Chapter 7

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the use of German had sunk almost to zero. The minutes of the German Society had to be written in English because no one was sufficiently versed in German to write them in this language. There was nothing to interfere with the supremacy of English. Yet the English Lutheran church was unable to "propagate the faith of the fathers in the language of the children." Down to the beginning of the twentieth century, the English churches were dependent for their growth upon accessions from the German and Scandinavian churches. They were unable to retain even the families they had inherited from their Dutch and German ancestors. We search in vain for descendants of the New York Lutherans of the eighteenth century in any of our churches.

Not until a new contribution of immigrants from Lutheran lands had been made to America did our church begin to rise to a position of influence.

When in the second quarter of the nineteenth century the first self-sustaining English Lutheran church was established, the Ockershausens and other children of immigrants were the strong pillars of its support. From that day to the present time not a single English Lutheran church has been established and maintained in this city where the Schierens, the Mollers and scores of others, immigrants or the children of immigrants, were not the chief supporters of the work. Without their effective aid the English Lutherans of the nineteenth century would have been swallowed up by "the denominations that are around us" as were their predecessors of the eighteenth century.

Some of our Anglo-American neighbors are concerned about our political welfare. They advise us to drop the German in order that we may become "Americanized."

Many of us are the children of Germans who tilled the soil of America before there was a United States of America.

The Germans of the Mohawk Valley won at Oriskany, according to Washington, the first battle of importance in the American Revolution.* [Tr. note: original has no footnote to go with this asterisk]

The Germans of Pennsylvania, long a neutral colony on account of its large English population, obtained the right of suffrage in May, 1776, and turned the scale in favor of liberty. Through their vote Pennsylvania was brought by a narrow margin into line with Virginia and Massachusetts which would otherwise have remained separated and unable to make effective resistance against the armies of King George.

The Germans of Virginia followed their Lutheran pastor, Peter Muehlenberg, and made memorable the loyalty of American Lutherans. Steuben, the drillmaster of the Revolution, transformed the untrained and helpless troops of Washington into an effective force capable of meeting the seasoned soldiers of Cornwallis and Burgoyne.

Our German ancestors were peasants, unable to write history, but they helped to make history. Without their timely aid there would not have been a United States of America. Their children do not need to be "Americanized." Nor have later immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia, at any period of our history, shown less loyalty to American ideals.

We may concede the hegemony of English in the political and intellectual life of America, but in a great country like America there is room for others also. It is a narrow view of our civilization to make "American" synonymous with English. America is not the dumping ground of the nations. It is a land where the best ideals of all nations may be reproduced and find room for expansion and growth.

The German and Scandinavian churches of New York are not ignorant of the importance of the English language in the maintenance of their church work. (See table of Churches in the Appendix.) With scarcely an exception they make all possible use of English in their services. This they are compelled to do in order to reach their children. In this way, and by making generous contributions of their members to the English churches, they are doing their full share in the general work of church extension in the English language.

They send their sons into the ministry to an extent that has not been approached by our English churches. (See Appendix under Sons of the Church.) Nearly all of these are bi-lingual in their ministerial work and many of them serve exclusively English churches. There is a proverb about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, which we would do well to bear in mind.

Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, founded by Dr. Walther and the Germans of Missouri, numbers 344 students. Candidates for graduation must be able to minister in at least two languages. In a polyglot church such as ours this would seem to be a policy worthy of imitation.

The fifteen languages in which we minister to our people confer upon us an honorable distinction. Each one represents an individuality which cannot be ignored, some spiritual gift which is worth exercising and preserving. By keeping in touch with this many-sided life we enrich our own lives, obtain broader conceptions of the church's mission, and fit ourselves for more effective service in this most cosmopolitan city of the world. Instead of trying to exterminate these languages, let us cultivate a closer acquaintance with them and let us pray for that pentecostal spirit which will enable us to say "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

The Problem of Membership

Three classes of members are recognized in our churches: 1, Those who have been baptized. 2, Those who have been confirmed-that is, those who after the prescribed course of instruction and examination have been admitted to the communion. 3, Communicants-that is, those who are in active fellowship with the church in the use of the word and the sacrament.* *The temporal affairs of the congregation as a civic corporation are regulated by the State and the qualifications of a voting member are defined in the laws of the State. This chapter deals only with the question of membership in the church as a spiritual body. In general the State readily acquiesces in the polity of the various churches so long as it does not interfere with the civic rights of the individual.

