Concord Service would only result in
the conversion of the Lutherans to the Reformed Church. Even
if such a Service of the Word could be possible between
Lutherans and the Reformed (which Spener doubts), fellowship in the Lords Supper could hardly be possible. And finally,
any spiritual growth that could take place at all depended upon
instruction in controverted issues; but how could this instruction take place unless the doctrinal divisions were openly pronounced, causing grievances? Stated another way, if the doctrinal divisions are just swept under the carpet, then the spiritual
growth of the congregation is stunted. To be sure, Spener did
not maintain that the Reformed had no Lords Supper; but he
believed that the Reformed celebration was not the true Supper. For the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ in His Supper causes
His Body and His Blood to be present as His promise is not the
only thing which properly belongs to the Lords Supper.
Rather, of much more import in the Lords Supper is what is
demanded both of the administrant and the manducantthat
the one wishes to distribute, the other wishes to receive precisely what the Lord had promised to be present. And there is
where the Reformed go wrong.
Spener certainly sharpened the consciences of the Lutheran ministerium by recommending that they should rather lose
their office than participate in the Concord Service. But he
also rendered a great service to the Lutheran laity in another
one of his Gutachten by instructing them what they ought to
do. He even deals with the fringe issue of the case of death and
answers the question as to whether or not a Lutheran should be
permitted to request a member of the Reformed clergy to
administer the Sacrament to him. His answer is: If a Lutheran
happens to be among only heterodox Christians when he is on
his deathbed, and can find no Lutheran pastor at all, he should
receive the Sacrament from a Lutheran layman, as from a
brother (no matter how dubious this advice might seem),
rather than let a Reformed preacher administer it to him. In
the last century, it was correctly judged that:
Nothing can more strikingly or strongly express the
dismissal of this type of emergency case (which is now
appealed to at the drop of a hat or at the slightest hint
in the fides quae creditur, but rather found that the Reformed
confessed allegiance to a religion in which Spener believed
there were dangerous errors. And so one can hardly be surprised that Spener disapproved of the fact that in Wrttemberg
they were trying to build bridges for the French Reformed by a
mild form of a requested explanation of beliefs which provided the following formula: le vray corps et le vray sang of
Jesus Christ are received avec le pain (the infamous cum!)
and one was to believe that la manire de la manducation is
sacramentaire, mystrieuse, spirituelle et incomprhensible nos
sens. Reflecting on all of this, Spener surmised that the
Swabian church leadership had satisfied itself well enough with
this formula, since they probably just expected that the
Huguenot refugees would still grow in their own perceptions
once they had entered the churches of Wrttemberg.
There is one more thing necessary to mention in order to
come to a more complete evaluation of Speners position: It is
during Speners lifetime that the Prussian Collegium irenicum
falls. Since this institution, under the leadership of the
Reformed Bishop Benjamin Ursinus (the episcopal title on
account of the desire more closely to resemble the Church of
England), had sought to effect unity between the Lutherans
and the Reformed in Prussia. Now, for Spener the unity of
Gods children was of heartfelt importance; the enduring separation of the churches was another episode of divine judgment against our sins; and only divine grace could bring
The principle stood fast that Altar Fellowship is Church Fellowship, and
that Church Fellowship is Fellowship
in Faith in the sense of fides quae
creditur.
about the possibility of a reunion. But this same Spener withdrew from participating in the Collegiums effort at effecting
peace. His reasons for so doing were: Since they were trying to
effect a union without repentant renewal and purification of
the churches, they were only worsening the inherited and
dangerous damages and in all likelihood would end up making four churches of the two.
The Collegium was formed in the spring of after the
preacher at St. Ulrici in Magdeburg, Johann Joseph Winkler,
had handed over the Arcanum regium to the self-crowned
Prussian king. Winkler at that time referred to the Arcanum
regium as:
that regal mystery through which it has been especially revealed to a ruling Sovereign how he ought to conduct himself according to Gods will among his religiously divided subjects in order to effect a Godpleasing unity surreptitiously and in short order.
(Pertaining to this fairly rash writing of Winkler, based largely
on foreign material, it is telling that he depicts the doctrinal
battles concerning the Holy Supper as mere logomachy.) This
Arcanum regium and this Collegium irenicum stand in close
relation to their contemporary efforts not only to effect a
union between Lutherans and Reformed, but also, if possible,
to draw all of Christendom together. This huge ecumenical
movements spiritual father and indefatigable counselor was
none less than the likes of Leibniz. Its motivating power was
none other than the court preacher Jablonsky (the nephew of
Amos Comenius of the old Brethren Unity) who proved later
to be so important for the Moravian episcopal office. Its leading Lutheran churchman was Molanus, who at the time was
the Abbott of Loccum. The movement was being pushed
through on the Roman side by the Bishops Spinola and
Bossuet, on the Reformed side by the Scot John Dury, famous
for his voyages in oecumenis. And it owed dearly to the Swabian
theologian Christoph Matthus Pfaff who between and
had created per fraudem some fragments of Ireneus which, on
the issue of the Supper, took the Eastern Churchs position on
consecration through ejpivklhsi", the Roman Churchs
emphasis on sacrifice, and the Lutheran way of speaking on
forgiveness of sins and eternal life. (Friedrich Heiler still considered this document to be a very early witness. And Gerhard
Kunze more than twenty years ago amused himself by taking
note of the documents remarkable similarity to modern
The historical turning point does not hinge on the old Pietism
of Spener, but on Speners Godchild, Count Zinzendorf, and
his particular thoughts on the idea of the affiliation of all Gods
children and the Church which were developed through and in
his own programmatic renewal of the Brethren Unity.
However, this is not the place to present either Zinzendorfs spiritual style or even his (strong and very realistic)
eucharistic piety. And still less do we have the opportunity to
trace the single steps and changes in the history of the
Brethren congregation.
Pertinent to our discussion, on the other hand, are the
counts years in Dresden and his bemusings over a union of
Lutherans and Reformed in his Heftiger Drang der Liebe as well
as in detailed written dissertations. Upon advice from Halle, he
abandoned any further pursuit of such projectsthis brings to
mind, of course, the fact that in America his later pursuit of
philadelphic goals to create a congregation of all true children of God was opposed in the name of the Church bound to
the Lutheran Confession by Henry Melchior Mhlenberg who
was sent from Halle. But when the well-known founding of a
Christian settlement of Moravians near Berthelsdorf made him
responsible as the Lutheran church patron for the spiritual fate
of the Moravian Brethren (resuscitated out of a semi-Catholicism), of some Reformed (such as his own steward Heitz or the
Berner patricians son Baron von Waterville), and of some
downright free spirits, he was forced once again, this time in an
existential manner, to ask himself the question. One certainly
recalls how on that th of August an Altar Fellowship,
deeply divided for many years over doctrinal and ceremonial
issues, was created in the Lutheran Church at Berthelsdorf. The
fellowship there was, as the Moravian Christian David
remarked, composed of so many different types and sects
Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Separatists, Quakers, and
such, who melted together into one. And one also recalls
how this congregation proclaimed itself to be drawn together
by God Himself as the apostolic, visible congregation of
Christ. One can never let this occurrence and its effect fall
from sight if we wish to seek an answer on Zinzendorfs position on Altar Fellowship. The count had multifarious conceptions on the nature of the church. But the most important of
them remains the thought to ensure for the various tropes
and historical ways of Gods guidance their place within the
One Unity of the Church; to ensure for Lutherans, Reformed,
Moravians, Judeo-Christians and so on the maintenance of
their own confessional heritage on the level of the local congregation while maintaining among all of these tropes an undiscussed Altar Fellowship. Zinzendorf maintained that in all the
various confessions, there was a common central truth. This
commonality translates into, the ideas of their hearts do not
differ from one another, and means that one need not first
bring into being a union. The children of God, however, are
not all required to be members of One Household; I wish
carefully to keep the religions separate. But, as far as mission
work went, the confessional differences were not applicable
here: It bothers me to no end that . . . the poor heathen are
turned once again into sectarians. And, as far as reinforcement of a confessional stand was concerned, all negations and
damnations were to be left out. On this basis, the Brethren
Synod in Grokrausche near Bunzlau in was able to
decree an explicit quia confessional allegiance to the Confessio
Augustana. Yet the same synod could document a resolution,
through the presence of a Reformed supreme court preacher
from Berlin, to maintain a steady tie between the Reformed
members of that congregation and the Church whence they
were derived. And not least of all, Altar Fellowship between all
parties thereafter was supposed to be the great step forward in
their common relation to Jesus. For Zinzendorf, this was
part of the un-partisan love and his serious treatment of his
pet saying from Jn :, omnes unum.
When one thinks about what sort of mythical meaning
Herrnhut had for the Awakening of the nineteenth century
(whoever would casts doubts upon Herrnhut would do
injury to the apple of their eye; and what we today call the
Kirchentag was at that time the heritage of Zinzendorf),
then even from our far-removed vantage point, we can understand how it must have been so self-understood for the Awakened to have Open Communion, just as Herrnhut had had it.
It was not only Rationalism which, in the last analysis, had
deposed the old observance; rather, it was the devout who were
certain that they themselves had at last defeated itand that
not least of all for this reason, that one would compromise out
of love for the person of the Saviour.
man country, the result of this was that under the influence of
the grandfather (who, by the by, had converted to the
Reformed faith) of the Great Elector, the cabinets constitution
pushed forward toward the ideal of an absolutist centralized
state using the French monarchy as its model.
It is extremely interesting to see the effect that Pierre Jurieu
had on the situation with his Consultatio de pace inter Protestantes inuenda, published in in Utrecht. Jurieu, despite his
Huguenot convictions, lived and worked in Holland. There he
found himself embroiled in literary battles, passionately
defending his own Calvinism against Roman Catholics and
even against the likes of the blasphemous Pierre Bayle. Jurieu
had figured that the Antichrist would come in and gave to
the Huguenots a special leadership role in the coming Kingdom of God. In his writings in favor of Church union (this
idea is closely connected to his chiliasm), he dreams not only
of a union of the Churches of the Reformation against Rome,
but imagines an affiliation of all of Christendom. He even goes
so far as to propose an affiliation of Christendom with Islam.
hausen to whom the Bavarian Church had entrusted the leadership of their whole school system, made clear to the world in
in his book on the Supper that the perception of the Lords
Supper as a meal of bloody sacrifice and reconciliation, which
had reigned to that day, would only bring about a brutalization of the heart rather than its development into a higher
humanity. In Stephanis mind, if this Jewish sacrificial meal
had not been insinuated into Christianity, there would have
been nothing like the Inquisition or the Wars of Religion. It
was thus incumbent upon a new doctrine of the Eucharist to
present the meal as a dedication to the Christian society of
Commonwealth, as to the congregation of genuine confessors and friends of Truth, Virtue, and Humanity. In such a
Eucharist, the altar should have the crucifix upon it, not to
excite the old ideas . . . but to direct our friends in the federation
to Him, who in giving up His life that the right of Truth might
conquer, gave to us an excellent example which we ought to
follow. If this is the report we get from the mouth of a leader
of the Bavarian Territorial Church in the early years of her
existence, how should anyone be expected to have arrived at
any thought whatsoever of associating any sort of idea of
eucharistic division with the new ennobled eucharistic piety?
Certainly, the young Frankish and Swabian mystics, embittered by Stephani, drew their swords against him. But how
little even they, the awakened, knew about limitations around
the altar! Completely without prejudice, they wrestled with the
idea of communing at the altar of their dear teacher in Erlangen, the Reformed pastor and professor, Christian Ludwig
Krafftdespite the fact that each one of them without exception had come from a Lutheran congregation. In short, they
had to learn from this Reformed preacher that Altar Fellowship
presupposed Church Fellowship. At any rate, he quickly
became an authority for them.
And so, those who at that time were appealing to the old faith
had to contend with Rationalism first of all. And it is Claus
Harms of Kiel who, in the view of many Lutherans, stands at
the head of this movementwe find traces of his work even in
the south of Germany (where in Pastor Christian Philipp
Heinrich Brandt from Roth am Sand, who was later Lhes
Dean in Windsbach, published a sermon of Harms entitled,
Wie wir die Trennung anzusehen haben, welche die sogenannten
neuern religisen Ansichten innerhalb unserer Kirche entstanden
ist). And it should come as no surprise that in his pastoral theology he specifically delves into how a pastor ought to conduct
himself against the Rationalists in matters pertaining to the
Sacrament of the Altar. We are all familiar with Harmss pastoral theology which grew out of his evening table talks with
the theology students he had assembled around himself since
. First published in , it was newly revised in . In
this present endeavor, I will be citing from the third edition of
printed in Kiel.
In his Pastorale Harms (p. ) proceeds from a strictly
pastoral point of view in asking who takes the Supper to his
own damage or scandal and therefore ought to be prevented
from receiving the Lords Supper. He examines the various
points of view, handling various physical, psychological and
moral conditions (an open life of depravity or secret drunkenness without repentance), considering them in connection
with issues not only of parochial rights, but also with confes-
was working with the Augustana, the Apologia, and C.F. (as
F.W. Kantzenbach calls it). Nevertheless, Kantzenbach has
shown that Harms was hardly what one would consider wellversed in the writings of Luther when he did deliver his famous
Theses. We also recognize that inasmuch as Harms did not
abandon the Confessions in his own personal theological work
after the controversy, he essentially became the first advocate
of confessional Lutheran theology in the nineteenth century.
Kantzenbach even gives Harms preeminence over Vilmar,
Kliefoth and Lhe. And while he generally only speaks of confessional Lutheran theologys most powerful and decided
impression as coming through the Erlangen School, Harms is
to stand distinct from that school by virtue of his lack of any
philosophical-speculative tendencies bearing the stamp of
Schelling or Hegel. If all of these facts seem to substantiate
the claim that Harmss formula demanded something deliberately insignificant, looking back on my own lectures on Harms,
I should like to think of it rather as a certain lack of concision
in his expression. Indeed, as his controversy with Lehmus the
answer this question positively would be presumptuous on my
part. But in any case, Hardts assertion that Vilmar deals with
the isolated locus de reali praesentia, and not with the issues of
confession, church doctrine, and church bodies as entities,
appears to be further substantiated by this passage on the
Reformed. This renders an interesting picture: Petri, a chip off
of Harmss block, who began in the direction suggested by
Harms comes through to see explicit ecclesiastical delineations;
while Vilmar, perhaps in consideration of special domestic
hardships, uses Harmss formula in order to leave off his treatment at isolated loci, at individuals, andin the best caseat
special exceptions for whole territorial Churches. (One should
not, however, overlook how many of our own contemporaries
would not be permitted to the Eucharist by Vilmar, simply
because of the fact that his formula, the real presence of the
Lord according to His Body and His Blood, would strike them
as being Catholic!)
