Chapter 8

Besides what a privilege the pastor loses, the opportunity of a lifeline, not only to explain to an inquiring heart the mysteries of our faith in the light of his personal need, but also to put himself in such a relation to the individual that he may become a beloved _Beichvater_. But alas, we have to a great extent lost the confessional. Instead of it we have a hybrid combination of Lutheran doctrine and Reformed practice, and we distribute our absolution _ore rotundo_ over mixed congregations on Sunday mornings and at the Preparatory Service. But the real confession we seldom hear and a valid absolution therefore we cannot pronounce. The Keys have indeed been committed to us, but we seem to have lost them, for the door of the sheepfold hangs very loose in our churches and the sheep run in and out pretty much as they please.

But while some of our churches are thus leaning toward Rome, there is need of caution also against the opposite error. A false and exaggerated spirituality will lead to standards of holiness which are not warranted by the New Testament. Of these Luther himself somewhere said, "May the God of mercy preserve me from belonging to a congregation of holy people. I desire to belong to a church of poor sinners who constantly need forgiveness and the help of a good physician."* *Methods of receiving candidates into active membership vary. Some synods, as we have seen, make no distinction whatever in their statistical reports between occasional communicants and actual members of the congregation. Admission to membership should take place by vote of the congregation or at least of the Church Council. There should likewise be some rite of initiation. In the case of adults who come from other congregations it need not and should not be a confirmation service, but it should at least be a public introduction of the candidate into the fellowship of the congregation with which he desires to become identified. (Matthew 10, 32).

Rome's position was a protest against Montanism. Without question there is a great truth in Cyprian's position as developed by Rome, and the Reformers, particularly Melanchthon, guarded it. How often do we hear in our day the declaration: "I do not need to go to church. I can be just as good a Christian without." This position Lutheranism rebukes by making preaching and the sacraments the pillars on which the church rests. Thus is conserved what was best in the institutional theory of the ancient church, so that in spite of her many defects both as a national church and in her transplanted condition, the Lutheran church will remain an important factor in the development of Protestant Christianity.

When our Reformed neighbors charge us with Romanism, it is either because they do not understand our theory and have overlooked the historical development, or because they judge of us by the Romish practice of our own ministers who have thoughtlessly slipped over too far toward the institutional theory. In the present condition of religious flux we have a mission not only in the field of doctrine, but also in practical theology, on the question of the Church. For we are still standing between two antagonists. Catholics on the one hand attract the masses by the definiteness of their external organization. Over against them we emphasize the essentially spiritual nature of the Church. There are Protestants on the other hand who, while placing the emphasis on the inner life, ignore the importance of the ordinances. They maintain public worship, it is true, but do so in combination with secular entertainment or by appealing to the intellectual or esthetic needs of the community. Others, more spiritually minded, base their hopes on the evangelist and the revival. But when the evangelist has taken his leave, and the people have to listen to the same voice they have heard so long before, having been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that it is not the Church that makes a man a Christian, that sacraments and ordinances are merely human devices, is it any wonder that many of them ignore the church altogether?

It is here that the Lutheran Church, with her catholic spirit and her evangelical doctrine, has a message for our times. Her doctrine of baptism, of Christian instruction as its corrollary, of repentance, faith, and the new life, of the Lord's Supper, of church attendance, of the sanctification of the Lord's Day, and a practical application of these doctrines to the life in the care of souls, establishes a standard of membership that ought to make our churches sources of spiritual power.

The Problem of Religious Education

Historically and doctrinally the Lutheran Church is committed to week-day instruction in religion. Historically, because in establishing the public school her chief purpose was to provide instruction in religion; doctrinally, because from her point of view life is a unit and cannot be divided into secular and spiritual compartments.

American Christians are confronted with two apparently contradictory propositions. One is that there can be no true education without religion. The other is that we must have a public school, open to all children without regard to creed.

When our country was young, and Protestantism was the prevailing type of religion, these two ideas dwelt peacefully together. The founders of the Republic had no theory of education from which religion was divorced. But the influx of millions of people of other faiths compels us to revise our methods and to test them by our principles, the principles of a free Church within a free State. Roman Catholics and Jews object to our traditions and charge us with inconsistency. If temporarily we withstand their objections, we feel that a great victory has been won for religion when a psalm is read and the Lord's Prayer said at the opening of the daily session of school. We still have "religion" in the publie school.