There is a fourth class of which no note is taken in our church records. It is the class of lapsed Lutherans-that is, of those who have been admitted to full communion but who have slipped away and are no longer in active connection with the church.

Of these we shall speak in a separate chapter.

It is sometimes charged that the Lutheran communion does not hold clear views of the church. On the one hand her confessions abound in definitions of the church as a spiritual kingdom, as a fellowship of believers. On the other hand her practice frequently reminds our brother Protestants of the Catholics, and they are disposed to look upon us as Romanists, _minorum gentium_. "Like a will-of-the-wisp," says Delitzsch, "the idea of the church eludes us. It seems impossible to find the safe middle ground between a false externalism on the one hand and a false internalism on the other hand."

The Lutheran position can only be understood when we recall the situation that confronted the Reformers in the sixteenth century. They had first of all to interpret the teachings of Scripture over against Rome, and hence in their earlier confessions they emphasized the points on which they differed from the Pope.

According to Romish doctrine a man became a member of the church, not by an _interna virtus,_ but solely through an external profession of faith and an external use of the sacraments. The church is as visible and perceptible an organization as is "the kingdom of France or the republic of Venice." The church is an institution rather than a communion.

For thirteen centuries, from Cyprian to Bellarmin, this doctrine held almost undisputed sway.

The Reformers demonstrated the significance of faith, and showed the untenableness of Rome's conception of the church as a mere institution. Thomasius calls this a central epoch in the history of the world. But at the same time the Reformers had to take a stand against the hyperspiritual positions of the fanatics, as well as the teachings of the Zwinglians who denied the efficacy of the means of grace. The confessions, therefore, as well as the subsequent writings of Melanchthon and the dogmaticians, and the entire history and development of the Lutheran churches must be read in the light of this two-fold antagonism.

The system which the Reformers controverted must have had features acceptable to the natural man or it would not have prevailed for so many centuries. Hence it is not surprising when Romanism creeps back into nominally Protestant churches. It behooves us, therefore, to be on our guard and to purge out the old leaven. And the opposite tendency which undervalues the visible church, must also be corrected by a Scriptural doctrine of the ordinances.

The practice of our churches is a resultant mainly of three forces:

1. Doctrine, defined in the Confessions, modified by Melanchthon's later writings and by the dogmaticians of the 17th century, considerably influenced also by Spener and the Pietists, while not a little has come to us from the Rationalistic period.

2. Tradition, from the civil and social arrangements of the national churches from which we are descended, inherited through generations of our predecessors in this country. We follow in the old ruts, and "the way we have always been doing" puts an end to controversy.

3. Environment. Consciously or unconsciously we are influenced by the practice of neighboring denominations.

The object of this chapter is to ascertain the historic principles of the Lutheran Church in regard to church membership, to test their validity by Scriptures and to apply them to present conditions.

The Church is primarily the communion of saints. Thus in the Small Catechism: "even as He (the Holy Ghost) ... sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth." In the Large Catechism the same thought, that the Church is the product of the Holy Ghost, is expressed in ample terms. Rome's doctrine of the Church, as essentially an external organism, was answered in the 7th Article of the Augustana with the statement that the Church is the "congregation of saints," and this Article was the object of special attack in the Confutation. In the Apologia the Church is the congregation of those who confess one Gospel, have a knowledge of Christ and a Holy Spirit who renews, sanctifies and governs their hearts (Mueller 153, 8). In the Smalcald Articles: "Thank God, a child of seven years knows what the Church is, namely the holy believers and the lambs who hear their Shepherd's voice." The Formula of Concord has no special article on the Church, but touches the question incidentally and confirms the statements of the other symbols. (See Rohnert, Dogmatik, p. 505.)

These teachings are in harmony with New Testament doctrine. Jesus said: "Upon this rock will I build my church," the congregation of God's children, the spiritual house which in the years to come "I will build." This Church was founded through the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. When the Epistles were written Ecclesia had become the established term. In Acts 2, 42, we find that Koinonia was one of the essential characteristics of the Church. John uses the same term in his first letter. This is the very truth repeated in the 7th Article of the Augustana. Paul, in his letter to Titus, refers to Christians as those who have believed in God; Romans 8, "God's elect;" also in Colossians 3, 1, "elect of God;" I. Peter 2, "holy nation, peculiar people;" I. Cor. 1, "Sanctified in Christ Jesus," etc., etc. They form a "spiritual house," I. Peter, 2; "God's building," I. Cor, 3; "body of Christ" in process of edification, Eph. 4. This body of Christ is an organic unity in which the Holy Ghost dwells as in a temple, I. Cor., 3 ; and of which Christ is the head, Eph. 1, 22. The Church is the "bride of Christ," II. Cor, 11, 2; destined to be "holy and without blemish," Eph., 5, 27.

