One of the most tragic events in the history of the Lutheran Church in the nineteenth century is the parting of the ways to which the two great churchmen, William Loehe and Ferdinand Walther [1811-1887], came after this great theological leader of the Missouri Synod had in 1851 still effected such a promising meeting with Loehe in Neuendettelsau. It means little that neither of the two was able to establish a relationship with the Erlangen faculty of that day. For whatever may have been the significance of this theology of the old school of Erlangen, it had certain faults which, in spite of the stature of its exponents as men and scholars, made it impossible for it to provide lasting renewal of the Lutheran Church. They had not been able to keep away from the seductive poison of Schleiermacher’s subjectivism. In spite of all their efforts to hold fast to the objective truths of revelation, this method that took its cue from Schleiermacher, inevitably led to fateful consequences. The close of the century showed clearly what keen-eyed contemporaries had detected at the time. If “I, the Christian, am for me, the theologian, the real object for systematic-theological observations,” then no power on earth can preserve such a theology from the fate of becoming a science of the good man, a science of religion.
The other weakness of the Erlangen theology was the manner in which it was limited to the narrow confines of a German territorial Lutheranism. Its horizon extended from their little Franconian city to Nuremberg and Munich in the south, to Leipsig, Dresden, Rostock,—and perhaps as far north as Dorpat.
How much wider was the horizon of the unpretentious village pastor of Neuendettelsau! How differently did not he and Walther look at the problems of the Lutheran Church in a world that lay beyond the range of an ecclesiastical bureaucracy, governed and guided by the German Summi Episcopi. They viewed the situation of the Lutheran Church in the great wide world, of a church that was not merely a department of the State.
No one could anticipate that these congregations which were so laboriously establishing themselves at the outposts of civilization would eventually become the great churches in whose hands, as far as it rests with men, lies the fate of Lutheranism today. Nor could anyone anticipate what the breach between Walther and Loehe, between Missouri and Iowa, would eventually mean. We see it today, and are faced with the question whether the mutual understanding which failed at that time is possible today, after the lapse of a century.
Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors VIII, 1949
Posts
4 comments:
Great thoughts, thank you for taking the time to post them.
"We see it today, and are faced with the question whether the mutual understanding which failed at that time is possible today, after the lapse of a century."
If by "mutual understanding" one implies "mutual agreement", such agreement (other than a heterodox one) would not be possible today between those who hold the views of Loehe and those Missouri Synod Lutherans who regard Walther's Kirche und Amt as the definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod’s understanding on the doctrine of church and ministry.
However, Loehe did appear to reach some understanding (if not agreement) several years after he broke with Walther and the Missouri Synod in an August 4, 1853, letter edged in black, when Loehe conceded that the doctrine of the Missouri Synod was the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and the Lutheran confessions:
"The sad experiences which the former Stephanites [the Missourians] had with their hierarch, [Martin] Stephan, have made their hearts very receptive to the doctrine of the ministry held by Luther and subsequent theologians, a teaching also reflected in the Lutheran Symbols, especially since this doctrine not only commends itself highly to the Christian mind but also seems made to order for American circumstances. Conversely, some of us were led by experiences of an opposite and different nature to have an eye for a different conception of ministry and church, a conception which was present already at the time of the Reformation in the church of the Reformers and had been recommended particularly in some parts of southern Germany. Where it differs from the specific-Lutheran and Lutheran-theological course (Richtung), it seems to commend itself by virtue of a more artless attachment to Holy Scripture and antiquity and by greater truth in practice." (Kirchliche Nachrichten aus und über Nord-Amerika, No. 8 [1859]; quoted in C. F. W. Walther, “Do We Draw the Lines of Fellowship Too Narrowly?”, Editorials From Lehre und Wehre [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981], pp. 75-76)
Thanks Carl. I note the same in "At Home in the House of My Fathers" with a translation of a similar admission by Loehe in a letter about the same time. The letter is in that volume and part of the addendum to the "Trip Report" from Walther and Wyneken about visiting Loehe.
Yes, I found the similar statement by Loehe in his July 1, 1853, letter to G.M. Grossmann (p. 114): "I can pretty well say for certain that Walther in his book has correctly presented the opinion of Luther and those theologians who followed him on this point. I have nothing to contest in the book [Walther's Church and Ministry] on this account."
And Loehe's quatenus subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is evident in his statement (p.115): "Furthermore, the question is not what Luther, the theologians, and the Symbols say, rather what do the Scriptures say? It is from the Scriptures that my doubts arise and not only mine, regarding the individual-Lutheran doctrine." (I take it that "individuell-lutherischen" is Loehe's term for Walther's "übertragungslehre"?)
Your footnote 2 on p. 114 also noted a major impact on Loehe's decision to break with the Missouri Synod. Others also sided with Walther and the Missouri Synod, including Friedrich Brunn, who had as much, if not greater, influence on the Missouri Synod's growth in the decades after 1860.
Regarding your footnote 3, the split between Walther and Loehe was indeed permanent. In the November 13, 1869, edition of Der Lutheraner C.F.W. Walther wrote (p.49) the following in regard Loehe and the public ministry: “From this one can see how grievously and dangerously the Buffalo Synod, Pastor Loehe, the Synod of Iowa, and all those err from the truth who together with them assert that the church or the Christians do not have the keys originally and immediately but through the pastors!…. For when Pastor Loehe had in his heart fallen away from the symbols of our church, then he also confessed honestly and publicly with mouth and pen that he could no longer subscribe to the symbolical books of our church unconditionally because he had found errors in them.”
But when Wilhelm Loehe died a little more than two years later, on January 2, 1872, there was a brief, restrained notice in Der Lutheraner (Vol. 28, February 15, 1872, p. 79):
“DEATH NOTICE: From Lutherische Zeitung we learn the shocking news that Pastor Loehe of Neuendettelsau, ‘after a brief illness,’ died at five forty-five o’clock on the evening of January second.”
BTW, if there is a second edition of At Home in the House of My Fathers I would recommend it include a detailed index.
Post a Comment