The area which stands as the clearest example of the controversy concerning the Lords Supper during the nineteenth century
is Bavaria. In the first place, this is largely due to the fact that
the Union Church of Palatinate (under the Consistory in Speyer) and the Lutherans and Reformed from the East of the
Rhine (under the Consistories of Ansbach and Bayreuth and
the Deanship of Munich which had direct access to the highest
ecclesiastical governing body) were united under one Superior
Consistory in the Protestant General Congregation of the
kingdom. Secondly, through the settlement of colonists from
the Palatinate in the Fens of the Danube and through the active
exchange of clergy, military personnel, and state bureaucrats
between East and West Bavaria, the issue of the Union became
very acute, even in the old-Lutheran regions of the Franconian
Marches, Imperial Cities, knightly regions, and the Evangelical
cities and villages of Bavarian Swabia. The first forty years of
the twentieth century, especially after the defeat in the Second
World War, saw a massive domestic German migration which
brought so many problems for the Landeskirche as a whole to
the East of the Rhineand especially for Upper Bavariaon
how to deal with those from the Union. But the problems associated with that migration were perceptible already in the preceding century. And thirdly, on top of all that, in the regions of
Lindau, Allgu and even up into Bavarian Neu-Ulm, there was
a significant migratory exchange with Switzerland and its
Reformed Christianity. And the Catholics watched to find out
how the Landeskirche would deal with the problems that had
become hers in the above ways. Certainly, the questionable elements of the Union were not looked at askance only in Bavaria.
Rather (as Herbert Heinhold showed) serious misgivings
about the idea of a Union were ventilated already in by
Andreas Gottlob Rudelbach in his energetic criticism of the
Prussian procedures. Nevertheless, the relationships in Bavaria
were different from those in Saxony, and not necessarily more
propitious toward the validity of the Confessions. For in
Bavaria, they set their sights remarkably quickly (even before
Lhe made his appearance on the stage) on the issue of Altar
Fellowship between the various Church Fellowships which had
come out of the Reformation.
As is well known, in his Drei Bcher von der Kirche, Lhe
pronounced a judgment (which Rocholl later loved to cite),
that the whole Lutheran movement within Protestantism
should have been well under way at the instigation of the Silesians witness in who sought to bring into being an independent Lutheran Church. This remark points out how much
the Silesian movement affected that in Bavaria. And the picture
comes clear when we see just how many men took this saying
as a directive for the Church in the problem at hand. All of
these men stood in close relation to Johannes Gottfried
Scheibel from Breslau who had entered the scene as a fearless
witness for Lutheranism at the same time as Harms. During his
life time, Scheibel was often slandered. But at his burial in
Nrnberg, he was justifiably highly praised. In fact Lhe was at
first one of the few who directed their view toward Schlesien
since already by , he knew Scheibels view of the Lords
Supper quite well and recognized it as correct. And perhaps
even Scheibel received more opposition from von Scheurl and
Harle than he gave to them after he had found asylum in
Nrnberg in (at which time he received his share of opposition from Karl von Raumer). But in any case, Martin Kiunke
was able to establish in his dissertation on Scheibel that the
This first step deals with the controversy between Adolf Harle
and Ignaz Dllinger on which Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf has
reported. This controversy came into being as a result of
King Ludwig Is demand that the military genuflect before the
Corpus Christi procession, which, needless to say, placed not a
few of the Evangelical soldiers in a situation which conflicted
with their consciences. The Evangelicals resorted to an appeal
to the Confessions in defense of those who refused to genuflect, especially to the Formula of Concord and its comments
against the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, its liturgical
consequences, and its judgment concerning the impossibility
of tolerating certain rites and uses in statu confessionis. Now
Harle, who at that time was a professor at Erlangen and a representative in the Bavarian Diet (and as such the most important speaker for the Evangelical side), had to recognize that in
, by pointing out some dubious practices within Bavarian
Protestantism, Dllinger had sought to prove that the Protestants would cite the Lutheran Confession only when it could be
used in a specifically anti-Catholic sense. Part of Dllingers
arguments rested upon the fact that members of the Union and
the Reformed were participating in the Lutheran Supper in the
St. Matthew Church in Munich. He saw in that, as in other
things, an irrefutable substantiation of a Union which would
de facto place any Protestant valuation of the Formula of Concord as the norm and decisive witness outside of a position
of power. Placing the catechism used in the Palatinate and
Boeckhs Bavarian Lutheran Catechism in opposition to one
another, and comparing them with Luther and the old Prussian Altlutheraner, he came to the decision that there could no
longer be any sort of talk about a Lutheran Church in Bavaria.
What was the case in Munich was also happening in all of the
other important cities of Bavaria. And circumstances in the
diaspora in the region of the Fens of the Danube were such that
one and the same clergyman was obliged to represent Lutheran
doctrine one moment and Calvinism in the next and so was
unable any longer to take seriously any confession at all. In
Dllingers opinion, it was incomprehensible why such a pastor would not wish to take over caring for even the Jews of that
region in order to get a better salary. Through the Union
whose tenets have been impressed and practically received in a
place where people do not think of themselves as being of
Union in name. . . what remains of the reputation which the
symbolical books once enjoyed is completely buried.
Adolf Harle answered Dllinger in with his writing,
Die evangelisch-lutherische Kirche in Bayern und die Insinuationen des Herrn Professor Dllinger. In his assessment, the status
controversiae is this: The issue deals not with if some kind of
form of Union celebration of the Lords Supper is a possibility
within the Lutheran Church; rather, it deals with if and under
what provisos in singular cases and special circumstances permission can be granted to such as do not belong to the Lutheran Church to participate in a celebration of the Lords Supper
according to the Lutheran rite. Now, Harle understands
matters in such a way that for him the confessional distinction
which must be made is not the responsibility of the admissiongranting administrant of the Sacrament, but rather of the communicant who desires the Sacrament. He defends the thesis
that participation in the Lutheran Supper as such must be
understood as an act of confession much as participation in the
Lutheran celebration of the Supper and confessional allegiance
to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church concerning the Sacrament of the Altar are part and parcel of one another. The non-
Lutherans request for admission to the Sacrament is an
implicit agreement with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lords
Supper. And so, it is correct to lay greater weight on the side of
him who, although not a member of the Lutheran Church,
desires to participate in the Lutheran celebration. Nevertheless,
Harle is not satisfied (as it might appear at first glance) with a
silently (so to speak) expressed agreement with the Lutheran
Confession. For, on his part, he considers as reasonable certain
clerical scruples concerning [the communicants] attitude of
indifferentism if he were to wish to admit non-members of
his congregation to the Sacrament without a specific indication
of their agreement with the Lutheran Church in the doctrine of
the Holy Supper. We shall not want to overlook this stipulation which desires a specific indicationnot just from those
who are not members of the Lutheran Church, but even from
those who are non-members of the congregation. Therefore,
Harle does not align his question with the issue merely of
objective Church membership, rather, he sees the pastoral
responsibility of the minister precisely over against the non-
Twelve years later, Harle renewed and realized his position of . In the meantime, he had been called into the leadership of the Bavarian Church. And in , he was forced to
express his views on an issue involving Lutherans within the
Union whose home congregations were using solely Luthers
Catechism and who unquestionably wanted to be viewed not
as members of the Union, but as Lutherans. (There were still
plenty of congregations in Pommerania and Minden-Ravensburg which laid a great deal of emphasis on the name Lutheran and who used the Lutheran Catechism and the Lutheran
formula for distribution. In fact, many of these congregations
had no idea aboutand had experienced nothing ofthe palladium of the Union, of the right that a Christian of another
confession was supposed to have to participate in their sacramental rites. And they understood the Union purely as a mere
administrative arrangement!) In a detailed writing addressed
to the Erlanger academic association Philadelphia (the question must have had a very present importance for the Northern
German students at Erlangen who had come to Bavaria),
Harle refused to regard the admission of such men as being a
recognition of Union principles. And Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf
in a convincing way found it telling that here Harle placed the
pastoral aspect of conscientious consideration toward the
demand for agreement in doctrine before all other considerations, including those of ecclesiastical law and politics. Of
course, one must certainly ask Hopf if a Union-Lutherans
sacramental participation in a consciously Lutheran congregation can occur in such a way that it is understood that the communicant is thereby (as Harle says) aligning himself actually,
openly, and ceremoniously with the Lutheran Churchs confession of the Supper but not criticizing and renouncing the
Union. But wouldnt communing in a consciously Lutheran
Church actually imply such a criticism and renunciation, especially since the Union by its very natureas the history of
Prussian Union-Lutheranism shows much too plainly
destroys any sort of confessional basis and sets any Confession
out of powernot to mention that Harle, with his emphatic
actually, openly and ceremoniously, might still be covering
up his own uncertainty on the clarity of such a confession concerning the Sacrament?
The second stage of the Bavarian controversy, then, is
played out not in conflict with Roman Catholicism, but rather
in the controversy within the Church itself. As touches our discussion, this controversy is associated with the names of Franz
Delitzsch and Wilhelm Lhe.
Franz Delitzsch, who for the sake of his Lutheranism came
into a professorship only very late in life, was fetched from
Rostock for Erlangen only with strong opposition from the
High Consistory in Munich. (At any rate, that was the way
things were for this High Consistory. Later during the movement begun by Lhe within the Landeskirche this regime was
replaced by a High Consistory under the leadership of Harle.)
Now, when Delitzsch, a proven, conscientious Lutheran, came
into his professorship in Erlangen in he did not fail to
jump right into the discussion on communion practice which,
at that time, was being carried on with a great sense of urgency
in Bavaria. Proof for this is his Die bayerische Abendmahlsgemeinschaft which was composed in as a beginning of a
thorough examination and published in in Erlangen. It
begins with the telling sentence, The problem of Altar Fellowship has now become the shibboleth of the ecclesiastical movement in Bavaria, to which the Lutheran Church of all German
such an instance the raw husk hides a sweet kernel, the hard
muscle a costly pearl, the apparent gruffness a blessed duty.
For non-Lutherans who might be found within the Lutheran
fellowship, two things are indispensable: First of all those
who are unclear in their mind about the issues are to be
brought to a conscientious ecclesiastical decision in a pastoral
manner and the Office of the Ministry is to be so willed and
inclined as to work toward this end openly, and especially with
just as much wisdom and mildness as with earnestness and
decisiveness; secondly for the sake of their consciences, attendance at our Supper is to be kept from those who are wittingly
and firmly members of the Reformed Church and wish to
remain so. Delitzsch registers a strong objection against the
disease of our time: that an individual now isolates himself
from his natural and ecclesiastical relationships to the same
degree as an individual used to be completely absorbed in
them. And accordingly, the modern individual dissolves all
corollary duty and responsibility. As if the Church were not
there, members of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches think
that they are able to believe whatever they want. That the
confession of the Church hold sway over all of her members to
such a degree that he whose faith stands in contradiction with
the confession of his Church, finds himself in a contradiction
with himself and his own conscience must be maintained.
For such a one does not belong to the Church in an inward
manner although he belongs to it outwardly. In the face of the
subjectivism of our time, a stricter Lords Supper praxis is
made doubly necessary. On the threshold of the Holy of
Holies, such a one must be brought to a cognizance and inner
conviction of his lack of devotion. He ought not step over this
threshold.
Let us take a break from this for a moment to reach for the
book that was dear to Delitzsch his whole life long: his Confession and Communion book entitled Das Sacrament des wahren
Leibes und Blutes Jesu Christi. Here there is a passage which is
nearly corollary to the one just cited. Delitzsch had spoken of
the Ancient Churchs perception of the Lords Supper as the
highest act of confession which the congregation laid before
the Lord and each other. It was therefore the most serious
and holiest actualization of its fellowship in the faith. . . . Thus it
was in the Ancient Church, and now, in the midst of all of the
chaotic multiplicity of convictions, grades of knowledge, and
spiritual conditions, this unimpeachable principle of ecclesiastical praxis ought to remain: that admission to the Holy Supper
is conditioned upon agreement with the confession of the
Church wherein it is desired. Wherever this agreement cannot
exist as a presupposition, the question ought to be posed as to
whether or not this agreement is to be reached at all. For the
Sacrament of the Altar should not be abused to foster indifferentism (apathy toward religion) and syncretism (confessional
plurality). And a scrupulous church government shall, on the
basis of ecclesiastical arrangements, have to see to it that every
multifarious and confusing muddle of this faint-hearted, tepid
time (which so shies away from profession) does not dominate
the threshold of the Altar upon which the Body and Blood of
Christ are administered because the Church does not sort out
among her servants. It is clear that Delitzsch, as an almost sixty-year-old man (he was born in ) remained true to his
conviction of . Yes, he even comes to its aid with concrete
demands and warnings!
As we return to Delitzschs book concerning Altar Fellowship in Bavaria, we find that Delitzsch there defines the Luther-
an confession of the Supper as a confession of the Body and
Blood of the Lord offered under the bread and wine to be
received orally, both by the worthy and the unworthyfor the
latter of whom they nevertheless become a judgment.
Where do the other Churches of the Reformation stand in relation to this confession? The Reformed Church does not have
this confession, and the Union Church denies its fundamental
nature as well as the intrinsic principle of the differences of
both Churches. The result? . . . Where the Lutheran Church
is cognizant of her calling and does not fall from the same, she
does not enter into fellowship with either of these Churches
and least of all Altar Fellowship. What ramifications does this
have for the ministerial office? Delitzsch: . . . The ministerial
office may not permit those from the Reformed and Union
Churchesinasmuch as they wish to remain as they areinto
an Altar Fellowship with our Church. And the clergy may not
transfer the members of a Lutheran congregation into Altar
Fellowship with them. What ramifications does that have for
Bavaria? Mixed Altar Fellowship is justified under no emergency circumstance. For whatever is against the duty of faith
cannot become a duty of love. In mixed congregations which
are Lutheran in name and in confession (such congregations
had especially come into being in abundance in the south of
Bavaria) it must be openly explained that those who wish to
participate in the Holy Supper are expected and demanded to
give an oral profession of their heartfelt willingness to belong
to the Lutheran Church in word and deed. In view of those
who are convinced of the scripturalness of our confession but
who have not been completely convinced to resolve to leave
the Reformed or Union Church, it must be seen to it that they
are warned with wise tenderness and for the sake of their own
consciences to cease from the desire they have had up to this
point. The concession to let them commune lays upon them
obligations of which they are not yet cognizant. If they are
honest, then the blessing of a salutary and accelerated conclusion to their crisis will be theirs. On the other hand, permitting
them to commune is necessarily bound up with the danger that
they might become slack or be lulled to sleep. (It was solely on
communing a dying person that Delitzsch wished to leave off
with the confessional issue.)