The Romish doctrine of the Church began with Cyprian in the third century. When the Puritans of that day, the Montanists, Novatians and Donatists unduly emphasized the ideal character of the Church, there was justification for the answer of Cyprian, emphasizing its empiric character, its actual condition. When after thirteen centuries of abuse of this position a Reformation occurred, it was to be expected that the Reformers would first of all emphasize the ideal, the inner character of the Church.

But while this movement, which Julius Stahl felicitously termed the Conservative Reformation, was going on, there was also a radical Reformation which repudiated the idea of a visible church. The Romanists, in their confutation of the Augustana, called attention to this view, and wrongfully charged the Lutherans with holding it. In controverting this position, the Romanists very properly quoted the parable of the tares and the parable of the net with all kinds of fishes. The Apologia replied by showing that the 8th Article of the Augustana had repudiated this position, and that bad men and hypocrites were not excluded _ab externa societate_.

Thus the Romanists regard the Church as essentially visible, the Reformed, as essentially invisible, while Lutherans hold that she is both. The invisible Church is contained within the visible just as the soul is contained within the body. The Church is not merely a congregation of believers, but also an institution for the promotion of the Kingdom of God.

In their controversy with Rome Lutherans held that the Church did not exist merely in participation of external rites, but chiefly in the possession of the inward life, the heavenly gifts. As yet the kingdom of Christ is not revealed, and the visible Church is a _corpus mixtum_. Thus the Apologia distinguishes clearly between the _ecclesia proprie et large dicta_ (church in the proper and church in the wider sense of the term).

Nevertheless this Kingdom of Christ has a visible existence. "We are not dreaming of a Platonic commonwealth," says the Apologia, "for it has external marks, the preaching of the pure Gospel and the administration of the sacraments." And this Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth," for she is built upon the true foundation, Christ, and upon this foundation Christians are built up.

Subsequently, in his Loci, Melanchthon developed still further the idea of the Church as an _institutum_. This may have been because of the fanatics, or it may have been because of his entire disposition as a teacher and pedagogue. Followed as he was in support of his views by the dogmaticians, the Lutheran Church acquired that distinctive character which has marked her history as an educating and training force. This position is still further explained from the fact that the Lutherans, unlike the Reformed, were placed in charge of nations and peoples, and had to be responsible for their Christian guidance and training. As a national church, her relations to the people were different from those of the Reformed, who, on the continent, existed mainly in smaller communities and congregations where it was comparatively easy to enforce church discipline.

In this relation the Church is not only the product, but also the organ of the Holy Ghost. It is her duty to nourish the life of its members (_parturit et alit_), and to spread the blessings of the Church to others. According to the Large Catechism, she is the spiritual mother of the faithful. Her pedagogic duty is pointed out. (See Rohnert, Dogmatik, pp. 508 and 487.)

This visible character of the Church is recognized in the New Testament in the various commands and promises given to her: the power of the keys, the duty to confess before men, to serve one another in love, of united intercession, of contending against the kingdom of darkness. In the Epistles the presence of sinful men is everywhere recognized, nevertheless the members of the Church are termed "the called" of Jesus Christ.

Lutheranism of the 16th century stood between two opposite errors, Rome on the one hand with its exaggerated ideas of the Church as an institution, and Reform on the other hand with its one-sided notions of the invisible church. The Lutheran Church took the _via media_, declaring that the Church, _proprie_, was spiritual, but that it was also an institution. The question for us is whether we Lutherans of the twentieth century have remained on the _via media_ or whether we have not slipped too far to the right or to the left.

To find the answer one would naturally consult our church formulas and constitutions. According to Dr. Walther's "Pastorale," the candidate for admission to a "Missouri" church must be a truly converted and regenerated Christian. The General Council requires that the candidate shall have been admitted to the Lord's Supper and shall accept the constitution. The Synod of New York requires that candidates be confirmed, accept the Augsburg Confession, lead a Christian life, obey the constitution and any other regulations that may hereafter be adopted.

From this it seems that "Missouri" is the only body that emphasizes the _interna virtus_. The others place the emphasis upon conformity with certain outward forms and requirements.

But we cannot always judge from the printed constitution. To bring the information up to date, and to ascertain the actual usage of the churches, the author obtained from forty pastors of this city an account of their practice. Some of their replies will be embodied in this chapter.

