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

by F. Bente

PLATFORM CONTROVERSY.

59. Champions of the Platform.—"The principal effect of the Definite Platform," says Dr. Spaeth, "was to open the eyes even of the indifferent and undecided ones, and to cause them to reflect and to realize the ultimate designs of the men at the helm of the General Synod. A storm of indignation burst against the perpetrators of this attack on the venerable Augustana. Many men who were before numbered with 'American Lutheranism,' and whose full sympathy with the movement was confidently expected, had nothing but stern rebuke for it." (1, 360.) Howbeit, the Platform was not in lack of ardent defenders. To some of the ministers it was not radical enough. Dr. Morris remarks: "Extremely un-Lutheran, un-churchly, and even rationalistic positions were assumed by some who defended the Platform." (Wolf, Lutherans, 364.) In the Observer, December 7, 1855, a correspondent maintained that it was incorrect to speak of the Augustana as "our confession," since of Lutheran theologians not one in twenty was governed in doctrine and practise by this Symbol. (L. u. W. 1856, 28.) In the following year the Observer published a protest of Rev. Kitz, censuring the Platform for granting toleration to believers in baptismal regeneration and the real presence. (L. u. W. 1857, 27.) At Gettysburg Seminary, self-evidently, Schmucker zealously propagated his Reformed theology, while his brother-in-law, C. F. Schaeffer, who had entered 1856, was the exponent of a mild confessionalism. E. J. Wolf: "At Gettysburg, in the same building, one professor in almost every lecture disparaged and discredited the Confessions, while another one constantly inspired his students with the highest [?] veneration for them." (Lutherans, 441.) Jacobs: "The students were soon divided, but the gain was constantly upon the conservative side." (History, 427.) But while thus at Gettysburg conservative influences, in a measure, were counteracting the Platform theology, Wittenberg Seminary, at Springfield, 0., the theological center of the Western synods, was unanimous, decided, and most advanced in its advocacy. Sprecher, the leader of "American Lutheranism" in the West, wrote concerning the Platform: "It is the very thing we have long needed in our Church; it will require every man to declare that he is for or against us, and will secure our American Lutheran Church against the insidious efforts of the Old Lutherans to remodel her." "If the New School brethren do not soon decide whether they will give the Church the positive form which it must take in this country ere long, the Old School will decide it for them by making all their synods stand on the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. I do not see what difficulty can be in the way. If those five dogmas rejected [by the Platform] are errors at all, they are very serious errors, and I do not see why there should be so great a desire to be associated with those who teach them. The difference between the Old School and the New School party is of such a nature that they cannot agree except by being silent or separate. If we did not intend to push this matter through, we should never have agitated it at all." (Spaeth, 1, 359.) It goes without saying that B. Kurtz acted the champion of the new confession. When, in 1855, prior to the publication of the Platform, the Synod of Northern Illinois, in its constitution, declared the Augustana and Luther's Small Catechism a "correct" exhibition of the divine truth, Kurtz wrote in the Observer: "This is certainly a tremendous leap backward to the patriarchs of the American Lutheran Church. In this enlightened country of free thought and action such high-churchism cannot long maintain itself; its most peculiar fruit is bigotry, ostracism, strife, and separation." (Lutheraner, Feb. 13, 1855:) In the same spirit Kurtz edited the Observer after the appearance of the Platform. In an issue of January, 1856, he maintained that the Platform offered nothing new; in the past every member of the General Synod had practised according to its principles; now one merely was to do openly and honestly what heretofore he had been doing with a reservatio mentalis. (L. u. W. 1856, 64.) Several months later Kurtz published the list of rejected errors of the Symbolical Books, and in a number of subsequent articles supported the Platform, and, at the same time, attacked the distinctive doctrines of Lutheranism, misrepresenting them in Calvinistic fashion. (L. u. W. 1856, 140 ff.; 1857,61; 1862,152; 1917,375.) Nor did Kurtz in the following years repent of, or change, his attitude. In the Observer of June 29, 1860, he declared: "We are qualified to formulate a confession of faith not only just as well, but better than those who lived three hundred years ago. We now have men in our Church who understand just as much of the Bible and of theology as our fathers. If this were not the case, we must be stupid scholars, a degenerated generation." (L. u. W. 6, 252.) In the same year: "May those, then, who are opposed to the progress backwards, to liturgies, to priestly gowns, to bands, candles, crucifixes, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, priestly confession