In consideration of this position, it is nevertheless very
impressive how Delitzsch creates for himself the objection that
the praxis suggested by him might collide with a somewhat
higher duty to permit such Christians to come to the Lords
Supper who admittedly belong to the Reformed or Union
Church and yet have no fast opinion on ecclesiastical matters
and desire the Holy Supper in all simplicity in order to secure
their fellowship with Christ and as such probably would not
receive the Supper without blessing. He thinks that this objection, if it were to be answered positively, could only end up
proving that in certain cases, the pastor might disregard
whether or not a communicant belongs to the Lutheran
Church. (In this we can certainly hear Harles formulation of
!) But Delitzsch cannot give an absolutely positive answer
to this question. Why not? It is against the Lutheran conscience to cultivate ecclesiastical uncertainty and disguise the
contrasts between the churches as if they did not exist. (Fundamentally, our author had explained himself already with
similar thoughts when he strongly censured the idea that one
could seek to disguise the controversies between the churches,
which yet is a public fact, for the weak-spirited as if they never
needed to become strong. At his time, such obscuring was
importantly, however, volumes . and . of Lhes works, collected and edited by Klaus Ganzert, ought to be studied.
Some service will be rendered by Lhes sermons from on
the Lords Supper which I prepared for publication. Inasmuch
as these sermons were extant only in transcript form, they are
not found in Lhes collected works. But more than likely, they
are going to be published as a supplement.
Anyway, I do not see it as lying within the realm of our
purposes here to make an in-depth investigation into the controverted points between Lhe and Delitzsch in -. We
only adduce a sentence from the Schwabacher Erklrung composed by Lhe and some of his companions on October , .
They wished to view those who . . . are taking part in the ecclesiastical sins of the Bavarian Protestants as not Lutheran; and
to realize in our official relationships a suspension of every
Church and Altar fellowship with them. It was only under
these provisions that they would be able to remain within the
Landeskirche. And so this permits us to see clearly the issue
against which Delitzsch has brought his comments to bear.
Lhe and his companions, ten years after the Schwabacher
Erklrung, in the fall of , elucidated their perception of the
ecclesiastical sins of the Bavarian Protestants in their petition
to the General Synod being held at that time. The Synod passed
over the petition in their agenda despite the objection of the
representative of the Erlangen Faculty, the dogmatician and
dogma-historian Gottfried Thomasius (although the petitioners had already to a certain extent expected such would occur).
And since the contents of the petition still remain up to date or
in some way significant for the present, you will permit me to
reprint here a greater part of that petition:
. . . The Lutheran soldiers garrisoned in the Palatinate
are not being taken care of. The soldiers from the
Palatinate garrisoned on this side of the Rhine go to
the Lords Table wherever a pastors ministerial conscience is not set against it. There are congregations in
the Roman-Catholic regions where Protestants of various confessions attempt to satisfy their churchly
needs. And to the present day, they have sought to
bring this about through the creation of mixed congregations. Without any sort of conversion, and with
no unity in truth, the various confessional relatives go
together to the Sacrament. In those cities which lie
nearer to Switzerland, Altar Fellowship is maintained
in a quite unconcealed fashion with the Reformed.
their confessional differencesthis proposition is
traveling from West to East throughout the Reformed
Churches and sects, grasping violently around itself
and laying claim to the ecclesiastical law of the future
Church. It cannot be denied that within the Lutheran
Church itself this Reformed proposition has received
a great deal of approbation: but it rises far above the
entire distress and accords fully with the spirit of the
nineteenth Century. And wherever it is accepted within the Protestant Church, it establishes peace, even if
only by changing the differing confessional doctrines
into mere private views.
If Lhe and his companions spoke in this manner to the
General Synod, how did they speak to their congregations?
How did they deal with the issue of altar division in their
preaching?
We turn to the unprinted cycle of sermons preached during the week in which took up the Sacrament of the Altar.
In this series, on November , Lhe instructed his congregation concerning the issue at hand, using Ti : with its warning to avoid heretics. The mandate of Christ to celebrate the
Lords Supper was binding on Jesus disciples; however, part
and parcel of being a disciple is to hang on the mouth of the
Master and to take Him at His Word. Could you imagine a
disciple who would say, We wish to do what You have commanded. But as to Your convictions, we would rather dispose
of those? Wouldnt that be a mockery against discipleship?
The disciples were of His conviction. And the teaching of their
Master permeated their hearts. At any given time, only those
who are united in the same conviction should hold the Holy
Supper. . . . For this reason, the Church of all times has paid
close attention to ensuring that the disciples who hold the Supper remain hanging on His mouth and His words. Lhe
demonstrates this to his congregation from the Ancient
Church practice of Altar Fellowship. In his treatment of the
Age of the Reformation he speaks of Luther as having been
awakened by God through the Holy Spirit not to recognize
those who take issue with the Words of God in the Sacramentthat was the second major portion of his work. . . . Just as
the doctrine of justification by faith became ecclesiastically
divisive, so also the correct doctrine of the Sacrament became
divisive. That is one of the gifts of the Reformation. And we
cannot reject it lest we destroy the structure of the Church. . . . If
we give up the doctrine of the Supper as something ecclesiasti-
as they had wished. By reaching for an Altar Fellowship forbidden by the Lord, they would be swept even
further away by the spirit of doubt and right into the
fellowship of the world and the Devil. Are we supposed to tolerate this, dear brethren, and leave our
own diaspora without advice? May the Lord forgive
those who would rather have fellowship with the
Reformed and Union churches than do their own
duty and come to the aid of Jesus destitute sheep.
How, exactly, did Lhe try to help this diaspora of sacramental Lutheranism? He promoted emigrations to America so
that those who could not find pure altars in their homeland
could find them in the Lutheran congregations there. He
brought people to Neuendettelsau in order to make the altar of
Saint Nicholas their home and through them to strengthen the
confessionally conscious element of the congregation. Among
those who could not leave their homes, he encouraged
unlearned people to speak out in unpretentious simplicity
against the clergy prominent through their official positions
and social status. Of course with his depth of pastoral perception, he advised against following any sort of caprice in this
deathly serious matter. He had pointed out that it would be
possible for people to receive a release and commune in congregations where there were better conditions. And in a very
responsible manner, he conjectured what ought to happen
with such laymen as were unable, due to insuperable difficulties, to receive the Sacrament in another place, but in whose
home congregations the doctrine of the Eucharist, the consecration, and the distribution were in good order from a confessional perspective (not taking into consideration the admission
of the Reformed and United). He arrived at the following conclusion:
Those . . . who, as we, have received the great gift of
grace to be able to recognize the ponderous importance and salutary affects of the Sacrament, are the
least able to sentence themselves to doing without if it
is in some way possible to get the Sacrament. And so,
if all hope has disappeared to be able to dissuade the
pastor with a selfless testimony from holding mixed
Communion, then it is of utmost importance not to
become an accessory of the sin of mixed Communion. However, if somehow he should be able to
achieve that, at least I do not believe that it would be
incorrect if someone in great anguish and desire of
the soul were to permit himself to be driven to take
the Body and Blood of the Lord from the hands of a
LutheranI did not say Union or Reformedbut
nevertheless a Lutheran pastor who practices mixed
Communion. I advise this only under the assumption
that such a one is unable to go on a pilgrimage and
that he does not thereby become accessory to the guilt
of mixed Communion.
In this case, Lhe would give the advice that such a person
should go to the pastor in authority with one or two witnesses,
explain his hunger for the Sacrament, but also his disagreement with the pastors behavior which disobeys the apostolic
prohibition, as well as his own spiritual conflict in the face of
becoming guilty of the same by this procedure. Thereafter, he
should register an official protest against this procedure both
mony as to the reason for all the mission and diaconical work
he did outside of Neuendettelsau for the nation and the diaspora (that is what Lhe calls internal mission!):
When we founded the society for innner missions and
then the deaconess house here, I had, I acknowledge
forthrightly, no other designs than to put obstacles
against the internal mission and deaconess work of
the movement of the Union in my home regions. As
for us, in our homeland, we were supposed to be
engaged in mission work and diakonia from the perspective of the altar, and all for its gloryindeed, in
such a way that no one could ever doubt our intentions in the least. . . . What I . . . wanted and still want is
nothing more than to produce the proof that the Lord
excludes neither my homeland, gathered as it is
around The Augsburg Confession, nor therefore, us
poor Lutherans (just because we have raised the humble standard of un-mixed Altar Fellowship) from
either intner missions or the holy diakonia of the
nineteenth century. Rather, I wanted to show that He
could and would support us in spite of all the opposition we got from near and far. All of our action, no
matter how little or how great, has not had, and still
does not have, any other intention than to honor the
creative Words of our Most Holy Consecrator in the
Sacrament of the Altar. As among all of those who
serve both Him and His people wherever they might
be, we humble people from Dettelsau would like only
to dedicate to His Altar all of our work together as a
minute, yet always blooming wreath of thanks and
praise.
What else could I do than to conclude with this citation
which, as few of Lhes words, ought to be a serious summons
for the Dettelsau of today to examine its conscience? Yet, it is
precisely here, as earlier with the Ancient Church, that we must
point out the fact that for Lhe and his followers, it was not
merely a question of confessional eucharistic discipline. Rather
from beginning to end, it was an issue focused on arrangements for admission to the Eucharist in view of a Christians
life and a congregations way of living. I cannot follow up on
that any further, but I see that I must emphatically mention
these facts. I would just like to fulfill my duty to do that by
directing your attention to the thorough pamphlet by Klaus
Ganzert on church discipline as practice by Wilhelm Lhe.
Here you will find a wealth of bibliographical information, for
the most part from volumes . and . of the Gesammelte
Werke. However I would like to fulfill my duty also by giving
the floor to Bruno Gutmann:
In Dettelsau, Lhe turned registration for communion into congregational self-examination. And so,
for that reason, it occurred in Gods House itself. The
pastor would stand before the altar with his heavy registration book which listed the names of all the communicants. To the right and to the left in the pews sat
the members of the church council. Everyone who
wished to register walked to the front alone. And
before Lhe would write him into the book, he would
ask the church council about the prospective communicants reputation and worthiness and their own
..
the Sacrament as the dearest aspect of his office, as its very
crown. The sermons on the Lords Supper in particular,
which he gave throughout the year, give testimony to the fact
that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ could
never be commended highly enough to the congregation. The
fact that the fruits of the Sacrament did not cease and that the
number of his communicants always grew (even in our terribly
unchurchly time when in so many places the reverse is true)
was one of his greatest and most peaceful joys before the Lord.
It is no surprise to find a corroborating remark on page
which states that the aim of Winters confirmation instruction
was always to prepare his students to participate in the Sacrament in a truly worthy manner! Then, a report on page
from a Saxon school inspector who had a very detailed discussion with Winter during his last days is very instructive. The
inspector was of the opinion that we must earnestly desire to
draw confessions of the churches closer to each other and a fraternal cooperation with all who heartily believe in Jesus Christ
as their Divine Saviour if we wish to preserve and strengthen
The unquestionable decisiveness with which Walther penetrates the issues of ones confession concerning the Sacrament
and ones church membership simply cannot be made to
appear trifling by pointing out how strongly he depends upon
the old Lutheran authorities for his position. Against that point
of view, the special circumstances of North America (incidentally, Lhe points out just how how quickly the great pressure
to have Altar Fellowship among the members of all our confessions arose precisely in North America) could have easily
brought Walther to the point where he just emphasized the
impracticality of the old praxis (which in its day had been in
use in confessionally closed territories) in a country where
church membership was based completely on ones own will.
Furthermore, the American scene should have caused Walther
to maintain the it-wont-work attitude with far greater
intensity than Lhe so often heard it in Bavariaespecially in
view of the much more colorful confessional mixture of the
Midwest. And so now, in view of Walthers position, we cannot
avoid evaluating whether this it-wont-work attitude in Ger-
from the context of Lhe, is not trying to mislead us into overseeing that which binds Bezzel to Lhe in spite of the fact that
Bezzel, due to the power of the dawning modern age, perceives
all confessions which profess Jesus to have transposed into a
sort of disposition which recalls Harmss confusion due to the
apostasy of the Rationalists.
Bezzel expected there to be little or nothing in the way of
blessings for such a person as takes pleasure in erecting walls
around the Holy Supper. Yet, that he would not have praised
ones disavowal of the limitations set in place by confessional
issues merely as an act of laudatory obedience appears to me
necessarily to follow from his own position. Let me explain.
From a letter written in , it appears that Bezzel held it to be
a distinct possibility that Free-Church Lutherans could even
have a penitential relationship in the confessional with a
Union-Lutheran. Yet, in the same year he warned a young
female student that she ought not to attend a seminary in Halberstadt for her career education. Although the institution
was well-suited to her needs, Nevertheless, I cannot and wish
not to advise you to attend an institution which is part of the
Union. Then, in Bezzel was asked by a Vicar in the border
region in Wrttemberg how he ought to conduct himself in
relation to eucharistic admittance in the face of the deep-seated
animosities which existed in the congregation entrusted to his
care. Bezzel took the following decision: If this spirit of unreconciliation does not seem to want to subside; if no promise is
made to lay aside the animositiesthen you certainly can
refuse the people admission to the Holy Supper, who, of
course, can just run off in peace to Ulm to get the Sacrament. However, on this note, Bezzel told him to refuse the
Sacrament only to the clearly obstinate (a piece of advice
which bears a strong likeness to Walthers wise advice on
refusal). Are we supposed to believe that he failed to be strict in
issues pertaining to the faith when he himself desired that the
Union be avoided in such a way but also that disciplinary limitations be placed around the Altar of the Sacrament in issues
pertaining to love?