Theoretically we enter the church through baptism. Practically, for most Lutherans, confirmation is the door of admission.

This rite is a comparatively new measure among us. Prior to the eighteenth century it had only a limited use in the Lutheran Church, and it has attained an inordinately prominent place. Spener was among the first to recognize its practical value, and its beautiful ritual made a strong appeal to the popular imagination. It is one of the ancient ceremonies to which we do not object if it is properly used.

Now tell us, you who make so much of confirmation and so little of catechization, seeing that you are content with six months of the latter, in adopting a rite which Spener and the Pietists introduced into the church, have you also adopted the principles which governed Spener and the Pietists in the practice of confirmation? Their object in catechization and confirmation was conversion. "A stranger visited my class one day," says Spener. "The next day he called to see me and expressed his great pleasure with my instruction. 'But,' said he, 'this instruction is for the head. The question is how to bring the head to the heart.' And these words he repeated three times. I will not deny that they made such an impression upon me that for the rest of my days I shall not forget them."

We are not advocating extravagant ideas of conversion, or requiring a religious experience from children of fourteen years which in the nature of the case they cannot have. But have we a right in this crisis in the history of the child to overlook that infinitely important experience which our dogmaticians termed _regressus ad baptismum?_ Said Professor Kaftan, in an address to a Ministers' Conference: "The word conversion is the appropriate term for expressing the way in which a man becomes a Christian and a believer. Most Christians can tell you something about how it happened that they sought a new aim and chose another path in life. Even among those who have had a peaceful and gradual development, there came a time when they reached a conscious and decisive resolution to belong no more to the world but to God. _"Man wird nicht von selbst ein Christ, man muss sich bekehren um ein Christ zu werden."_ We do not repudiate the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as it is held in the Lutheran Church. On this point we are in accord with our Confessions. But before we adopt without reservation the idea that baptized children are regenerate, we must revise our practice in the matter of baptizing infants. So long as we practice the _Winkeltaufe_ and baptize indiscriminately the children of people who give us no guarantee that the children will be brought up in the Christian faith, so long as the Church fails to recognize her obligation to these baptized children and does not take them under her nourishing care from the time when they emerge from the family and enter into the larger life of the street and the school, we have no right to place such an emphasis upon baptismal regeneration. It is to be feared that the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal grace has in many minds been supplanted by a mechanical, thaumaturgiel conception which differs from the Roman doctrine only in being far more dangerous. Rome at least enforces the claims of tthe [sic] Church recognized in baptism. We baptize them and let them run. We corral a few of them for a few months just before confirmation and then let them run again. So does not Rome." [tr. note: original has no close quotation mark for Kaftan quotation]

Dr. Cremer, of Greifswald, an able defender of the Lutheran faith, in his reply to Dr. Lepsius on the subject of Baptismal Regeneration, says:

"It is sad indeed that in the use of the sacraments there is generally more of superstition than of faith. This must be openly confessed, for only then can conditions be improved when faults are recognized and made known. . . . We may continue to baptize chiildren [sic] of _Gewohnheitschristen_ (formal Christians), but it is a question whether we ought to continue to baptize the children of those who have given up the faith and among whom there is no guarantee of a Christian training. This means also a reformation in our confirmation practice. Does confirmation mean a family party, or mark the time to leave school, or has it something to do with baptism? These are rocks of offense which must be cleared out of the way if the Church is to be restored to health."

Among the questions proposed to the pastors were the following:

1. Do you have a personal interview with each candidate prior to confirmation with the view of ascertaining his fitness for the act?

2. Do you at that interview inquire as to the candidate's repentance, faith, conversion, new life?

3. Is the confirmation of the candidate dependent upon the satisfactory result of this examination?

Among the answers were the following: "Not, individually." "No, except before the congregation." "Not formally so." "For at least six months." "Only with certain ones," etc., etc.

A goodly number of pastors speak to the candidates _"unter vier Augen,"_ but they are the exceptions. The ordinary practice knows nothing of such a course. The public examination is little more than an exhibition.

In other words, we have strayed over to the Roman side of the road. The difference between us and the Roman priest being this: he will see them again at the confessional, but those whom we confirm in this superficial way, many of them, we shall never see again. Or, if perchance we should see some of them, it will be at long range, the same as when we first admitted them to confirmation. Imagine a doctor curing his patients in this way, getting them together in a room and prescribing for their diseases from what he sees of them in a crowd. The care of souls cannot be performed in bulk, it is the care of _a_ soul.