and absolution, and all other phases of the half-papists, stand firmly by the old Observer." (L. u. W. 1860, 318.) In the Observer, December 26, 1862, Kurtz said: Wisdom did not die with the Reformers; nor would it die with the present generation. Giant strides had been made in science, history, chemistry, philology. The progress in astronomy enabled us to understand the Bible better than our fathers. Geology taught us to explain the first chapter of Genesis more correctly than a hundred years ago. Even if we were dwarfs compared with the Reformers, with our increased advantages we ought to understand the Bible better than they. A dwarf, standing on the shoulders of a giant, can see farther than the giant himself. A confession of faith, therefore, ought not to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, but subject to improvement and growing perfection. Luther and his colaborers explained the Bible more correctly than any like number of their contemporaries. But we do not believe that they understood it as well as God's enlightened people of the present. Indeed, an intelligent Sunday-school child has a clearer insight into the plan of salvation, etc., than John the Baptist, the greatest of prophets. Is it, then, to be assumed that since the middle of the sixteenth century no progress was made in Biblical learning? (L. u. W. 1863, 92.) However, always guided by expediency, and hence able also "to do otherwise," the Observer, April 13, 1866, wrote: "We have all agreed that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is the only general platform upon which all of us can stand. There are some among us, to the number of whom the writer belongs, who have always believed and still think that an American Recension of this venerable document, as presented in the Definite Platform, would give us a faith more in harmony with the Scripture. But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, the greatest liberty compatible with the unity of true Evangelical Protestantism. To make concessions within reasonable limitations we have accordingly deemed our religious duty." (L. u. W. 1866, 185.) In its issue of January 17, 1908, the Observer again claims the liberty of revising the confessions. (L. u. W. 1908, 90.) Self-evidently, the American Lutheran was in sympathy with the Platform. In 1873 it declared its standpoint as follows: "We American Lutherans adopt the Augsburg Confession only in a qualified sense, viz., as teaching the fundamental truths of religion in a manner substantially correct, but containing also some inaccuracies with respect to the Sacraments, private confession, absolution, and the Christian Sabbath." (L. u. W. 1873, 29.)

60. Opponents of the Platform.—S. S. Schmucker boasted with respect to the Platform that all intelligent Americans were on his side. However, his opponents proved to be much stronger and more numerous than he had anticipated, though most of them were in essential agreement with his un-Lutheran theology, merely resenting his intolerant spirit and public assault on the "venerable Augustana." Among the men who fiercely denounced the new confession was J. A. Brown, who also followed up his attack with charges for Schmucker's impeachment at Gettysburg, and in 1857, with a book, The New Theology. Yet Dr. Brown's theological views and the views of the Platform were not nearly so far apart as his assaults on Schmucker seemed to warrant. Brown was a Reformed theologian and just as determined an opponent of genuine Lutheranism as Schmucker and Kurtz. Dr. Wolf: "Brown contended with might and main against what he considered the revival of the Old Lutheran Theology." (370.) And Brown's case was also that of F. W. Conrad (professor of Homiletics in Wittenberg College from 1850 to 1855, and part owner and editor of the Observer from 1863 to 1898), who in 1855, when required by the Wittenberg Synod to defend the Platform, resigned as professor and as editor of the Evangelical Lutheran, stating that he, too, considered the "errors" enumerated in the Platform as real errors, but was able neither to find all of them in the Augustana nor to identify himself with the intolerance of the Platform men. (L. u. W. 1856, 94.) Occupying a unionistic position similar to that of Dr. Conrad, H. W. Harkey, in his Olive Branch, published at Springfield, Ill., also opposed the fanaticism of Kurtz, Schmucker, Sprecher, etc., but not their Reformed theology, which, indeed, he shared essentially. (L. u. W. 1857, 313; 1858, 28.) The man who disappointed Schmucker perhaps more than any one else was his colleague Charles Philip Krauth, who made no secret of his aversion to the Platform. In a letter to his son he wrote: "The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession doesn't seem to go down well. It has received many hard blows. … A more stupid thing could hardly have been originated. Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat. How will it end? I have thought, in smoke. But I have all along had fears, and they are strengthened of late, that it will divide the General Synod. It is said that my colleague is determined to press the matter to the utmost. … I regret exceedingly the injury which the Church is sure to sustain. Mr. Passavant's idea of a paper in opposition to the Observer I approve. There ought to be an antidote to the Observer somewhere." In the Observer of February 15, 1856, Krauth, Sr., published nine reasons why he opposed the Platform; the chief grievance, however, its Reformed theology, was hardly hinted at. Krauth's plea was for peace and mutual toleration. "I feel deeply solicitous that our prospering Church may not be divided," said he. "I shall do all that I can to hold it together. I will pray for the peace of our Zion," etc. His main argument against the Platform was that it proscribed brethren who were received with the understanding that they were to occupy a position coordinate with that of others, and asked every symbolical Lutheran to withdraw or dishonor himself. (Spaeth, 1, 372f.) Pacification of the Church by mutual toleration—such was the solution of the Platform controversy offered and advocated by his son, Charles Porterfield. To this Krauth, Sr., agreed. April 2, 1857, he wrote to his son: "I am decidedly of opinion that the General Synod ought to do something effectual for the pacification of the Church. I concur in the views you express, and believe, unless such views prevail, the Church must ere long be rent into fragments. Whilst I am anxious for such an agreement in regard to a doctrinal basis as will embrace all the wings of Lutheranism in our country, I very much wish we could agree on forms of worship in accordance with the liturgical character of our Church, and erect a barrier against the fanaticism and Methodism which so powerfully control some of our ministers and people." (380.) W. M. Reynolds, in the Evangelical Review which he had established 1849 (1870 succeeded by the Lutheran Quarterly), denounced the Platform as a declaration of "separation from the whole Lutheran Church of the past." "We trust," said he, "that no Lutheran synod will be beguiled into the awful movement here so abruptly, yet so confidently proposed to them—to revolutionize their whole previous history, and declare separation from the whole Lutheran Church of the past, and all their brethren in the present who hold to the faith of their fathers, 'the faith once delivered to the saints.'" (360.) Reynolds, who publicly renounced his former un-Lutheran views and withdrew his endorsement of Kurtz, was hailed by many as the leader of the conservatives in the General Synod. But, his confessional endeavors being vitiated and neutralized by his fundamental unionistic attitude, he, too, disappointed and failed the friends of true Lutheranism. He opened the pages of the Evangelical Review to both, liberals as well as conservatives, to the advocates as well as the opponents of the Platform and its theology. Reynolds stood for mutual toleration, and in 1864—turned Episcopalian. (L. u. W. 1857, 314; 1870, 156.) J. N. Hoffmann entered the controversy with his "Broken Platform," and W. J. Mann with his pamphlet "A Plea for the Augsburg Confession," according to Spaeth "the strongest refutation of the Definite Platform." (L. u. W. 1856, 75; 1857, 283.) Dr. Mann wrote, May 7, 1856: "If Schmucker had not the Observer as an ally, he would accomplish absolutely nothing. As it is, however, the two gentlemen fabricate a public opinion, supported by a multitude of uninformed members of the Lutheran Church. The mass of all influential, well-meaning members, preachers as well as laymen, whatever their views may otherwise be, are indignant at Schmucker, Kurtz, Observer, and the whole Platform affair. I would not be astonished if the matter should lead to a breach between us and the General Synod. The consequence will be that involuntarily we shall be brought closer to the strict Lutheranism, all the more so as the Missourians of late seem to become milder." But Dr. Mann was rudely awakened from his optimism when, in the following year, his "Lutheranism in America: an essay on the present condition of the Lutheran Church in the United States," was severely criticized even by Charles Philip Krauth, in the Evangelical Review. And the result? "I have no desire at all to make any further concessions to Old Lutheranism," Mann meekly declared in a letter of April 15, 1857, in which he referred to the cold reception and stern rebuke which his book had received by the press within the General Synod. (Spaeth, 179 f.) Thus even the most conservative men within the General Synod rendered the cause of true Lutheranism but little service in the Platform emergency. Being in the minority and without a clear insight into the nature of Lutheranism, also without an organ, except, in part, the Evangelical Review, they lacked the courage and seriousness to take a determined and open stand against the corrupters and assailants of Lutheranism. They favored a policy of silent, watchful waiting. H. I. Schmidt, who, in the Evangelical Review, had defended the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, wrote in a letter dated February 4, 1853: "We Lutherans had better keep perfectly quiet at the next General Synod, and say nothing at all about 'Doctrinal Basis.' … If all open conflict is avoided, our cause will continue silently and surely to gain ground, and thus the character of the General Synod will gradually be changed and righted." (Spaeth, 1, 349.)