Johannes Rupprecht himself reported that during his years
as president of the Superior Consistory in Munich, Bezzel
avoided as much as possible taking part in public joint celebrations of the Supper in Munich. The reason for this supplied by Rupprecht is that at the time there was still no
Reformed congregation existent in Munich (in other words,
that Bezzel at least personally rejected mixed communion
among Protestants). However, on the very same issue, Georg
uation. And I would like to make myself known publicly on
this: I believe that today we are not much different from the
Lutheranism of the s in which Wilhelm Lhe perceived
such a lack in faithfulness and such an abundance of cowering
men. In the time of the Prussian annexations, Lhe could
inquire after the Battle of Kniggrtz, who is that Prussian
King, that Bismarck, to compel a Lutheran pastor to hold
mixed communion when the pastors heart is overflowing with
love for his Savior and for His Sacrament and His congregation? But today it is just like it was then. At that time, Lhes
main complaint was not so much that the invitation made to
the new provinces to participate in the Union was so strong,
but that the knowledge of the pastors concerning their true
duties was so weak. Together with this lack of knowledge came
such a terribly minute will, so afraid of suffering, to carry out
their duties. This all resulted in a lack of faithfulness on the
part of the servant who really ought to hang from the very
words of his Master and have regard for no one and nothing
else.
Of course, some present-day issues which today touch us
in a very real way, did not appear that way in the past. Many of
the modern issues take place in a much different scenario than
what I have presented as being the historical situation. But at
any rate, I draw to your attention a very serious issue with
which we are faced today: Many of the impulses to a sacramental life have their origin from outside of the confessional
Lutheran movement from groups which have mixed communion. I mention the extremely bitter issue (which is of no interest to many of our ecclesiastical big-shots) concerning the suspension of Altar Fellowship between Churches of the same
confessionin our case in Germany, between the Lutheran
Free Churches and the Landeskirchen. This issue cannot be
excused merely by saying that the Free Church Lutherans as a
whole describe themselves as Lutherans de facto, while they
describe those in the Landeskirche as Lutherans de jure. Nor
can this be passed off by the Free Churches merely by dealing
much too easily with the struggling and therefore sacramentally isolated and stunted Lutherans from the Landeskirche as
mere beggars who by grace are permitted to the Lords Supperor credit them with cowardice, betrayal, and confusion of
consciences. I mention these issues merely as examples. And I
recall the terrible privation which resulted from the new way of
thinking concerning correct doctrine in the last century. Our
churches, once again, experienced literally generations of clergy who no longer cared to, and were no longer able to, teach.
Rather, they only served as mediums for impulses and comforting words, for motivation and peace and quiet, for presenting issues and aspects. And the result of this all was that all
across the spectrum in our congregations, we can no longer
perceive that the people have any idea about the essence and
the benefit of the Lords Supper, no idea of the Church. And I
believe that we shall be able to approach the issues and needs of
today with a promising look for the future only if our incipient
steps are taken with all seriousness, acting as Seelsorgerthat
is, if we even attain to and keep the courage and power to act
faithfully toward the household of God. One thing (among
others) which Wolfram von Krause emphasized untiringly
within the framework of the Lutheran Brethrencircle was that
Jesus Supper is not the property of the beloved soul; rather it
was given and continues to be given to the Church for precisely
this reason: because it is Coena DOMINI.
in Bavaria.
Die evangelisch-lutherische Kirche in Bayern und die Insinuationen des Herrn Professor Dllinger: (Ger.) The EvangelicalLutheran Church in Bavaria and the Accusations of Professor Dllinger.
Die Gewhrung der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft an Reformiert und
Unierte in ihrem Recht und ihrer Pflicht: (Ger.) The Continuation of Altar Fellowship with the Reformed and
Union: Its Right and Duty.
Die kirchlichen Normen berechtigter Abendmahlsgemeinschaft:
(Ger.) Ecclesiastical Norms for a Legitimate Altar Fellowship.
Die Landeskirche zum Schutze des Bekenntnisses und in ihrem
Schutze: (Ger.) The Regional Church as a Protection for
Confession and for Herself.
dissidentium nulla fit mentio: (Lat.) Let there be no mention of
disagreement.
Drei Bcher von der Kirche: (Ger.) Three Books on the Church.
Ecclesia Calviniana: (Lat.) the Calvinist Church.
Ecclesia Romana: (Lat.) the Roman Church.
ejfovdion: (Gr.) viaticum.
ejpivklhsi": (Gr.) calling down (the Eucharistic prayer).
ejpivstolai sustatikaiv: (Gr.) letters of introduction.
Erinnerungen an Pastor Winter zu Schwarzenberg: (Ger.) Memories of Pastor Winter in Schwarzenberg.
Erklrung mehrerer Geistlicher ber ihr Verhltnis zur bayerischprotestantischen Landeskirche: (Ger.) Explanation of Several
Clergymen on Their Relationship to the Bavarian Protestant
Territorial Church.
est: (Lat.) is.
Evangelische Geistliche: (Ger.) The Evangelical Clergyman.
fides quae creditur: (Lat.) the faith which is believed (in distinction to fides qua credo: the faith with which I believe).
Formula Missae: (Lat.) Formula for the [Latin] Mass (found
translated in AE , pp. -).
Franz Delitzsch als Lutheraner: (Ger.) Franz Delitzsch as a
Lutheran.
Friede ber Israel: (Ger.) Peace over Israel.
Gemeinde Bau aus dem Evangelium: (Ger.) Building a Congregation with the Gospel.
Gesammelte Werke [Wilhelm Lhes]: (Ger.) Collected Works [of
Wilhelm Lhe].
Geschichte der Abendmahlsfrmmigkeit: (Ger.) A History of
Eucharistic Piety.
Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland: (Ger.) A
History of the Evangelical Church in Germany.
Griechische Liturgien: (Ger.) Greek Liturgies.
Gutachten in Sachen der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft: (Ger.) A
Decision in Matters pertaining to Altar Fellowship.
Gutachten: (Ger.) decision, decisions (the same form functions
for the singular and plural).
Gymnasium: (Ger.) an academic high school.
Heftiger Drang der Liebe: (Ger.) The Great Impulse of Love.
Hermann Bezzel als Theolog: (Ger.) Hermann Bezzel as a Theologian.
Hermann Bezzel, sein Leben, Wesen, und Wirken: (Ger.) Hermann Bezzel: His Life, Character and Work.
Hermann Bezzel Theologie, Darstellung, Form seiner Verkndigung: (Ger.) Hermann Bezzel: His Theology, Presentation,
and the Form of His Proclamation.
Hermann Bezzels Stellung zur Kirchenzucht: (Ger.) Hermann
Bezzels Position on Church Discipline.
Bavaria.
status controversiae: (Ger.) the point of the controversy.
Stimmen aus der Kirche ber Abendmahlsgemeinschaft mit
Fremdglubigen: (Ger.) Voices from the Church on Altar
Fellowship with Errant Believers.
Stimmen aus der Kirche ber Abendmahlsgemeinschaft mit
Fremdglubigen: (Ger.) Voices from the Church on the Issue
of Altar Fellowship with False-Believers.
sub utraque specie: (Lat.) under both kinds.
tantae necessitatis: (Lat.) of such necessity.
Tractatus de casibus conscientiae: (Lat.) Treatise on Cases of the
Conscience.
tropus: (Lat.) trope.
uno corde credens, uno ore confitens: (Lat.) believing with one
heart, confessing with one mouth.
Valentin Ersnt Lscher und die Unionsversuche seiner Zeit:
(Ger.) Valentin Ernst Lscher and the Attempts at Union
during His Life.
vera ecclesia: (Lat.) the true Church.
vera fides: (Lat.) correct or true faith.
veram eucharistiam: (Lat.) the true Eucharist.
verba: (Lat.) words [of institution].
viva fides: (Lat.) living faith.
Wie wir die Trennung anzusehen haben, welche durch die sogenannten neuern religisen Ansichten innerhalb unserer
Kirche entstanden ist: (Ger.) How We Ought to Regard the
Separation Which Has Come into Being in Our Church as a
Result of the So-called New Religious Views.
Wilhelm Lhe, der lutherische Christenmensch: (Ger.) Wilhelm
Lhe, the Lutheran Christian.
Wilhelm Lhes Gesammelte Werke, Ergnzungsreihe: (Ger.) Wilhelm Lhes Collected Works: Supplementary Series.
Wilhelm Lhes Lehre von der Kirche, ihrm Amt und Regiment:
(Ger.) Wilhelm Lhes Doctrine of the Church, Her Ministry
and Governance.
Zeitschrift fr bayerische Kirchengeschichte: (Ger.) Magazine for
Bavarian Church History.
Zucht aus Liebe: (Ger.) Correction out of Love.
. WA , -. AE ,-.
. Published in .
. This quotation contains an excellent play on words. The
common root for uncertain and conscience in German is
-gewi. The preacher is therefore both ungewi and ohne
Gewissen.
. Lutherische Bltter, , p. f.
. p. .
. On this, cf. Hardts criticism of Elerts book, pp. f,.
which we have already mentioned (cf. p. , n. of the present
paper).
. die Erweckungsbewegungin the history of the German Church, this movement was somewhat parallel to the
Great Awakening in the United States, effected by the frontier itinerants.
. Stimmen aus der Kirche ber Abendmahlsgemeinschaft
mit Fremdglubigen, Nrdlingen: , p. .
. Cf. Speners Consilia et Judicia theologica latina, Frankfurt, .
. Church congress, a joint German Pan-Protestant
annual meeting, supported by the large national churches of
different confessions.
. Mystics was the disparaging nickname used by the
Rationalists for the so-called old-Lutherans. Lhe was thus
attacked as being a mystic.
. Lutherische Bltter, , p. .
. Zeitschrift fr bayerische Kirchengeschichte, , pp. ,
ff.
. Cf. E. Petri, D. Ludwig Adolf Petri (Hannover, no year),
Part I, p. ff.
. Op. cit., Part I, pp. ff., ff.
. Op. cit., p. .
. This according to Kantzenbach.
. Vilmar, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, ed. Piderit
(Gtersloh, ), p. .
. Loc. cit., p. .
. Lutherische Bltter, , p. .
. Vilmar, Lehrbuch, p. .
. Lutherische Bltter, , . This issue was a Festschrift
for H. Sasse.
. Published as a manuscript in Kassel, . Under scrutiny in the present endeavor is p. .
. Cf. Kiunke, op. cit., pp. ff.
. Op. cit., p. f.
. Lutherische Bltter, , ff. The Sasse Festschrift.
. Op. cit., p. .
. p. .
. p. f.
. p. .
. p. .
. p. .
. I shall cite Das Sacrament, etc. according to the fifth edition of . This edition Delitzsch had again reconsidered
under prayer.
. p. f.
. p. .
. p. .
. p. -.
. p. f.
. p. -.
. p. -.
. This essay is found in the yearbook (published in
Mnchen in ) of the Martin-Luther-Bund.
. Lutherische Bltter, , ff.
. Lutherische Bltter, , ff.
. Berlin, . Cf. esp. pp. ff.
. Neuendettelsau, .
. Neuendettelsau, and .
. Since the last German edition of this essay, these sermons have been published in Wilhelm Lhes Gesammelte
Werke, Ergnzungsreihe, bd. , ed. Martin Wittenberg,Wilhelm
Lhe: Abendmahlspredigten ().
. The petition is found in Lhes Gesammelte Werke, bd. ,
abt. , pp. -.
. Op. cit., p. .
. Lhe: Ergnzungsreihe, bd. , pp. ff.
. Ges. Werke, ., ff. The work was written originally
in .
. Op. cit., pp. -.
. Op. cit., pp. -.
. This last bit of information is false. See the Epilogue of
appended to this paper.
. Lutherische Bltter, , p. .
. Gesammelte Werke, ., p. .
. Zucht aus Liebe, Neuendettelsau, .. Gemeinde
Bau aus dem Evangelium, Leipzig, , pp. -.
. This citation is from pp. - of the printing.
. The Gustav Adoplf-Verein is a pan-Protestant society
mainly anti-Catholic in its attitude.
. I will be citing the th edition of this work which was
published in in St. Louis.
logia
a Journal of lutheran theology
I have been glad to read of your plans to start such a new journal that seems to promte exactly those theological concerns that
I have at heart. I wish you Gods blessings for your preparations.
I hope that this journal will be a well-heard testimony for the
true catholicity of our dear Lutheran Church!
Dr. Gottfried Martens
St. Marys Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany
Subscribe Now!
Use the postage-paid card in the center of the journal
faith. He therefore instituted His Supper as a constant memorial of His death, through which we are delivered from our sins
and eternal misery.
In this we can see naught but condescension and love;
there is no anger here nor vengeance; yea, parents could not
deal more kindly with their children. Christs chief desire, as
He Himself declares, is that we shall not forget Him. It is His
earnest intention that our whole being shall be impressed with
the memory of His passion, that we may never forget how He
died for us upon the cross and rose again from the dead. It was
His purpose that coming generations should know Him as
their Lord, that they might be saved by Him; and therefore,
also, He earnestly enjoined upon Christians to instruct the
young in His word, and to keep His remembrance sacred, that
those who come after them may also be induced to worship
Him in the congregation of believers, and own Him as their
Christ and only consolation. For this reason the Lord made His
Testament, and we ought never to weary in the remembrance
of it. Surely, when true friends meet it is no burdensome task
for them to sit together in conversation throughout the night,
forgetful of sleep and rest; why then should we grow weary of
learning and of preaching the precious truth that Christ the
Lord is our Redeemer?
But the Sacrament of the Holy Supper was instituted not
merely that by its observance Christ might be honored; for He
can truthfully say: I need not thy praise, I am the Son of God,
whether thou glorifies me or not; but also and especially for
the reason that we stand in need of such a Testament and Supper, and that we might be benefited by it. Listen to the words
with which He gives the bread: Take, eat, this is my body,
which is given for you, and with which, soon after, He gives
the cup: Drink ye all of it; this cup is the New Testament in
my blood, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.
This declaration is the Christians most effective consolation; for he who really believes that Christ gave His body for
him, and that He shed His blood for the remission of sins, cannot despair, no matter what sin, the world and the devil may
say. He knows that this treasure wherewith his sins have been
cancelled is far greater than all his iniquities.
But the consolation contained in this declaration stands
not alone; Christ really gives us with the bread His body to eat,
and with the wine His blood to drink, as the words plainly
state, in spite of the devil. Each one that eats and drinks,
receives for himself in this Sacrament the body and blood of
Christ as his own special gift. Yea, this is the very truth which
we must firmly hold: Christ suffered and died for me also, and
not alone for St. Peter, St. Paul or other saints. To assure us of
this truth Christ gave His Testament; for through it each one
individually receives the body and the blood of Christ. It is
therefore proper to say that through this Sacrament we obtain
forgiveness of sins; for where Christ is, there is forgiveness of
sins; here we have His body and blood, as the words declare;
therefore he who eats and drinks, believing that the body of
Christ was given for him, and that His blood was shed for the
forgiveness of his sins, must surely have this forgiveness. Yet, it
is not the act of going to the Sacrament, nor the eating and
drinking, whereby we gain this divine grace, as the Papists
falsely teach concerning the performance of their mass; but it is
the faith in us which believes the words of Christ when He says:
I give you my body, given for you into death, and give you my
blood, shed for you for the remission of your sins. Thus will
our reception of the Sacrament tend to the strengthening of
our faith, and the chief and greatest blessing of this Testament
will be ours.
