American Lutheranism, Volume 2 / The United Lutheran Church (General Synod, General Council, United Synod in the South)

by F. Bente

EQUIVOCAL ATTITUDE.

140. Maintaining a "Wise" Neutrality.—In the controversies of the Lutheran Church in America the General Council has persistently and on principle refused to take a definite stand. "The General Synod," says Dr. Singmaster, "has wisely refrained from making minute [!] theological distinctions, and has thus obviated much useless discussion. Apart from the special activities already alluded to, it has made few [quite a number of false] special doctrinal deliverances." (Dist. Doctr., 60 f.) Doctrinal neutrality was the policy also of the United Synod in the South and of the General Council. The Lutheran, April 24, 1902, stated that, over against the General Synod, the fathers of the Council insisted on an unequivocal doctrinal and confessional basis, while, over against Missouri and other synods, they left room for divergence in the application of certain principles. "Kiss and make up," was the advice Carl Swensson, writing in the Lutheran Church Review, gave to the disrupted synods of the Lutheran Church in America. (L. u. W. 1903, 146.) With respect to the doctrinal differences between Ohio and Missouri the Lutheran Church Review wrote in 1917: "There are less clear doctrines which despite the honest, sincere, and persistent efforts of men to state them in harmony with the divine Word admit of an honest difference of opinion." (450.) "There has been," says Dr. Jacobs, "no controversy within the General Council on the subject of election, and, therefore, no official declaration by the Council on the subject that has so largely occupied the attention of a number of synods." (Dist. Doctr., 1914, 116.) That applies to practically all of the doctrines controverted within the Lutheran Church of our country. In reference to them it has always been the policy of the General Council to maintain a wise neutrality. In Lutherisches Kirchenblatt, December 29, 1900, Rev. Wischan of the General Council hit the nail on the head when he said: "As to our doctrinal position, we find ourselves in a peculiar situation. When questioned concerning our attitude toward those doctrines which have been discussed in the most spirited manner, and partly have become the occasion for ecclesiastical separations, we are embarrassed for want of an answer. We know exactly what the position of Missouri is in the doctrines of conversion and predestination. We know also what Ohio teaches in opposition to Missouri. But who can tell us what the General Council teaches on these points? Possibly, many among us agree entirely neither with Missouri nor with Ohio. Possibly some incline to the views of Ohio, while others prefer the Missourian doctrine. But at present there is no clarity in these matters in our midst, everybody apparently having the privilege of choosing his own position without fearing that the Church might call him to account. Very convenient indeed; but surely it is not the ideal. Or do those questions lie on the periphery to such an extent that an answer is a matter of absolute irrelevancy to a Lutheran Christian?" (L. u. W. 1901, 53.)

141. Not in Sympathy with Missouri.—The unionistic and indifferentistic position of the General Council with respect to the differences in doctrine and practise prevailing within the Lutheran synods of the United States naturally led to a high degree of animosity and unfriendly charges against the Missouri Synod. Her attitude of certainty and conviction in the doctrines which she championed was branded and denounced as "intolerance," "bigotry," "narrow-mindedness," "exclusiveness," "aloofness," "pride," "Pharisaism," etc. In his Problems and Possibilities Dr. Gerberding wrote: "We have often said that this body of Lutherans, more than all others, has saved the Germans of the Middle West from being swamped in materialism and rationalism. Honor to whom honor is due. But the very prosperity of these Lutherans has made them haughty, self-sufficient, self-righteous. A tone of Pharisaism and of infallibility seems to run through their utterances. They seem not only to believe in an infallible revelation from God, but in themselves as infallible interpreters of that revelation. Every one who does not accept their interpretation is branded as a heretic of the same kind and quality as those against whom the apostles warn, and whom believers are not to receive into their houses nor bid Godspeed. All who do not accept their interpretation in every jot and tittle are anathema in the apostolic sense. Their interpretations, glosses, and theses, and resolutions as to what the Confessions mean also seem to be infallible. Woe be to the Lutheran who dares even to question their conclusions!" (162.) Revealing the same animus, Dr. G.W. Sandt published in the Lutheran of December 12, 1918: "The new and powerful stream of immigration, which was headed by Dr. Walther, and out of which has grown the Synodical Conference, with its more than 800,000 communicants and the largest theological seminary in the land, represents the reaction against the unionism of the State Church in Saxony. A man of deep piety, strong convictions, and sound theological learning, he became the apostle of a sturdy confessionalism, as orthodox as that of Hengstenberg, as vital and spiritual as that of Spener, and as fruitful in good works as that of Francke. He and his followers nursed that orthodoxy so faithfully and fenced it in so securely as to make Missourianism the synonym for the straitest sect of Lutheranism in the world. A doctrine of rigid aloofness and separatism was developed as a wall of defense, as binding upon a Missourian's conscience as almost any article in the Augsburg Confession could possibly be. It was inevitable that he and his followers should come into conflict with such leaders as Loehe and the Fritschels (founders of the Iowa Synod), with Loy and Stellhorn and Allwardt in the Joint Synod of Ohio, and with Schmidt in the United Norwegian Church as it then existed. The controversies on the ministry, on predestination, on conversion and synergism, while expressive of deep conviction and loyalty to the Truth, do not form a chapter in our history of which Lutherans can feel proud. When orthodoxy becomes so strict and strait-laced and legalistic, when it stands up so erect as to lean backward, both the interests of the Truth and of the Church are bound to suffer. The cause of unity is harmed, and union or cooperation is rendered impossible." However, if the paramount object of the Lutheran Church always was, is now, and ever must be, to maintain the truth and the unity in the Spirit, then, whatever in other respects may justly be said in praise of the General Council, her neutral attitude toward the doctrinal differences of the Lutheran synods in America, though temporarily it may have proved expedient in the interest of external union, was in reality neither Christian, nor Lutheran, nor conducive to the unity or any other real and abiding blessing of our beloved Church. For while indeed forbearance also with the weak in knowledge and faith is a mark peculiar to the Christian spirit, indifferentistic silence as to what is true or false, right or wrong, is neither a virtue, nor, in the long run, will ever prove to be of true advantage anywhere, least of all in the Lutheran Church.