61. "Pacific Overture."—The storm caused by the Platform was hardly brewing, when Old and New School men united in pouring oil on the troubled waters. Instead of holding Schmucker to strict accountability, 41 prominent ministers and laymen published in the Observer of February 15, 1856, a "Pacific Overture," in which they "deprecate the further prosecution of this controversy, and hereby agree to unite and abide on the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, of absolute assent to the "Word of God, as the only infallible rule of faith and practise, and fundamental agreement with the Augsburg Confession." This document was signed by such men as H.L. Baugher, M. Jacobs, M.L. Stoever, S.S. Schmucker, Krauth, Sr., E.W. Hutter, T. Stork, C.A. Hay, W.H. Lochman, M. Valentine, B. Sadtler, and J.A. Brown. The pledge of the "Overture" involved the obligation of abstinence from newspaper controversy. Kurtz did not sign the document, and Schmucker reserved for himself the right of replying to Mann's "Plea," which he did in American Lutheranism Vindicated. This book, according to the Observer, proves that the Augustana does teach baptismal regeneration, the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, private confession and absolution, and denial of the divine institution of the Lord's Day, and that all of these doctrines are errors conflicting with the Scriptures. (L. u. W. 1856, 320.) Thus Kurtz and Schmucker, who had kindled the conflagration, persisted in pouring oil into the flames, while the rest were shouting, "Extinguish the fire!" H.I. Schmidt wrote from New York: "I can see no use in signing that 'Overture'; the compromise which it proposes cannot preserve the peace of the Church or prevent a disruption. Schmucker has got up that 'Overture' simply because he was utterly disappointed in the effect produced by his proposed Platform; because he saw that he had raised a conflagration that was very likely to burn him up. And now, after doing all he could to disrupt the Church, after getting up a platform, the adoption of which would have expelled all of us confessional Lutherans from the Lutheran Church; after laboring with all his might to fasten the charge of serious errors upon our venerable Confession, he very coolly comes forward and asks us to sign a compromise, in which, forsooth, we are to declare the points of difference between us to be non-essential…. No, indeed. Those points are not non-essential: the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments is so completely interwoven with our whole view of the scheme of redemption and salvation, that concerning the Eucharist grows so directly and necessarily out of the great doctrine of Christ's Person, that for me to give up those doctrinal points alleged to be non-essential is to give up all, to give up the whole Gospel. And what good would come of patching up such a hollow peace? At the first favorable opportunity Schmucker would break it, and even if he seemed to keep quiet, he would be secretly and incessantly working and machinating against our side of the house. And, what is more, the editor of the Observer refuses to sign the 'Overture'; he will keep his hands unfettered, to knock us on the head right and left, as soon and as often as he pleases." Schmidt added: "Not a soul here in New York is willing to touch the 'Overture.'" (Spaeth, 1, 363.) But no determined action followed on the part of Schmidt and the conservatives in New York who agreed with him.

62. Krauth, Jr., and Schmucker.—The fact that the conservatives failed to take a decided stand against Schmucker and his Platform theology was due, apart from their general policy of silent waiting, chiefly to Charles Porterfield Krauth, who was in complete agreement with the unionistic "Overture," and whose influence soon became paramount in the General Synod. Krauth counseled mutual toleration. On January 1, 1856, he had written to his father: "I have written down a few thoughts on the 'Platform,' but I do not know that I will ever prepare anything for the press on that subject. My thoughts all have an irenical direction." (376.) In the following year Krauth prepared a series of articles for the Missionary (published by W. A. Passavant in Pittsburgh), in which he pleaded the cause of the General Synod, and defended and justified its doctrinal basis, requiring subscription only to the "fundamentals" of the Augustana as "substantially correct." Krauth insisted that, while the Augustana must remain unmutilated and unchanged, liberty should be granted to such as, e. g., deny the real presence in the Lord's Supper. The Lutheran and the other churches of the Reformation, he argued, agree as to the divine institution and perpetual obligation of the Eucharist, the administration in both kinds, the necessity of a living faith for enjoying its blessings, and the rejection of transubstantiation and the mass. And securing these points of the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, Krauth continued: "Let the General Synod allow perfect freedom, as she has hitherto done, to reject or receive the rest of the article." (Jacobs, 431.) Spaeth remarks with respect to the articles published by Krauth in defense of the General Synod: "In looking over the articles, we do not wonder that the leader in the Platform movement was willing to have, and actually proposed and drew up, a compromise on the basis laid down there. For while the articles kept the Confession intact in form, they abandoned it in fact. They absolutely coordinated truth and error on the disputed points and said: 'Tolerate us in holding the truth[?], and we will tolerate you in holding the error.'" "There was evidently," Dr. Spaeth continues, "in those days a singular approach between the leader of American Lutheranism and Charles Porterfield Krauth, which even inspired the New School men with a hope of ultimately 'seeing Charles right,' for whom they personally had nothing but the kindest feelings. 'I think,' wrote his father after the Reading Convention of the General Synod, 'you have become pretty much of a favorite with Dr. S. S. Schmucker. He does not think you so hard a Lutheran, and your zeal for the General Synod was quite to his taste. I hope you will continue, as you have heretofore done, to treat him with respect.'" (1, 409.) What Dr. Krauth objected to was not so much the theology of the Platform as, on the one hand, the intolerance which it demanded, and, on the other hand, the mutilation of the venerable Augustana, the Magna Charta of Lutheranism. Also in the controversy between J. A. Brown and Schmucker, in which the latter's teaching on natural depravity, regeneration, and justification was declared unsound, Krauth, Jr., defended his former teacher with the result that the impeachment proceedings, contemplated at Gettysburg against Schmucker, were arrested. (411.) Thus, as far as the leading theologians were concerned, the commotion caused by the Platform ended in an agreement to disagree.