Another benign effect of this Sacrament is the union, in
faith and doctrine, which it produces among Christians, and
which is so very necessary. To bring about true union among
Christians it is not sufficient that they come together to hear
the same preaching and the same word, but they must also
meet around the same altar to receive the same food and drink.
One may, perchance, hear me preach the word and yet be my
enemy; but if one partakes of the Lords Supper he, by that act,
makes for himself, individually, a public confession of his faith,
although there may be hypocrites now and then; and thus a
more reliable union, between the Christians who unite in this
Sacrament, is formed than if they merely had the Gospel
preached unto them, though this may also cause them to be of
one mind. Those of the same faith and the same hope unite at
the Table of the Lord, while those of a different faith stand
aloof. Agreement in the church is very desirable, and there
should be no divisions in matters of faith. This union was
properly called by a Latin term, Communio, a communion, and
those who would not agree with other Christians in faith, doctrine, and life, were called Excommunicati, as being different in
their belief and conduct, an hence unworthy to belong to the
congregation of those who are of one mind, lest they might
produce dissensions and schisms. By means also of the Holy
Sacrament Christ establishes this union among the little company of His believers.
Our old teachers entertained very beautiful thoughts in
regard to this when they said Christ took bread and wine for
His Supper to indicate that, just as many distinct and separate
grains of wheat, when ground together, make one loaf of
bread, so we, being many, are one bread and one body: for we
are all partakers of that one bread, though each one is a distinct
person and separate individuality, Cor. . And again, as
many clusters of grapes and many little berries, each distinct
and separate, when pressed together form one delicious juice,
one wine, thus it is with the Christians who have the same
faith, the same confession, the same love and hope of salvation.
This was the interpretation of our fathers, and they were
not mistaken in it. The Holy Sacrament has the effect to firmly
join the Christians together in unity of purpose, doctrine, and
faith, so that no one should stand alone, nor have his own doctrine or belief. The devil is sorely vexed at this, and is busy in
endeavoring to destroy such unity and agreement. He knows
full well what injury results to him, if we are united in our confession and adhere to one Head; hence he endeavors to tempt
us, here and there, with false doctrines, with doubt, with lying
insinuations in regard to the Sacrament and other articles of
faith, hoping to cause dissensions in the Church.
It is true, offenses will come, yet it behooves us to guard
against them, so that the devil may not entirely separate us. If
one or the other insists on differing with us in the doctrine of
the Sacrament, or in other parts of our faith, let us, who agree
in one confession, be so much the more united in our faith in
Jesus Christ; yea, let us be in this as one man. This, however, is
only possible where there is unity in doctrine.
This, then, is an additional benefit of the institution of the
Holy Supper. Our Lord gave us this Sacrament to bring about
unity of faith, of doctrine, and of life. The external differences
in the stations of life will, of course, continue; there is no
equality there. Each one has his own duties to perform, which
differ vastly from each other. A farmer leads another life than a
prince; the wife and mistress of the house has other duties to
perform than the maidservant. Such distinctions must ever
remain in our every day life. But in Christ there is neither male
nor female, no prince nor tiller of the soil: They are all Christians. The Gospel, the promise and faith which I have, belongs
equally to prince, peasant, woman, servant, and child.
Such equality is indicated by the Holy Supper, since in it
we all receive the same food and nourishment, whether we be
man or wife, matron or maid, father or child, ruler or subject.
If we have the same faith we are heirs of the same heaven,
though I may reside here and another in Jerusalem, and we are
personally total strangers to each other; for we both have the
same Lord, in whom we believe and hope for salvation. This
union of faith causes the devil immense displeasure, and he is
ever on the alert to sunder our communion; for he knows how
his influence is thwarted when Christians firmly agree in faith
and doctrine. Against these attempts of Satan, Christ instituted
this Holy Sacrament as a means of uniting the believers.
From this it follows that this Sacrament is needed by every
rather true that the covetous man becomes fonder and fonder
of his idols from day to day, cherishing and pursuing with
eagerness avarice and usury? The same is true in regard to other sins. The lewd person delights in his unchastity; he thinks
and speaks about it with evident glee, and indulges in his
wicked passion more and more. Such are the results of the
instructions which the Old Adam gives: They lead to destruction.
Christ desires to counteract the sinister influence of the old
seducer within us, who would fix our attention alone and
chiefly on temporal things. Christ instead would have us be
mindful of eternity, of Himself, our Savior, who died for us
upon the cross. He would fain have us see our foolishness, so
that we would gladly come unto Him, weary of our depraved
life, exclaiming: O Lord, we know how sinful we are and how
unable to resist the allurement of evil, therefore we cry unto
Thee for help; enable Thou us to shun the world and to love
Thee truly. We stand in daily need of such remembrance of
Christ in opposition to this pernicious advocate, this Old
Adam within us, who clamors about our ears day and night,
hoping to plunge us, beyond all help, into the cares and pleasures of this world.
To counteract this wicked purpose, Christ instituted His
Holy Supper, that its celebration should remind us of the life to
come. He takes the bread and the cup, and tells His disciples to
eat and to drink, saying, This is my body and blood, given for
you, and shed for your sins, at the same time exhorting us to
remember Him, and not to run merely after the things of this
world, as we generally do. In the Holy Supper He gives us an
opportunity to receive Him, to come unto Him, and to
remember Him; for in Communion the benefit is ours; He has
no need of it.
I doubt that the people would not fairly crowd to the
Sacrament if money, or earthly gifts, were distributed there;
yea, the blind and the lame would rush thither, regardless of
intervening rivers and mountains.
We ought, indeed, to be ashamed of ourselves, when we
think what a miserable set we are, always ready to run after
money and perishable things, while we are so slow, yea, so
averse, to come to the Table of the Lord, where a heavenly gift,
even His body and blood, awaits us. Here, in this Testament, a
precious treasure, salvation and happiness, is to be conveyed to
us; but, alas, we flee from it as from poison or some terrible
punishment.
How is it that we prize gold and silver more than this magnificent, precious treasure? The devil is the instigator of this
our choice; he influences our old Adam, who is naturally backward and indifferent towards things eternal, and cares more for
that which is temporal. This ingratitude and carelessness is
very sinful, yes, much more than can be imagined; nevertheless
we are often guilty of it, else we would seek more diligently the
kingdom of heaven and its blessings, which are not transitory,
like the earthly property, of which we are so much enamored.
Let us never forget that we must in due time render an account
of our behavior in this regard.
The Lords Supper admonishes us not to be ungrateful any
longer, but to realize, together with other Christians, with
whom we confess our faith and share this most Holy Sacrament, what great blessings Christ bestows upon us through it,
and how we should therefore serve and praise Him as our
Lord, who not only died for us, but also gives us, as nourishment for our souls, His body and blood. He desires that we
should remember Him while we receive it for the strengthening of our faith and the preservation of unity among the Christians. Whoever refuses to comply with the command of the
Lord, deserves to fall into the hands of the false teachers, who
preach to him that in the Lords Supper there is naught but
bread and wine. In the papacy the doctrine concerning this
Sacrament was falsified, for the Lord was not remembered as
He had ordered it; and hence it resulted that no one knew what
the Lords Supper was, and why one should receive it. Obedience to the Church was considered the chief concern of all, and
the result was idolatry and invocation of saints. God grant that
we may retain the true faith and have a living interest in this
matter. We have the doctrine true and pure again, we understand why we go to the Holy Sacrament, to remember the Lord
with praise and thanksgiving for His mercy and kindness, and
also to receive consolation and strengthening of our faith. Let
our hearts then be firm and not doubt; let us be assured that
God is pleased with us, and will not punish us for our sins,
since Christ gave His body for us and shed His sacred blood for
us. Thus we will proclaim the death of our Lord correctly and
fulfill His command: Do this in remembrance of me.
In view of this, judge for yourself what kind of Christians
those persons are, who stay away from the Lords Supper one
whole year, yes two, three and even more years? Such people
are surely possessed of the devil; they either have no knowledge
of their sins, and consequently take no thought how to be
relieved of them, or else they are so wrapped up in the affairs of
this world that they entirely forget the life to come. This is
dreadful indeed. Whoever confesses to be a Christian and
desires to live in accordance with his confession, must come
repeatedly and often to the Holy Sacrament. Its blessings are
very necessary for the Christian, as we have shown above.
This, however, does not apply to those who cannot receive
the entire Sacrament as it was instituted by Christ, and hence
refrain from participating in it at all. Such people must be
satisfied with the word of Christ and the assurances of His
Gospel, until God in mercy gives them an opportunity to enjoy
again the Holy Supper in its entirety and purity, as Christ instituted it.
May God give us grace, through His Holy Spirit, that we
may ever receive this blessed Sacrament to the glory of Christ,
and to our souls salvation. Amen.
wrath and envy, should strive to desist from sin, and should
long to obtain, through the reception of the Holy Sacrament,
remission of sins and strengthening of their faith. If then there
is yet remaining a glimmering of sin and weakness, if now and
then evil thoughts and passions make their presence known,
we must cry unto God and pray: O Lord, give me a peaceable,
kind, and loving heart, and cleanse me from my sins, for
Christs sake. Thus can we come to the Supper of the Lord in
faith and hope, without being terrified by this saying of St.
Paul; for this does not pertain to those who long to be liberated
from the bondage of sin, but to those who are therein, and do
not desire to be freed, but rather find pleasure in their wickedness and defend their evil deeds. The Corinthians were such
people; wherefore the apostle tells them: I praise you not,
indicating that they were not penitent and yet desired to be
praised as good Christians.
The custom prevailing at that time in regard to the Lords
Supper was different from the present. The Christians came
together in the evening, and each one ate whatever he had, in
the presence of the others. Sometimes it happened that a part
ate and drank too much, while others who had nothing
suffered want. Such conduct the apostle condemns. He
declares it to be damnable, if persons deliberately sin, and then
go to the Sacrament as though nothing had happened. They
who act thus, eat and drink the Sacrament unworthily, and
God punishes them with sickness and other afflictions.
You observe that such wickedness is far greater than the
shortcomings of wavering hearts which, seeing the error of
their ways, return to the path of duty and earnestly pray: O
God, we have done evil before You; forgive us our many sins.
Christ will surely pardon them, and invite them to His Supper;
He does not invite the self-righteous and saintly, but just these
poor sinners, who on account of their guilt are greatly troubled
and in sorrow. This He means by the words: This is my body
given for you unto death, this is my blood which is shed for the
remission of your sins. Surely, they must have been great and
guilty sinners for whom such a glorious sacrifice and such a
great ransom was offered. The great requirement, therefore, is
this: We must discover that we are really sinners, and then
come to the Table of the Lord for comfort and relief; but he
who will not confess his sins nor amend his ways should by no
means come to this Holy Sacrament.
It is often the case, and strangely so, that those who need
not fear, to whom God is merciful and whom He would have
as His children, are sorely troubled with fear, while those who
ought to tremble with terror are entirely unconcerned and do
not think of their sins, but continue straight on upon their
wicked course, as would a rifle ball when once discharged. We
see this in the example of the Papists. They scorn and persecute
the word of God, put to death the faithful Christians, and force
people, in violation of their conscience, to commit idolatry;
still they think themselves pious and holy, and are right merry
in their delusion. On the other hand, the little company who
do not sin intentionally are diffident and frightened; they
lament the sins of which they were once guilty, and wish that
they had never occurred. Thus it is, those who might have consolation do not lay hold upon it, while they who ought to fear
are secure and devoid of every terror.
In reference to this fact the apostle Paul says: But let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and
drink of that cup. To examine ones self means to consider
well in what condition we are. If we find that our hearts are
hardened, that we are not willing to refrain from sin, and that
we do not fear its presence, then we may well conclude that we
should not go to the Sacrament; for we are then no Christians.
The best thing we could do, under such circumstances, would
be to put a stop to such wickedness, to repent, to trust faithfully in the promises and mercy of God, and to unite again with
Christians in the participation of the Holy Sacrament. If, however, we are unwilling to do this, we ought not to approach the
Lords Table; for we would surely eat and drink damnation
there. Let us carefully meditate upon what eternity has in store
for us, if we thus fall under the judgment of God. If we are
mindful of this, we will not be slow to repent, to put aside
anger and other kinds of wickedness, and to make our peace
with God in His Holy Supper. Again, if our hearts are contrite,
if we confess our sins before God and are heartily sorry on
account of them, if we believe that God in mercy, for Christs
sake, will pardon us, then we are well prepared and can confidently say to the Savior: O Lord, we are poor sinners, and
therefore come to Your table to receive consolation. If we
approach the Sacrament in such a spirit, we shall be truly ready
and receive the richest blessings. In behalf of such contrite and
sorrowing souls the Lords Table was prepared, so that they
might find there consolation and joy. Those, however, who are
without penitence, and who continue in their haughtiness and
sin, will not be relieved of their fear and will surely be damned.
REVIEWS
It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.
Martin Luther
Review Essay
This will be true of Tietjens memoirs or those of Vespasian or Benvenuto Cellini or anyone else. But allowing for
this, Tietjens Memoirs will be of great value to the historian,
the Lutheran theologian, and anyone who cares to know what
happened at Concordia Seminary and Seminex while John
Tietjen was president or how it feels for a minister of the Word
to be put out of his call and to undergo such extreme experiences as John Tietjen did. For John Tietjen is without doubt a
principled, sincere, and honest manthat is clear from his
Memoirs and his history. And so, although employing a narrative style throughout, reminiscing and, like Herodotus, reconstructing past conversations as they would probably have taken
place, Tietjen offers the reader a true account of things and the
reader will learn much from his book.
Tietjen briefly outlines the purpose of his book in a preface. He owes a debt to posterity, to tell what happened as he
experienced it and to give his side of a very partisan struggle.
His purpose is to write without recrimination or self-justification. Throughout the book he traces a recurring theme in the
history of the church, the tension between Confessional hope
and institutional conflict. I think he succeeds, and better than
one would expect from one so deeply involved in institutional
conflict, i.e. church war.