But the problem remains. On the one hand, those who doubt the propriety of introducing any religious instruction, however attenuated, into the public school, are not satisfied with the compromise. There are judicial decisions which place even the reading of the Bible under the head of sectarian instruction.

On the other hand, those who believe that religion has a supreme place in the education of a child, and that provision should therefore be made for it in its school life, realize the inadequacy of the present methods.

As Herbert Spencer says: "To prepare us for complete living is the function which education has to discharge." Character rather than acquirement is the chief aim of education. Hence we cannot ignore the place of religion in education without doing violence to the ultimate purpose of education.

The importance of the question is admitted on all sides. But it remains a complex and difficult problem. Thus far, with all our talent for practical measures, we have not succeeded in reaching a solution.

In New York, in common with other churches, we have the Sunday School. We do not undervalue its influence and cannot dispense with its aid. But does the Sunday School meet the requirement of an adequate system of religious instruction? It is an institution that has endeared itself to the hearts of millions. Originally intended for the waifs of an English manufacturing town, it has become among English-speaking people an important agency of religion. Apart from the instruction which it gives, we could not dispense with it as a field for the cultivation of lay activity, and a practical demonstration of the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless its best friends concede its limitations. From a pedagogical standpoint, no one thinks of comparing it with the secular school. With but half an hour a week for instruction, even the best of teachers could not expect important results. Its chief value lies in the personal influence of the teacher. But instruction in religion involves more than this.

Nor does the Sunday School reach all the children. Attendance is voluntary, and hence there is no guarantee that all the children of school age will obtain any instruction, to say nothing of graded and systematic instruction, taking account of the entire school life, and holding in mind the ultimate object of instruction, the preparation of children for full membership in the church. But this is one of the first duties of the churches, to look after all their children with this end in view.

As a supplement and an aid the Sunday School has untold possibilities of usefulness. But all its merits and advantages cannot close our eyes to the fact that it does not and cannot meet the chief requirement of the Christian school, the systematic preparation of all the children for the duties of church membership. In this work the church cannot shirk her responsibility. Her very existence depends upon it.

Recognizing this obligation some of our churches maintain the Parochial School. Thirty churches out of one hundred and fifty are making a heroic effort to be loyal to their ideals. The total number of pupils is 1,612. In other words, out of 42,106 children in attendance at Sunday School only 4 per cent. get instruction in religion through the Parochial School. So far as numbers show it would seem to be a failure. But one cannot always judge from the outward appearance. Eight of these parochial-school churches report fifty of their sons in the ministry.* *Some of the pastors failed to send me reports on this point, but I have been credibly informed that within twelve years, ten of these churches sent sixty of their sons into the ministry.

In view of such a result who would dare to say anything in disparagement of the Parochial School? Perhaps its friends may some time see their way clear to secure greater efficiency by establishing three or four schools in place of the thirty, and thus relieve the individual congregations of a serious tax upon their resources.

Some of our churches have Saturday schools and classes in religion on other week days. The total number of pupils reported in these classes, including the members of confirmation classes, is 5,711. Add to these the 1,612 pupils of the parochial schools, some of whom have already been counted in the confirmation classes, and we have at most 7,323 children obtaining instruction in religion on week days, 17 per cent. of the number of those in attendance at Sunday School.

So far as may be learned therefore from such statistics as are available, it follows that 83 per cent. of our children receive no public instruction in religion except such as is given in the Sunday School and in the confirmation class.

Our churches do not take kindly to the so-called evangelistic methods of reaching unchurched masses, claiming that our methods, in particular the catechization of the young, are more effective. In view of the figures presented above, it is open to question whether our churches practice catechization in the historical sense of the word. It is a question whether our method of imparting instruction in the catechism for a few months preliminary to confirmation does justice to the spirit and principles of the Lutheran Church? Many of our pastors sigh under the yoke of a custom which promises so much and yields so little.

To postpone the catechization of more than 80 per cent. of the children until they are twelve or thirteen years of age, and to complete the course of preparation for communicant membership within six months, contributes but little to the upbuilding of strong and healthy Lutheran churches. An examination of our church rolls shows that such a system is a large contributor to the class of lapsed Lutherans. We get the children too late and we lose them too early.

This is "an hard saying" and may offend many. But among all the problems we are considering there is none to equal it in importance. Can we find a solution?