The book is written in an epic form. The obvious theme of
the story is a great contest, or war, between two individuals,
each with large followings, representing two divergent ideologies, loyalties, parties, theologies, and theories of politics in the
church. Each side is in search of its own Confessional hope
in the midst of institutional conflict. The protagonists, or
heroes, in the unfolding drama are Dr. John Tietjen, newly
elected president of Concordia Seminary, and Dr. J.A.O. Preus,
newly elected president of the Missouri Synod. Each of the two
great warriors has his own army, his elite or scraggly troops
(as they were so often called during the controversy), his inner
council of strategists and his own machinery and style of warfare. This is the plot of Tietjens epic.
There is a little understandable schmaltz and occasional
rhetoric in the bookand some errors as Tietjen at times
recounts not his, but others perceptions and stories. For
instance, early in his memoirs Tietjen relates at least one fictitious account provided him by Fred Danker, a highly original
and imaginative professor who believed in redaction criticismand practiced it. According to Danker I had engaged in
conversation with Jack Preus, my brother, in my seminary
office commencing at : p.m. March , . From outside
my window in Sieck Hall Danker allegedly heard us speaking.
During this conversation I allegedly told Jack that the exegetical department was clamming up, not publicly admitting
what they really believed and had taught. Jack had told me that
he was planning to conduct an investigation of the theology at
the seminary. Now this account is clearly fictitious. Jack never
visited me in my office at the seminary. My home with its privacy was right nearby. It was physically impossible to listen to a
conversation through my office window. Danker, two offices
down the hall, could, if he wished, listen through my door
which was, conveniently, almost always open. But more
importantly, the date is wrong. A half a year before Prof. Martin Scharlemann and I had told Jack that the exegetical department was no longer speaking openly about its uncritical use of
the historical critical method. And almost immediately after he
was elected president of the synod Jack had made it clear that
he was going to investigate the theology of the seminaryat
least the exegetical departmentaccording to the criterion of
the Book of Concord (see Preface, p.14). Perhaps Tietjen inserted this piece of fiction for literary purposes. At any rate it illustrates the danger one faces when one who writes memoirs cites
as fact other peoples recollections.
But I am getting sidetracked and ahead of myself. Tietjens
plot itself is right on target. It fits the facts in the controversy
and the events we all lived through, as well as his basic theme.
Like many epics Tietjens Memoirs start in medias res. To
understand the plot the reader will require some background
and context. Early in 1969 Dr. Alfred Fuerbringer unexpectedly
retired from his call as president of Concordia Seminary, while
remaining on as a non-teaching professor. The call process for
a new president was immediately implemented by the Board of
Control, and Dr. John Tietjen, who had received few nominations compared with many others, including Dr. Ralph
Bohlmann, a young professor, and Dr. Martin Scharlemann, a
seasoned professor, was chosena surprise to almost all. The
electors were the Board of Control, the Board for Higher Education; Rev. Kurt Biel, president of the Missouri District, and
synod president Oliver Harms, who in the nature of the case
could control the election. Harms, who was strongly pushing
fellowship with the American Lutheran Church, was persuaded
that Tietjen would be an ideal president to lead the seminary
and thus also the synod to a more open posture toward the
ALC and world Lutheranism. At the New York convention Harms had tried (unsuccessfully) to get the LCMS to
declare fellowship with the ALC. This was to have been the first
step in an elaborate scheme devised by Dr. Richard Jungkuntz,
executive secretary of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations, and Dr. Walter Wohlbrecht, executive secretary of the LCMS, and others, to bring the LCMS into membership in the Lutheran World Federation and ultimately into
the orbit of the World Council of Churches. If not clearly
delineated and outlined, the plan had at least been adumbrated
in a book written by Tietjen in , entitled Which Way to
Lutheran Unity? In this book Tietjen clearly broke with the historic Lutheran doctrine of Church Fellowship and offered a
union definition of Confessional Lutheranism and a new
formula for inter-Lutheran relationships. Harms was under the
influence of Wohlbrecht and Jungkuntz and other leaders at
Mr. Art Brackebusch and many others. Tietjens supporters
were convinced that Jack was using Rev. Herman Otten which
was not true. Although Jack had some communication with
Otten, others (e.g. Peglau and Werning) were writing regularly
for Ottens magazine. Jacks supporters were worried that
Harms would somehow steal the elections; Tietjens were concerned that Preus was controlling Otten. Both concerns were
unfounded.
And now the Tietjen epic unfolds. With force and pathos
he tells his story, relating the events and battles of the war as he
experienced them. Anyone who went through these struggles,
as I did, a foot soldier on the other side, bitter struggles
between good friends and colleagues and Christian brothers,
cannot fail to be impressed by Tietjens story. And the dispassionate outsider too will learn much about the dynamics and
phenomenology of theological warfare. And anyone at all
whatever his theological predilections may bewho reads
Tietjens memoirs will find himself in sympathy with a man
who is thrust into leadership of a cause he does not fully
understand, a position (president of Concordia Seminary) for
which he has no experience, and a church war which from the
outset (one perceives from his Memoirs) he senses he will not
win. I lived through these events of Tietjens tenure at the seminary, and never saw him compromise or bend. From his book
I see something different: how hard it is for a man and how
hard it is on a man to go through five years of bitter theological
and ecclesiastical warfare and then to be put out of his divine
call. Tietjen, who always seemed to me to be a strong and private man, bares his soul in his book. He reveals his deep feelings, his frustrations, his disappointments, even his bitterness
at times. His Memoirs are worth reading for that reason alone.
Church wars take heavy toll.
But now I wish to offer some observations and commentary on the book and on the war. And I hope they may be helpful to Lutherans who seek to retain their confessional identity
and to anyone who might read these pages.
l. Tietjen, for all his background in Lutheran church relations and as director of the Division of Public Relations for
LCUSA, really did not understand what was happening in ecumenical endeavors worldwide or at the seminary. Fellowship
with the ALC was foisted on the LCMS. The rank and file,
engrossed in their own parochial interests, didnt really care.
Outreach and missions had slowed down. The glory days of
the seminary were coming to a close, although the faculty was
unaware of the fact. The seminary, with its embarrassment
over its past (Pieper was not even used as a textbook in some
dogmatics classes), its pedantic, unproductive interest in
scholarship (few books of substance were produced by faculty members in the years preceding Tietjens arrival), its preoccupation with un-Missourian and un-Lutheran theological
fads emanating from just about any source and touching just
about any topic and its exalted opinion of its own uncommon
consequence impressed Tietjen long before he received his
divine call to be president. Like the faculty, he failed to see that
the seminary had grown apart from the synod and had lost the
synods confidence. Like the faculty, he was unaware of the
poverty of the ecumenical movement, the continuing involvement in Lutheran union and fellowship negotiations, the historical critical method, and other concerns. Lutheran pastors
whose apologists could never explain it and rarely knew what it
was. They were parochial in the good Lutheran sense of the
word. And they should never have been taken for granted.
In the opus magnum of the renowned Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz, was published posthumously. It was
entitled Vom Kriege and presented an exposition of his philosophy of war. In succeeding generations it became the basis of
military studies and action not only in Prussia, but in war colleges all over the world. It is doubtful if Tietjen or Jack will ever
write such a Leitfaden on ecclesiastical warfare in our country
where the constraints of the First Amendment obtain and such
an effort might appear unbecoming. But the outline of the
manual has been clearly provided in Tietjens Memoirs. The
Memoirs tell us as much of Jacks philosophy of war and his
victorious campaigns as the failures of Tietjen and the debacle
of the St. Louis faculty. And the Memoirs offer invaluable
advice to future bishops, church presidents, superintendents,
and other officials within the Lutheran Church.
Two important questions must be broached in conclusion.
First, was the bitter and costly war justified? Was it a just
war? I am persuaded that in retrospect both parties would
now say yes. For the causa belli was the preservation of the sola
scriptura principle and the Gospel. And it is not an option for
any Christian to fight such a war, but his duty and privilege.
Second, who won the war? According to Tietjens honest
account Jack won almost every major battle between the two
adversaries. But not just Tietjen and Jack participated in the
conflict. Thousands of othersprofessors, pastors, people
throughout Lutheranismwere involved to some degree or
another. Who, then, really won and who lost? Perhaps a few
observations are in order from one who was close to all the
events and the major figures and groups evolved.
I think Jack left the synod better than he found it. In this
sense he was victorious. No longer were professors of theology
offending students and the church with bizarre and heretical
conclusions offered as the assured results of modern exegetical scholarship. Sola scriptura and its necessary concomitant,
Biblical inerrancy (according to the Confessional Lutheran
understanding), were affirmed and practiced at the seminaries.
Gospel reductionism, with its accompanying denial of the
third use of the Law and its ethical relativism, never clearly
articulated and never clearly understood, faded away. Incipient
universalism, the bane of mission endeavors, which had invaded segments of the faculty and pervaded the mission staff (in
strenuously combatting this Dr. Waldo Werning got into his
trouble with Jack [p. ]) no longer raised its ugly head. Missions began to perk up. The synod again came to the support of
the beleaguered St. Louis seminary. A high degree of conscious
unity under the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions was
restored.
But there were ominous signs of malaise accompanying
the uneasy peace, won in part, ironically, by the departure of
hundreds of congregations and pastors and almost an entire
talented theological faculty. Working under the shadow of former teachers the revived St. Louis faculty, not fully trusted by
many in the synod, was not sure of itself. And neither of the
two seminaries was able to exert the theological leadership necessary to fill the vacuum left by Seminex. The pastors and lay
people are war weary and not able to fight old or new enemies
at the gates. Today Missouri is closer to many of the goals Tietjen and his colleagues set than when he and his colleagues left
the synod. Recognition of the ELCA and some level of cooperation or fellowship seem close at hand, if the present administration gets its way. A more active role in inter-Christian relationships seems already in place. At least part of Tietjens agenda is now Missouris agenda. Adherence to Biblical inerrancy
still prevails, but is rarely any longer a factor in Missouris discussions with other Lutherans and seems to have little
hermeneutical significance as many pastors and teachers in the
synod do their Bible study and teach in the church. Missouri
still seems not to have learned that there is a Lutheran
hermeneutic, based upon Scripture itself and consonant with
the Lutheran Confessions, and this must be operative in the
lives and activities of the ministers, schools, and parishes of the
church. The influence of Tietjen and his colleagues is still alive
in Missouri.
A final observation: Tietjen and his colleagues often
warned that the synod in its fear of liberalism and a low view of
Scripture would be caught up in the opposite extreme, fundamentalismsubjective, triumphalistic Evangelicalism. Jack
and many of his supporters were acutely aware of this danger.
And during his administration the various manifestations of
this great movement were quite effectively resisted. Today Missouri stands in grave danger of being affected by this amorphous, emotional, noncredal, undefinable, increasingly neoAnabaptistic movement which now permeates American culture. Not that the synod will succumb or capitulate overnight.
But the influence of what can be accurately called the Methodization of American religion is quite apparent in Missouris
church life and programs. The historic liturgy is being abandoned in some congregations. Laymen without calls are carrying out the work of the public ministry of the Word. Though
called church growth principles, the fundamental tenants of
this movement are more compatible with Erasmian humanism
and the blatant synergism or the course fanaticism of Luthers
day. Sadly such principles are perferable in some quarters to a
Lutheran Word and Sacrament ministry. Open communion is
becoming common if not rife, in many congregations. Missouris historic doctrine and practice of Church Fellowship
seems to be changing to a more latitudinarian position. The
doctrine of the Ministry of the Word and the divinity of the
call to that office are eroding and being challenged in certain
quarters. Church officialdom is claiming and gaining more
power. The people are listening more and more to TV evangelists, and dont like being criticized for doing so. Most of these
gradual developments would have been opposed by Tietjen, all
of them by Jack.
So who won the war? No one and everyone. This verdict
will be not only the judgment of history, but is most surely
Gods verdict (Rom :,).
Robert D. Preus
President, Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
The Foolishness of God: The Place of Reason in the Theology of
Martin Luther by Siegbert W. Becker. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, .
Reason is a big red murderess, says Luther, the devils bride, a
damned whore, a blind guide, the enemy of faith. Luther also
says that reason is Gods greatest and most important gift to
man, a glorious light, a most useful servant in theology, something divine. Luthers words exemplify the line of demarcation
which must exist between reason and revelation. Luthers
scathing words are uttered when reason becomes the judge of
religious truth. However, Luther praises reason when it is
viewed as a gift from God and is used to serve Scripture and
theology. Luthers statements must remain in their context or
one may assume that Luther is either saturated in irrationalism
or intoxicated with scholasticism.
Luthers historical context is crucial. In his war with Aristotle and scholasticism, Luther saw that it manifested an idolatrous trust in the powers of reason. Dr. Becker writes:
Because of its favorable estimate of reason, scholastic theology
had concocted a synthesis of reason and theology. . . . He
(Luther) was sure that this marriage ought never to have taken
place, and he expressed great concern over any attempt to mix
theology and philosophy. Luther drew a sharp line of demarcation between philosophy, which deals with matters known
by human reason, and theology, which deals with things
apprehended by faith.
Scholastic theologians held that it was possible to lead
men to the very threshold of the mysteries of the Christian
faith by philosophical methods and arguments. They believed
that it was possible to establish so much of Christian theology
by rational argument that the final step of accepting the revelation of God in Scripture became relatively easy. (Some things
never change!) Dr. Becker does a fine job of shepherding his
readers through the thick and cluttered path of scholastic and
rationalistic thought.
Chapter II discusses Luthers natural theology. The first
two sections are intriguing. They are: The Hidden God and
The Masks of God. Understanding Luthers entire concept of
God and the nature of man is crucial in order to grasp Luthers
natural theology. Dr. Becker reminds the reader that since the
fall God is a hidden God . . . God is everywhere, but He permits men to grasp Him nowhere. Gods will is found only in
His Word: the remainder of Gods will, which He has not
revealed, is not mans business.
Mans nature is so corrupt and ruined by sin that it is not
able to grasp what sort of God He is in His bare majesty. God
in His mercy hides from us that which would destroy us if we
were to gaze at it. God hides Himself behind His Word (a
mask) so that He might reveal Himself to us. Luther: A man
hides what he is in order to deny it; God hides what He is in
order to reveal it. Luther believed that God used many different masks, i.e. the breeze in the Garden of Eden and Scripture.
However, the supreme disguise in which God reveals Himself
to men is the Incarnation.
Chapters III and IV spell out Luthers view of reason in
relation to revelation. In Chapter III the reader learns why reason, as a great gift of God, can be lauded within its own sphere
as exemplified by a discussion on hermeneutics. The ministeri-
al role of reason is seen as being crucial to a proper interpretation of Scripture. Chapter IV reveals Luthers most intense
fulminations against reason. Reason becomes the Devils
whore and blasphemous when it places itself above Gods
revealed Word. When this happens the Gospel will be turned
into Law. Reason will judge only by what it sees. Since God is
hidden in His Word, God will no longer be known. Faith and
reason coexist only when faith treads underfoot all reason,
sense, and understanding. It puts everything that it sees out of
sight and wants to know nothing but Gods Word. What reason knows about Gods will is known purely by faith which
hears His Word!
Chapters V and VI present ways in which reason and
Gods word function within their respective spheres. Chapter
V explains Luthers apologetics. Only Scripture defends Scripture. Luther, however, aptly demonstrated against Erasamus
and Zwingli that reason can and should be used to cut her
own throat with her own sword. In Chapter VI Dr. Becker
shows how Luthers theology has had a clear influence on
Lutheran theology. This chapter briefly covers several doctrines
where reason and revelation clash.
The Foolishness of God covers a topic which needs discussion in Christs Church. The Church Growth Movement
(CGM), Christian psychology/counseling, Closed Communion, interpersonal relationships, the Charismatic Movement,
and the doctrine of Church Fellowshipeach of these has its
place within its own sphere. These are either a product of reason (psychology, sociology, interpersonal relationships, CGM)
or they are revealed in Gods Word (fellowship, closed communion, love of neighbor). That which is a product of reason
does not a priori dismiss its use within Christs Church. Reason
becomes the Devils whore only when it assumes authority
over Gods Word.
Reviewed by Mark Sell
Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church
St. George, Utah
Confessing the Faith: Reformers Define the Church, 15301580
by Robert Kolb. Concordia Scholarship Today. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, . pgs. Paper. $.
Part intellectual history, part dogmatics (addressing the nature
of confessional subscription), part the personal appeal of
Robert Kolb for the Lutheran Church of today to become again
a confessing church in the full sense of the term, Confessing the
Faith is yet another offering in a relatively new series from
Concordia Publishing House.
Kolb demonstrates a rigorous study of the writings of second-generation Lutheran reformers, concentrating on the
development of the Lutheran confessional tradition from its
birth at Augsburg to its full definition in the Book of Concord
in . Central to this development is the role the Augsburg
Confession played as the chief public statement of Lutheran
faith and practice and as the model of what it means to confess.
Kolb presents the key ideas of late Reformation theologians as
they relate to confession as action, as body of teaching, as document, as secondary authority for norming the teaching of the
Evangelical faith within the Lutheran confession, and for communicating that teaching to other confessions. In short, Kolb
defines for the reader the late Reformation understanding of
what it means to be a confessing Christian and presents that
definition as a model for the Christian church today.
Kolbs work should find a large audience in beginning and
mature students of the Lutheran Confessions. There is no
question more timely for the Lutheran Church than the question of confessional subscription, despite the fact that Missouri
Synod theologians have brought that question to the fore in
theological and ecumenical dialogue for more than a century.
There are a few points in the book which indicate that perhaps more work needs to be done for us to comprehend the
confessional understanding of the sixteenth century. Did second-generation Lutheran theologians see the various confessions which found their way into the Book of Concord as
authorities which determine the principles of Biblical interpretation in the Lutheran Church? In various places, Kolb seems
to indicate that the Lutherans replaced the authority of popes
and councils with that of confessional documents (pp. ,
). If so, Luthers principle of sola scriptura failed to capture fully the minds of his followers. Yet the documentary evidence which Kolb presents indicates that for Lutherans
throughout the sixteenth century, the confessions have authority because they repeat the Word of God clearly, and not
because they define the proper interpretation of that Word
(pp. , [cp. p. ], ). Confessional documents exist to
proclaim the teaching of Scripture for the sake of church unity,
not to determine what the meaning of Scripture must be.
Claims of the catholicity of the Lutheran Reformation stand or
fall with the sola scriptura principle; if the confessions themselves are authorities which determine the content of Scripture,
the Lutheran Reformation loses its claim on the conscience of
every Christian. Perhaps Kolbs choice of words in indicating
that the confessions served as guides for interpreting Scripture
invited the unfortunate comments of the publisher in the Foreword which also call into question the catholic claims of the
Lutheran Reformation, when he writes: Lutherans can enthusiastically engage in theological dialogue, respectful of the
views of others while maintaining their personal understanding of the faith as described in the Lutheran Confessions (p.
).
The timeliness of even this problem in Kolbs work is evidenced by current debates as to the essential presuppositions of
the Lutheran confessors. Hermeneuticians and exegetes refer
to the inevitable hermeneutical circle. Yet our sixteenth-century fathers believed that the doctrine Luther taught and confessed was drawn from the Word of God alone. They pointed
much less than we today to Luthers personal struggle for the
authority of confessional documents. Theirs was a faith willing
to confess that Gods Word was living and speaking to the specific questions of dogma and life which confronted them in
their historical context.
A second criticism of the book is that Kolb concentrates on
the views and ideas of theologians while neglecting the role of
events in shaping the development of confessions in sixteenthcentury Germany. For example, Kolb merely mentions the
legal status achieved by the Augsburg Confession in the Peace
of Augsburg of . Yet political forces which significantly
shaped the Augsburg Confession in also had a great deal to
do with the prominence of the Augustana in the years leading
Logia Forum
SHORT STUDIES AND COMMENTARY
are dangers from the right and the left. Theological inbreeding
in smaller Lutheran bodies leaves them defenseless when confronting challenges from groups which can echo quite well
their inerrancy view of the Scriptures. A myopic parochialism afflicts some of us in Lutheranism. We seem to have convinced ourselves that our particular incarnation of the Lutheran church is the true, visible church on earthand to the devil
with the rest! While a no holds barred debate on issues of
significance is most healthy, it must not flow from a suffocating view of church history. All the great eras in Lutheranism
which produced a true renewal were eras marked by a recapturing of our broad, evangelical, catholic, orthdox past. We
sometime wonder if perhaps Lutherans in the more conservative bodies have persuaded themselves that church history is
summed up simply by invoking the names of Jesus, St. Paul
and Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, etc. If we are to take seriously
the commitment of these blessed fathers we will discover a
great consensus which invites us to a true renewal in the Faith.
LHES NIGHTMARE
Have you ever had a nightmare so real that you awoke with a
start, breathing a sigh of relief that it was only a dream? But
what if the dream came true? Wilhelm Lhe had a dream one
evening that he attended the funeral of the Lutheran Church
and the people heaping dirt on the coffin were Lutheran pastors. As we observe the goings-on throughout various Lutheran churches, we wonder if Lhes nightmare was not a
prophetic vision of things to come. As pastors replace solid
liturgy with pietistic fluff, as we observe church administrators
promoting positions which run quite contrary to Scripture and
Confessions, as we hear of the instruction students receive in
supposed Lutheran theological institutions, we wonder if we
are not witnessing the burial of Lutheranism. Perhaps wed
better pull the coffin out of the ground and kick in the grave
diggers. Who is responsible for our current state of affairs?
It is time for the faithful parish pastor, the man in the pulpit, to look beyond the walls of his church. He must recognize
his responsibility to speak out on these issues and his duty to
call on the Church to resurrect and revive the orthodox, Confessional Lutheranism of oldchallenging it to speak to the
issues of our day. Renewal in the Lutheran Church will not
come from the seminaries or institutional office buildings. The
political pressures brought to bear are simply to severe for
either academics or bureaucrats to speak with a prophetic
voice to the church. Anemic theology will result if the parish
pastors of our churches do not reclaim the position of leadership in our church bodies.
The place to look for a true renewal in the Lutheran
Church is the parish. Confronting issues on the front lines of
the Church with careful reflection on our dogmatic tradition is
where true renewal will be found in the Lutheran Church. Are
there grave diggers waiting to bury Lutheranism? Yes, they
may not even realize it, but they are standing there, shovels in
hand. As methodologies and programs and techniques continue to inundate our church with Evangelical style it is little
wonder that the substance of Lutheranism is viewed, more and
more, as a detriment, even a road block to statistical growth.
Lhes nightmare is closer than ever to being a vision of the
future of American Lutheranism. Only the most giddy optimist would claim that the smaller Lutheran bodies are
immune from the problems which are found elsewhere. There
The voice of consumerism is saying church by survey.
Consumers know what they want and if the church is smart it
will listen, because if it listens carefully and responds wisely, it
will surely mean a result of growth and success.
But the church is not what the world thinks it should be.
The ways of the church and the ways of the world have always
been in conflict, and any attempt on the part of the world
through a whole host of voices to make sense out of the foolishness of the Body of Christ, the Church, should be seen for
what it is and ignored. However, a very different thing is happening. The helping voices of the world are being invited to
teach the church how to market the Body of Christ. The
effects of these persuasive voices on all aspects of the Churchs
life and teaching are boundless and need to be examined. This
article narrows the discussion to the effects on worship practice in the Lutheran Church.
The very center of the Churchs life is its worship. And the
very center of worship is Gods Means of Grace, His Word and
Sacraments. The Confessions define the Church as the gathering where the Word is correctly preached and taught and the
Sacraments are properly administered (Augsburg Confession
VII, I). Prosper of Aquitaine, Martin Luther, Hermann Sasse,
and many others have observed that, in the end, the Churchs
beliefs are determined by the Churchs practice: lex orandi, lex
credendi. Therefore, what we do is extremely important! The
worship life of the church carries the belief of the Church to
the Church.
Some today will argue that to talk of worship practice is to
talk of worship style. And if this is only a matter of style, then
surveys will provide the data for success, which is, to them,
numerical growth. Its all really very simple, according to a
major voice of our time. But the world does not understand
the Church, and it never will.
Numerical growth and spiritual growth are two very different things. Worship is about spiritual growth. Worship is
about what Gods very own children desperately need from
Him divine foodand secondarily it is about a response to
the food. The worship practice of a church is how this food is
served when the faithful come to be fed. The result of the rich
meal is spiritual growth for all who believe in it. Numerical
growth is a totally different subject.
Richard Resch
From The Bride of Christ, Volume XV, Number 4.
FICTIONAL ETHICS
Anybody looking for a good example of fictional ethics should
order a copy of the ELCAs report entitled, Human Sexuality
and the Christian Faith: A Study for the Churchs Reflection and
Deliberation. Prepared by the Division for Church in Society,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, this -page study is
quite remarkable. In a recent issue of the ELCAs The Lutheran, Presiding Bishop Herbert Chilstrom takes great care to
explain that this is only a study document and will certainly be
modified before it is brought to the church-wide assembly.
This leads one to wonder just what is in this study document
which causes Chilstrom to explain in painful precision that
this is only a study.
preted, relativized, and otherwise twisted, then is it really any
wonder that the suggestions and directions this document
takes lead the church away from a truly Biblical sexual ethic?
At the risk of kicking a church while it is down, may we not
wonder if there is a link at between the ordination of women
and a new ethic in the Church which is well-reflected in this
document? To date the document has received mixed reviews
among ELCA leaders. Thankfully the ELCA bishops have
urged that the document be revised and reviewed carefully.
The commission responsible for the document has set the
timetable back a bit. However, simply by its appearance the
document has encouraged the Sierra Pacific Synod of the
ELCA to approve a resolution calling for pastoral blessing of
monogamous, convenantal, same-sex relationships. Thus a
study document takes on the status of an authority, no matter how tentative it pretends to be.
the worshiper. The praise the Lords of its enthusiastic worship are often followed by a rhetorical question: Dont it
make you feel good? Having borrowed the musical styles of
our culture, Evangelicalism has (perhaps inadvertently) borrowed its attitude as well. Worship has now become entertainment. The results in some corners of Evangelicalism have been
extreme. The Holy One of Israel has become our buddy, our
pal, our friend . . . When a group of singers can gyrate all over
the stage and croon sentimental mush about God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and people clap and
shout and stomp their feet, then surely our religion has been
reduced to the lowest level of commercial entertainment.
Worship forms are never ends in themselves. The Lutheran church never has insisted on uniform worship rites in all its
congregations. Nor is there any virtue in worship conducted in
a cold, detached, formalistic way as though there were something distasteful about human emotion. Theres no correlation
between a services sterility and its orthodoxy. Confessional
Lutherans aim to worship God in spirit as well as in truth (Jn
4:24).
Theres more at stake here than meets the eye. Worship is
never merely a matter of personal taste. Its a travesty to see
churches acting like fast food chains, each trying to get more
customers by outdoing the others through advertising and
packaging techniques. The gospel is not a product to be sold; it
is a message to be proclaimed. Its time to ask whether the
church in America today can afford to go on compromising
the gospel by its consumer approach to worship. Has the
gospel become just another sales pitch? Have we lowered God
to the level of a media manipulator? Has he become just
another used car salesman or fast-talking appliance store
hawker in the public eye? This calls for sober evaluation and
honest repentance.
There is another way of worship. Its the kind of worship
which flows out of the gospel itself. Conservative Christians
are concerned about orthodox preaching; its time we take an
active interest in orthodox worship as well. Here we can learn
from other generations. In a similar age of decline in the
churchs worship life Wilhelm Lhe (d. 1872) stressed the intimate connection between doctrine and worship forms: The
truth faith is expressed not only in the sermon but is also
prayed in the prayers and sung in the hymns.
Which response is, in fact, the most faithful to the gospel
of Christthe subjective, entertainment atmosphere encouraged in much of what passes for Christian worship today or
objective praise of the God who comes to us in his Word and
sacrament?
I have demonstrated that God works in this world of ours
in surprising ways: first in incarnation of his Son, then in the
word of the gospel, which from first to last is the message of
Jesus Christ and him crucified. This word in both oral and
sacramental form might be a stumbling block and foolishness
to the unbeliever, but it is the very power and wisdom of God
to those who are being saved (1 Cor 1:1824).
The wisdom of God is hiddenhidden under the cross.
There in lowly weakness God hid himself from human wisdom
so that he might be more clearly known by those who believe
in him. This is what the new Testament refers to as mystery:
that God reveals himself powerfully when he comes to us in
the weakness of the cross of Christ. This mystery can never be
grasped by human intellect; it is only revealed to those who
trust in him.
No one is surprised when foreign visitors dont understand American football. There is nothing particularly logical
about its rules. It has its own peculiar atmosphere and its own
liturgical forms: cheerleaders, bands, officials, etc. Anyone
can eventually become a football fan, but we dont expect
everyone immediately to appreciate fully the game.