Wherever the churches are prepared to utilize the time in giving adequate instruction in religion, the curriculum of the public school should be modified to meet this need. Competent authorities see no objection to this, and there is a very large movement which seeks to further this idea.* *At the meeting of the Inter-Church Conference In Carnegie Hall, New York, in November, 1905, at which twentynine Protestant Churches of America were represented the author presented a paper on Week-day Religious Instruction. Its main propositlon was favorably received, and the following resolution was adopted by the Conference: "Resolved, that in the need of more systematic education in religion, we recommend for the favorable consideration of the Public School authorities of the country the proposal to allow the children to absent themselves without detriment from the public schools on Wednesday or on some other afternoon of the school week for the purpose of attending religious instruction in their own churches; and we urge upon the churches the advisability of availing themselves of the opportunity so granted to give such instruction in addition to that given on Sunday. "The further consideration of the subject was referred to the Executive Committee. By direction of this Committee a report on Week-day Instruction in Religion was presented at the First Meeting of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ In America, held in Philadelphia in 1905. After an earnest discussion, resolutions were adopted indicating the importance which the representatives of the churches of America attached to the general question. At the Second Meeting of the Federal Council, held in Chicago in December, 1912, the Special Committee of the Federal Council presented a report recognizing the difficulties confronting an adequate solution of the question and providing for a more thorough investigation and discussion of the entire subject." In his report for 1909 (Vol. I, page 5), the United States Commissioner of Education, Dr. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, refers to this subject in the following words: "Those who would maintain that the moral life has other rootings than that in religion, would, for the most part, admit that it is deeply rooted in religion, and that for many of our people its strongest motives are to be found in their religious convictions; that many, in fact, would regard it as insufficiently grounded and nourished without such religious convictions. The teaching of religious systems is no longer under serious consideration as far as our public schools are concerned. Historical and social influences have drawn a definite line in this country between the public schools and the churches, leaving the rights and responsibilities of religious instruction to the latter. It would be futile, even if it were desirable, to attempt to revise this decision of the American people. There has been, however, within the past two or three years, a widespread discussion of the proposal that arrangements be made between the educational authorities and ecclesiastical organizations, under which pupils should be excused from the schools for one half-day in the week-Wednesday afternoon has been uggested-in order that they may in that time receive religious and moral instruction in their several churches. This proposal has been set forth in detail in a volume entitled "Religious Education and the Public School," and has been under consideration by a representative committee during, the past two or three years."

An interdenominational committee, consisting of Evangelical Protestants only, was organized in 1914 for the purposing of securing week-day instruction in religion for the children of New York. A similar committee consisting of representatives of all churches, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, was organized in 1915 which is giving effective study to the same question. The Lutheran Minister's Association is represented on both these committees.

The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, representing thirty denominations and a communicant membership of eighteen millions, through its Commission on Christian Education is making a large contribution to the study of the problem.

The Protestant Episcopal Church in its General Convention and the Methodist Episcopal Church in its General Conference have made provision through appropriate committees for the study and promotion of the subject of week-day instruction in religion.

The Jewish Community (Kehillah) is doing work far exceeding anything that Christians have done in the way of religious education. It has established 181 schools of religion, for children in attendance at the public schools, in which 40,000 children are enrolled. In other forms instruction in religion is given to 25,000 children. Thus out of 275,000 Jewish children in the public schools 23.5 per cent. receive week-day instruction in religion. Energetic efforts are made to reach the remaining 210,000. The pupils have from one to four periods each week, after school hours, each period lasting from one to two hours. The total sum annually expended by the Jews for week-day instruction in religion is approximately $1,400,000.

From "The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918, [tr. note: no close quote for title in original] we quote as follows:

"In the typical week day school, the number of hours of instruction given to each child varies from 6 1/2 hours in the lowest grade to 9 1/2 hours in the seventh or highest grade. . . . The total teaching staff consists of 615 teachers, of whom about 23 per cent. are women. The salary of teachers ranges from $300 to $1,200 per year. The average salary is $780 annually for 22 hours' work during the week."

The Jews ask for no concession of time from the public school. They seem to have physical and intellectual vigor enabling them to utilize, for the study of religion, hours which Christian children require for rest and recreation.

Lutherans hold that it is the function of the church to provide instruction in religion for its children. What are the Lutherans of New York doing to maintain this thesis? Over 40,000 children of enrolled Lutheran families obtain no instruction in religion except that which is given in the Sunday School and in the belated and abbreviated hours of catechetical instruction.

A movement is now going on in this city and throughout the United States aiming at a restoration of religious education to the functions of the church. For the sake of our children ought we not heartily to cooperate with a movement which so truly represents the principles for which we stand? It will require a considerable addition to the teaching force of our churches. It will mean an expensive reconstruction of our schoolrooms. It will cost money. But it will be worth while.

The Problem of Lapsed Lutherans

There are four hundred thousand lapsed Lutherans in New York, nearly three times as many as enrolled members of the churches.

A lapsed Lutheran is one who was once a member, but for some reason has slipped the cable that connected him with the church. He still claims to be a Lutheran but he is not enrolled as a member of a particular congregation.

Most lapsed Lutherans are of foreign origin. From figures compiled by Dr. Laidlaw (see "Federation," Vol. 6, No. 4), we obtain the number of Protestants of foreign origin, enumerated according to the country of birth of parents, one parent or both. The number of Lutherans we obtain by subtracting from the "Protestants" the estimated number of non-Lutherans. Thus:

Protestants Lutherans Norway .......... 33,344 - 10% = 30,010 Sweden .......... 56,766 - 10% = 51,090 Denmark ......... 11,996 - 10% = 10,797 Finland ......... 10,304 - 10% = 9,274 Germany .........486,252 - 20% = 389,002 Austria-Hungary . 27,680 - 80% = 5,535 Russia* ......... 15,000 - 20% = 12,000 507,708

*Many of the Lutherans who have come to us of late years from Russia, Austro-Hungary and other countries of South Eastern Europe, are the descendants of German Lutherans who in the eighteenth century accepted the invitation of Katharine the Second and Marie Theresia to settle in their dominions. Others are members of various races from the Baltic Provlnces.

That is, the estimated number of Lutherans of foreign origin, counting only the chief countries from which they emigrate to America, is 507,708.

But we also have Lutherans here who are not of foreign origin. Lutherans have lived in New York from the beginning of its history. Its first houses were built by Heinrich Christiansen, who certainly had a Lutheran name. The Lutherans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is true, left no descendants to be enrolled in our church books. These are to be found in goodly numbers in the Protestant Episcopal and other churches where they occupy the seats of the mighty. It is too late to get them back.

But in the nineteenth century we collected new congregations. There are many Lutherans whose grandparents at least were born in New York. Besides, there has been a large influx from the Hudson and Mohawk valleys, from Pennsylvania, Ohio, the South and the West. A moderate estimate of these immigrants from the country and of those who under the grandfather clause claim to be unhyphenated Americans, members or non-members of our churches, is 40,000.

Add to these the Lutherans of foreign origin and we have in round numbers a Lutheran population of more than 547,000 souls.

Turning now to the statistical tables in the Appendix we find that the number of souls reported in our churches is 140,957. Subtract these from the total Lutheran population and we have a deficit of over 400,000 souls, lapsed Lutherans, the subject of the present chapter. _Quod erat demonstrandum_. While this is a large number, it is a moderate estimate. An addition of 20 per cent. would not be excessive.

How shall we account for this deficit?

Of the Americans a large number are the children of our New York churches, the product of our superficial catechetical system. No study of the subject is complete that does not take account of this serious defect. No cure will be effective until we have learned to take better care of our children.

Native Americans from the country, members of Lutheran churches in their former homes, have no excuse if they do not find a Lutheran church when they come to New York. In years gone by English churches were scarce, but now they are to be found in every part of the city. In part at least, the home pastors are responsible. When their people remove to New York they ought to be supplied with letters, and the New York pastors should be notified. In fifty years I have not received twenty-five letters from my country brethren asking me to look after their wandering sheep.

For the foreign Lutherans who have failed to comnect with the church, three reasons may be given: 1. Ignorance. Not ignorance in general, but ignorance in regard to church conditions in America. They come from National churches where their relation to the church does not require much personal initiative. They belong to the church by virtue of their baptism and confirmation. Their contributions to its maintenance are included in the general tax levy.

Arrived in New York where Church and State are separate, a long time may pass before any one cares for the soul of the immigrant. Our pastors are busy with their routine work and seldom look after the new comers, unless the new comers look after them. The latter soon become reconciled to a situation which accords with the inclinations of the natural man. Ignorance of American church conditions accounts for the slipping away of many of our foreign brethren from the fellowship of the church.