Thats the way it works in football. For some strange reason, however, many have the idea that Christian worship
should be immediately accessible to the man off the street. If
we take the New Testament seriously, we see this is impossible.
No wonder, then, that St. Paul wrote that those who hold the
apostolic ministry should be regarded as servants of Christ
and stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1 [RSV]). The
whole life of the church is caught up in the supernatural life
God gives to his people through lowly natural channels: the
oral word, water, bread and wine. We come to worship, then,
not as we would to to a concert or a rally, expecting to be
entertained. We come expecting to meet God. His Word and
his sacrament throb with life and vitality. It is the life and vitality of God himself.
If worshipping with ancient liturgical forms seems unnatural to us, it is only because we have failed to grasp that we are
in unnatural surroundings. Here, in this place and at this
time, in, with, and under lowly natural means God has chosen
to reveal the reality of his presence. Liturgical worship is the
historic way the church has chosen to acknowledge the profound mystery of Gods presence in its midst. These forms of
worship may indeed seem unnatural to some, but this is the
way the church removes its shoes; the place on which it stands
is holy ground (Ex 3:5).
Liturgical worship feels unnatural to us because it does not
always reflect our natural feelings. Rather, it teaches us what
to feel when God meets us in his Word and sacrament. Its
time to recognize Christian worship for what it is: Christ at
work through his Word and sacrament. Rather than focusing
on the mind and heart of the worshiper, worship should point
to God who meets us there. Growth in understanding worship
comes along with growth in understanding his Word.
Liturgical worship neednt be dull. What virtue is there in
rattling through worship forms as if we were reading the telephone book? These are not merely outward forms. They represent a rich legacy. An appreciation of this liturgical legacy
brings with it fresh energy and renewed vitality in every age. In
the historic words of its liturgy the church joins with Christians of all time in giving praise to the God who has created,
redeemed and sanctified it. There is after only one church
both militant and triumphant, living here and living in heaven.
Like passengers on a train in a dark tunnel, Christians
rejoice to be part of a vast company who have passed through
the darkness of this world into the brilliant sunshine of Gods
glory. This means that worship is always an echo of the distant
triumph song of those who even now rest from their labors in
Gods eternal presence. Such worship can be many things, but
never listless or lifeless.
The Lutheran church has a rich legacy to offer in its worship. Here is reality, not symbolism. Here we have real contact
foolish and muddle-headed it is to call for reconciled diversity. It is a good guess that the party of Arius would have been
willing to agree to such a position. After all, it was a disagreement over just one word, not even a word in the Bible, unlike
the Words of Institution. Could there not have been some
compromise, some sort of live and let live approach which
would have permitted the Arians to retain their oJmoivousio"
while the Athanathians could keep their cherished oJmoovusio"?
What was a little difference in vowels, among brothers in the
faith? Should they not have put aside their differences for the
sake of their common mission? Should they not have discarded their exclusive dogmatism for the sake of their essential unity in the Gospel?
Cast in this light, the premise of A Common Calling is
revealed as the fraud it is. The document attempts to discount
the differences between the Reformed and the Lutherans. It
claims that the debate between Reformed and Lutheran strike
the contemporary Christian as esoteric and purely scholastic
(p. ). So what? Did it appear any differently to the good layfolks of the sixteenth century? In what may be the understatement of the century, the document concludes that, There can
be no doubt, however, that different understandings in this
matter contributed greatly to the de-facto [sic] division of the
churches (p. ). Unless we are willing to say, Yes, Luther
was a most sincere fellow, but he was just too much of a fanatic when it came to the Lords Supper, we can not blithely dismiss historic differences as casually as does A Common Calling.
A Common Calling points to the Marburg Colloquy ()
as the great hope and model for union between Reformed and
Lutheran. It claims that Luther and Zwingli agreed on everything but that nagging little detail about the presence of Christ
in bread and wine. This interpretation of the Marburg Colloquy is an oversimplification and even a misrepresentation of
the facts. Preliminary discussions between Luther and Oecolampadius and between Melanchthon and Zwingli led
Melanchthon to write to Elector John of Saxony, . . . we
find many other articles (besides the one on the Lords Supper) which they also teach wrongly. Such articles, therefore,
must also be dealt with in the colloquy (Sasse, This is My
Body, p. ). It was clear to all present at the colloquy that the
difference on the Supper was the most obvious distinction
between the world view of Zwingli and Luther, but there
were even more differences.
Already during the first session of the colloquy, Luther
expressed his conviction that the difference over the Lords
Supper was central to the debate, but also other articles of the
Faith must be discussed. Zwingli said, The discussion should
deal with the Lords Supper. After having finished that, we can
readily discuss all the rest (Sasse, p. ). Luther then asserted,
I for one cannot admit that such clear words present a
hermeneutical problem. I do not ask how Christ can be God
and man, and how His natures could be united. For God is
able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God
one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the Body of Christ
is not there when Christ Himself says, This is My body. I do
not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or
geometrical arguments, as, for example, that a large body
could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and His Words are to be adored and observed with
hymns, read Lutheran catechisms and worship with traditional
Lutheran forms, but unless our doctrine remains Lutheran,
there is no Lutheranism. These words strike many people of
our day as indicative of the stubborn determination to sacrifice everything on the altar of dogma (Sasse, p. ) which
characterizes a stereotypical orthodox Lutheranism. Sasses
judgment applies to A Common Calling: Legendary simplifications of historical factsanother is the view that it was
Luther who commenced the controversy on the Sacrament
are due not only to a lack of real knowledge and to the regrettable influence of average textbooks . . . but also to the fact
that modern Protestantism is hardly able to appreciate a real
confessor, and to understand that there is an eternal truth
which must not be compromised (Sasse, p. ).
The apathy of clergy and laity alike in all Lutheran synods
must be overcome if the church is to give a clear confession in
light of A Common Calling. And lest any other Lutheran
church body become too smug, it need only examine the mote
in its own eye when it comes to the practice of Closed Communion, a test case on whether or not we still accept Luthers
position on the Holy Supper. We face today, as exemplified by
A Common Calling, a complete breakdown of our theology.
There is no way to excuse, ignore, or otherwise pretend that
this reality does not confront all Lutherans today. The Lutheran church today must throw back the table cloth and point to
the words which Luther wrote, Hoc est corpus meum, and
declare, This is final.
recent innovation. Even in the context of contemporary Christendom, there is still a majority that finds the practice to be
prohibited by Scripture and incompatible with the consensus
of the church catholic. In fact, Greek Orthodox representatives
to the National Council of Churches recently withdrew from
the NCC because they could not go along with the ordination
of women.
The issue is not merely a desire on womens part to use
their gifts in Christs service. If that were the case, they would
be glad to do so in keeping with our Lords clear mandates in
Holy Scripture. The Missouri Synod, particularly with its Deaconess program and teacher programs, offers many avenues of
service to women. Ironically, there are more women in fulltime church work in the Missouri Synod than in the ELCA and probably all other protestant denominations combined.
Voices/Vision echoes the logic often heard elsewhere: if a
woman has the gifts to do the job, she should be ordained.
Therefore refusing ordination to women amounts to despising
the gifts God has given to his Church. But such an argument is
neither compelling nor convincing, and frequent repetition is
no substitute for clear thinking.
To say, Because I can, I should is to draw an unwarranted conclusion. It simply is not true that because my car can do
120 miles per hour therefore I should drive it that fast. If a
prostitute can excite you in ways that your spouse cannot, you
are not thereby justified in committing adultery. If God
intends that we must do all the things he has given us the ability to do, why is self-control listed as one of the fruits of the
Spirit? (Galatians 5:22-23)
In the heat of the controversy it is often forgotten that the
Bible does not leave ordination open to all males. There are
certain qualifications that not all men can meet. (I Timothy
3:1-7) Furthermore, even if a man does possess the ability to
do the job, he is not to preach or administer the sacraments
publicly unless he be rite vocatus. (CA XIV)
The call is a gift of God. (Ephesians 4:11) God does not
owe a call to a man who acquires a seminary education. God
does not owe a call to a woman just because she appears to be
able to do the job - even if she seems to be better qualified than
some men. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, when
the men who had worked all day began to complain that it was
not fair that others who had worked only one hour should be
paid a full days wage, the penetrating question that was put to
them was, Dont I have the right to do what I want with my
own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?
(Matthew 20:15) Likewise God certainly has the right to distribute his gifts (including calls to the pastoral office) as he
pleases. (I Corinthians 12:11) If Christ or his Church can be
compelled to extend a call on the basis of the merit of the
applicant, the call ceases to be a gift.
But do the Holy Scriptures require that women be denied
ordination to the pastoral office? The passages traditionally cited are addressed in a little book from the American Lutheran
Publicity Bureau that has been hailed as the most significant
publishing event in recent Missouri Synod history. The title,
Different Voices/Shared Vision reflects the fact that it was produced by some of the same people who are behind the Voices/Vision newsletter.
Since we know that in all things God works for good, we
can look for some good to come of this challenge. If nothing
else, it is becoming clearer that there are voices within Missouri
advocating the ordination of women - perhaps not the con-
Marie Meyer has written the heart of the book, both in the
sense that her two chapters are sandwiched by all the other
shorter articles, and in the sense that she seems to have thought
most deeply about the issues. Her attempt to place the discussion in the context of Christology and Luthers theologia crucis
is laudable. But David Scaer might be amused at the suggestion
that his Christology provides a theological framework congenial to Mrs. Meyers purpose. And it is provocative to speculate
that if Martin Luther had consistently followed his theology of
the cross through to its logical conclusions he would have supported the ordination of women, but I wouldnt bet the rent on
it.
If Meyer is dismayed at the liberties taken by her editor,
her proofreader deserves to be fired. She evidently intends to
distinguish Man as homo sapiens from man, the male of
the species, but I counted at least 25 instances of man where
it seems she must have meant Man.
Addressing the Order of Creation, Meyer asserts, When
men are taught their identity is in being the one for whom
woman was created, and women are taught their identity originates in coming from and for man, neither man or woman is
free to know self in terms of their relationship to God. Rather
than knowing self as Man, not God, they are superordinate
males and subordinate females. But it simply does not follow
that men and women who recognize that God has created
them male and female are thereby precluded from seeing
themselves as creatures of the Creator.
Again Meyer claims, In stating that God chooses to act
authoritatively among Men through man, woman is separated
from God and man. [I would have used the word distinguished rather than separated, but so far I think I can agree.
The problem comes with the conclusion she draws from this
fact.] Dependent upon man for Creator-goodness in her life,
she is not a true counterpart because she is not joined to God
in the same way man is, nor is she free to act upon what she
receives from her Creator. If God separates men and women
on earth by using man as the channel of his goodness they cannot possibly share the same relationship with God.
What does it mean that both men and women are baptized? What does it mean that both men and women are invited to the Supper? Do not men and women hear God speak as
they read their Bibles? When God chooses to call men to the
Office of the Holy Ministry, he does nothing to clog the channels we Lutherans commonly refer to as the Means of Grace.
Both men and women are included in the Royal Priesthood. A
woman is free to pray directly to God without depending on
any man to intercede for her. The Creators distinction
between male and female does not place man between woman
and God.
Moving on to a discussion of Christ As Head Of The
Church, Meyer says, Nothing in the life of Christ indicates
he used authority, power or freedom belonging to him as God,
to establish himself in a position of authority over any man or
woman. But Jesus bluntly told the hostile scribes that he
would heal the paralytic so that you may know that the Son of
Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. (Mark 2:10) Likewise his prelude to the Great Commission was, All authority
in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew
28:18)
Like Hinz, Meyer wants to emphasize the servanthood
of Christ and of the pastoral office. The New Testament certainly supports this idea. But to conclude that an office of ser-
logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theology that
promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
We cling to Gods divinely instituted marks of the church: the Gospel,
preached purely in all its articles, and the Sacraments, administered
according to Christs institution. The name Logia expresses what this
journal wants to be. In Greek, Logia functions either as an adjective
meaning eloquent, learned, or cultured, or as a plural noun
meaning divine revelations, words, or messages. The word is
found in Acts : and Romans :. Its compound forms include
oJmologiva (confession), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right
relationship). Each of these concepts and all of them together express
the purpose and method of this journal. Logia is committed to providing an independent theological forum normed by the prophetic
and apostolic Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of
our journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God; not merely as rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the
Truth, and the LifeJesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, we confess the
Church, without apology and without rancor, only with a sincere and
fervent love for the precious bride of Christ, the Holy Christian
Church, the mother that begets and bears every Christian through
the Word of God, as Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC
II.). We are animated by the conviction that the Evangelical Church
of the Augsburg Confession represents the true expression of the
Church which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Ulrich AsendorfPastor, Hannover, Germany
Alan BorcherdingProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
Charles CortrightPastor, Our Saviors Lutheran Church, East
Brunswick, NJ
Burnell EckhardtPastor, St. John Lutheran Church, New Berlin, WI
Charles EvansonPastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN
Ronald FeuerhahnProfessor, Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, MO
Lowell GreenProfessor, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY
Paul GrimePastor, St. Pauls Lutheran Church, West Allison, WI
Matthew HarrisonPastor, St. Peters Lutheran Church, Westgate, IA
Steven HeinProfessor, Concordia University, River Forest, IL
Horace HummelProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO
Arthur JustProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
John KleinigProfessor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide,
South Australia, Australia
Gerald KrispinProfessor, Concordia College, Edmonton, Canada
Peter K. LangePastor, St. Pauls Lutheran Church, Concordia, MO
Cameron MacKenzieProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
Gottfried MartensPastor, St. Marys Lutheran Church, Berlin,
Germany
Kurt MarquartProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
Norman NagelProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO
Martin NolandPastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL
Wilhelm PetersenPresident, Bethany Seminary, Mankato, MN
Hans-Lutz PoetschPastor Em., Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany
Robert D. PreusPresident, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
Clarence PriebbenowPastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Oakey,
Queensland, Australia
Richard ReschKantor, St. Pauls Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN
David P. ScaerProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
Robert SchaibleyPastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN
Bruce SchuchardPastor, St. James Lutheran Church, Victor, IA
Ken SchurbProfessor, Concordia College, Ann Arbor, MI
Harold SenkbeilPastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI
Carl P. E. SpringerProfessor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL
John StephensonProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines,
Canada
Walter SundbergProfessor, Luther Northwestern Theological
Seminary
David J. WebberPastor, Holy Trinity Lutheran Church,
Brewster, MA
William WeinrichProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary,
Fort Wayne, IN
George WollenburgPresident, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT