The Lutherans of New York, Their Story and Their Problems

by George Unangst Wenner

THEIR PROBLEMS

The Problem of Synods

A synod is an assembly of delegates organized for the purpose of administering the affairs of the churches they represent.

Fourteen synods are represented in Greater New York. Some are based on differences of doctrine. A volume published in 1893, entitled "Distinctive Doctrines and Usages" (See Bibliography), treats of these differences. Others are due to differences of language and race.

In some countries a hyperchurchly trend of the national or state church is responsible for dissenting movements which, left to themselves, finally take the form of separatistic churches. Although these movements temporarily persist in America there is no permanent need for them in our atmosphere of freedom. Our church has room for many men of many minds so long as the essentials of belief are held and respected.

Finns are represented in three synods, Scandinavians in four. These nations therefore account for one-half of our fourteen synods. The history of the Missouri Synod is one of struggle, sacrifice and remarkable growth. For seventy-five years other Lutherans have sought fellowship with them, but they decline to hold fellowship with churches that are not in full accord with their doctrinal position.

Each of these divisions has some historical reason for its existence which cannot be ignored or lightly pushed aside. For various reasons each synod emphasizes some phase of church life which in its opinion warrants a separate organization. Perhaps some of the progress of the last half century may be credited to a wholesome rivalry between these various schools of Lutheranism.

On the other hand these synodical divisions among churches holding the same substance of doctrine, even when they do not provoke downright hostility, are an effective bar to the fraternal alliance so greatly needed in our polyglot communion. Our neighbors, too, of other Denominations, when they try to understand our meticulous divisions, are not unnaturally disposed to look upon us as a conglomerate of sectarian religionists rather than as a Church or even as a distinct Denomination. In lists of denominational activities our churches figure as G. C. Lutherans, G. S. Lutherans, Missouri Lutherans, etc., while all of us are frequently called upon to explain whether we belong to the Evangelical branch of the Lutherans or not.

Absorbed as we are in the local interests of our individual congregations and in the questions that divide us among ourselves, we seldom have an opportunity to give expression to outstanding principles of our church in such a way as to impress the public mind with a sense of their importance.

The question therefore continually recurs, why should these divisions be perpetuated among brethren who are agreed on the essentials of Lutheran teaching even though they may not have completely assimilated each other's minute definitions of theological dogmas. Laymen, more interested in practical results, find it hard to understand why there should be so many different kinds of Lutherans. Even ministers, accustomed as they are to sharp distinctions, sometimes deplore these divisions and wonder when they can be healed. They long for the time when the adherents of the Augsburg Confession may unite in one great body, "beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners."

Alluring as such a prospect may seem, it is not of highest importance in a communion which from the beginning emphasized the right of private judgment and acquired for the world the right to think for itself in matters of conscience and religion. The Church of the Reformation derives its strength from unity rather than from union. Theoretically at least, it is a communion, a fellowship of believers. Its earliest designation was not "The Lutheran Church," but "Churches of the Augsburg Confession."

It is consonant therefore with our historic principles to respect the gifts and calling of the existing divisions in our churches without insisting upon an artificial union which could contribute little to the true unity of the church. There are "many members, yet but one body…. There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." In our mutual relations therefore it behooves us to recognize the rights of the individual.

This, however, need not prevent our working and praying for union. If it be possible, as much as lieth in us (unless this involves synergistic heresy), let us cultivate tolerance and live peaceably with all men, especially with all Lutherans.

We have in this city a great field in which there is work for us all. In friendly co-operation, rather than in hostile competition, we may escape some of the perils of our past history and perform with credit the tasks with which at present we seem to be struggling in vain.

The Metropolitan District includes the urban communities within ten miles of the boundary line of Greater New York. This territory of a hundred and fifty square miles now holds a population of over seven millions of people. Our churches in Greater New York minister to a baptized membership of 141,642 souls. If we include in our estimates of parochial responsibility, not merely enrolled members, but the entire Lutheran population of the District, Russians, Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians, Hungarians, Letts, Esthonians, Lithuanians, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and Danes, to say nothing of the multitudes of American birth from the Hudson and Mohawk valleys, from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and the West, the number of people claiming to be Lutherans amounts to more than five hundred thousand souls.

To minister as we should to such a constituency, we need co-operation in place of competition. The work of cultivating effectively such a field can never be done by churches so hopelessly divided as ours.

Other churches, Protestant and Catholic, with a centralized ecclesiastical organization, are able to work together as one body and make plans for their work covering the entire Metropolitan District. We, with our strong individualism, cannot vie with them. In our polity we are extreme congregationalists and must pay for our freedom.

But there is much that our churches have in common. Our flocks are not alienated from each other as much as are the shepherds. The formation of local groups throughout the greater city, co-operating in common causes, or at least refraining from a polemical policy, would pave the way for a better understanding of our mutual needs and opportunities for service.

Three things, at least, might be done without compromising the faith or violating the spirit of our church life:

1. We might meet for the purpose of forming each other's acquaintance and for the discussion of practical questions. Perhaps none of us is quite so heretical as the synodical divergence would lead a layman to suppose.

2. We might meet for the discussion of vital questions of religion and morals. It is one thing to read about these things in books. It is quite another thing to listen to a spoken presentation warm with the sympathy of a living experience.

3. We might recognize each other's spheres of influence and federate our forces in meeting the needs of our vast community.

In the meantime we are slowly learning that the aspirations and convictions that unite us are greater than the things that separate us. The clearer comprehension of the principles we hold and of the work we have to do, and the sense of our responsibility as one of the larger communions of the metropolis, compel us more and more to emphasize not the unessential details of our theological system but rather the larger truths and principles for which we stand and which we hold in common.

A hundred years ago, on the tercentenary of the Reformation, after a period of political humiliation and economic distress in the Fatherland, the Ninety-five Theses of Claus Harms sounded a call for a Lutheran awakening throughout the world. The result of that revival is felt in the churches to this day.

The quadricentenary of the Reformation was celebrated amid the convulsions of a World War. Is it too much to hope that after this war also the ground may be prepared for a spiritual sowing and reaping when the unnecessary dissensions of sectarian controversy will give place to fraternal co-operation in the service of a common Lord and in the promotion of a common faith?* *Since the foregoing paragraphs were written an unexpected change in the outlook has taken place. Steps were taken a year ago toward bringing together three of the general bodies of the Church in America. Should this hope be realized, it will bring into closer union a majority of the churches of Greater New York. On May 7th, 1918, at a meeting of nearly one hundred Lutheran pastors, members of nearly all of the synods represented on this territory, there was organized a "Conference of the Lutheran pastors of the Metropolitan District for the discussion of all questions of doctrine and practice to the end of effecting unity." This, too, is a harbinger of an approaching era of reconstruction and peace.

The Problem of Language

It was a Lutheran demand in the sixteenth century to preach the Gospel in the vernacular. It would be un-Lutheran in the twentieth century to conduct public worship in a language which the people do not understand.

This lesson is written so plainly in the history of our churches in America that "he may run that readeth." The Swedish churches on the Delaware, planted by Gustavus Adolphus for the very purpose of propagating the faith in America, were all of them lost to the Lutheran church because the persistent use of the Swedish language, and the inability of the pastors to preach in English, proved an insuperable obstacle to the bringing up of the children in the Lutheran communion. When the New York Ministerium at its meeting in Rhinebeck, September 1st, 1797, resolved that it would "never acknowledge a newly-erected Lutheran Church merely English in places where the members may partake of the services of the Episcopal Church, it halted for a century the growth of the Lutheran Church in New York. [Tr. note: no close quotation marks in original.]

The same experience greets us in London. There the Lutheran Church was established in 1669, only five years later than in New York. For more than two centuries it had the recognition of royalty. As late as the Victorian era Prince Albert, the Queen and the royal family, in their personal relations, were connected with the Lutheran Church. To this day Queen Alexandra is a communicant in the Lutheran church. There exist therefore no social barriers to its growth. Yet not a single English Lutheran church is to be found in London.

With one exception the dozen Lutheran churches of other tongues recognize no responsibility to propagate the faith of the Augsburg Confession in the language of the city in which they live. The exception is that of the German "Missouri" congregation. Here English as well as German is used in the services. Here alone it would seem that "religion is the chief concern."

The language problem confronted us early in our local history. In the first hundred years three languages, Dutch, German and English, contended for the mastery. In their pastoral work some ministers used all three.

Dutch was the first to surrender. The children of Dutch families adopted the language of their English conquerors, and when immigration from Holland ceased, the use of Dutch in worship became obsolete. The last use of Dutch at a Lutheran service was at the communion on the First Sunday in Advent in 1771. It had maintained itself for 114 years.

After the use of Dutch in worship had ceased, German and English came into collision. It was a fight to a finish. When it was over there was little left for which to contend. When Pastor Kunze died, in 1807, the congregation had declined almost to the point of extinction. Many of the English-speaking families had left us and we thus lost some of our leading members, people whose ancestors had for five generations belonged to our communion. The Germans remained, but during the lull in the tide of immigration the use of German declined to such an extent as to imperil the existence even of the German congregation. When Kunze's successor arrived he had difficulty in finding members of the church who could speak German. Even in the German congregation English had become the language of every-day life.

German thrives in German soil. Elsewhere it is an exotic not easily cultivated. From their earliest history Germans have had the Wanderlust and have sought for new homes as it pleased them. But wherever they go they amalgamate with their surroundings.

The Franks settled in Gaul, but, excepting its German name, the language retains but few indications of the German ancestry of a large part of the French people.

The Goths settled in Spain. Physical traits, blue eyes and blonde complexion, persist in some districts, but their descendants speak Spanish.

The Longobards crossed the Alps and settled in Italy where their children speak Italian, although Lombardy is just across the mountains, not far from the early home of their immigrant ancestors.

A notable exception to this tendency of the Germans to amalgamate with other nations was when the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain. The island had been deserted by the Romans, and the Germans refused for centuries to ally themselves with the British inhabitants. They retained their own language and customs with but a slight admixture of alien elements.* To this day after twelve centuries they prefer to call themselves Anglo-Saxons rather than British. (Nomen a potiori fit.) *"Philologically, English, considered with reference to its original form, Anglo-Saxon, and to the grammatical features which it retains of Anglo-Saxon origin, is the most conspicuous member of the Low German group of the Teutonic family, the other Low German languages being Old Saxon, Old Friesic, Old Low German, and other extinct forms, and the modern Dutch, Flemish, Friesic, and Low German (Platt Deutsch). These, with High German, constitute the 'West Germanic' branch, as Gothic and the Scandinavian tongues constitute the 'East Germanic' branch, of the Teutonic family. (Century Dictionary under the word 'English.')"

In the ninth and eleventh centuries the island was invaded by other Germanic tribes, directly by way of the North Sea or indirectly by the Channel from Normandy, and so the language was developed still further along English, that is Germanic lines. (According to the Century Dictionary the historical pronunciation of the word is eng'-glish and not ing'glish).

Low Germans, (Nether Saxons or Platt Deutsch) who have settled in New York in such large numbers, enjoy a distinct advantage over other nationalities. In the vernacular of America they discover simply another dialect of their native tongue. Hence they acquire the new dialect with little difficulty. The simpler words and expressions of the common people are almost the same as those which they used on the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic. For example: Wo is min Vader? Where is my father? He is in the Hus. He is in the house. English and German sailors from opposite shores of the North Sea, using the simpler words of their respective languages, have no trouble in making themselves understood when they meet.

The High Germans learn English more slowly, but they, too, find many points of contact, not only in the words but also in the grammatical construction of the language.

In the United States the descendants of Germans number seventeen millions. They have made no inconsiderable contributions to the sum total of American civilization. For philological reasons, as we have seen, no people are more ready than the Germans to adopt English for every-day use. None amalgamate more easily with the political and social life of the country of their choice. In normal times we do not think of them as foreigners.

English has the right of way. Its composite character makes it the language for every-day use. Thirty-five languages are spoken in this city, but the assimilative power of English absorbs them all. The Public School is the effective agent in the process. This is the melting pot for all diversities of speech. Children dislike to be looked upon as different from their companions, and so it rarely happens that the language of the parents is spoken by the second generation of immigrant families. Their elders, even when their "speech bewrayeth" them, make strenuous efforts to use the language of their neighbors.

Seeing, then, that Anglicization is inevitable, why should we not cut the Gordian knot, and conduct our ministry wholly in the English language? This would greatly simplify our tasks, besides removing from us the stigma of foreignism.

We are often advised to do so, especially by our monoglot brethren. There are those who go so far as to say that the use of any language other than the English impairs the Americanism of the user.

Some of the languages at present used in our church services may be of negligible importance. The Slovak, Magyar and Finnish for example, as well as the Lettish, Esthonian and Lithuanian of the Baltic Provinces, will never have more than a restricted use in this city. The Scandinavians and those whose vernacular is the Low German easily substitute English for their mother tongue. Scandinavian is kindred to English, while Low German is the very group of which, philologically speaking, English is the most conspicuous member. Upon these tongues it will not be necessary to do summary execution.

It is a different matter, however, when we come to High German, or, properly speaking, New High German, the language of German literature since the sixteenth century, of which Luther, through his version of the Bible, may be called the creator. He at least gave it universal currency. This is a language which we could not lose if we would, and would not if we could.

Scholars are compelled to learn it because it is the indispensable medium for scientific and philosophical study. Formerly Latin was this medium, today it is German.

Lovers of literature learn it because it is the language of Goethe and Schiller, the particular stars of a galaxy that for the modern world at least outshines the productions of the ancient classics. Lutherans enshrine it in their inmost souls because it is the receptacle of treasures of meditation and devotion with which their forms of worship have been enriched for four hundred years. To ignore Angelus Silesius, Paul Gerhardt, Albert Knapp, Philip Spitta and their glorious compeers, would be to silence a choir that sang the praises of the Lord "in notes almost divine."

We need the literature in which the ideas of our church have for centuries been expressed. Language is the medium of ideas. The thirty denominations that constitute the bulk of Protestantism in this country derive the spirit of their church life for the most part from non-Lutheran sources through the medium of English literature. This is as it should be. But when Lutherans no longer understand the language of their fathers or the literature in which the ideas of their confession have found their fullest expression, they lose an indispensable condition of intellectual and spiritual growth. They can never understand as they should the spirit of the church to which they belong. They are doomed sooner or later to share the fate of the Lutherans of New York of the eighteenth century.

When we have forgotten our German we shall be out of touch with the Lutherans who come to us from the Fatherland. For the time being the World War has put an end to German immigration, but this will not last forever. Some time certainly immigration will be resumed, and as in former periods will be an unfailing source of supply for the Lutheran churches of New York.

In the nineteenth century the "Americanized" Lutherans did not understand the Germans who came over in such overwhelming numbers, and were unprepared to shepherd them in Lutheran folds. The work had to be done by immigrant pastors who, on their part, did not understand the American life well enough to accomplish the best results. For the sake of the Lutherans who come to us from foreign lands we cannot afford to lose touch with the historical languages of their churches.

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.

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.

2. Indifference. Many foreigners who come here are merely indifferent to the claims of religion. Others are distinctly hostile toward the church. Most of the Socialistic movements of continental Europe, because of the close association of Church and State, fail to discriminate between their respective ideas. Thy condemn the former for the sins of the latter.

3. Infidelity. A materialistic philosophy has undermined the Christian conception of life and the world, and multitudes of those who were nominally connected with the church have long since repudiated the teachings of Christianity.

It is a tremendous problem that confronts us, the evangelization of four hundred thousand Lutherans. If for no other reason, because of its magnitude and because of its appeal to our denominational responsibility, it is a problem worth solving. But it is a challenge to our Christianity and it should stimulate us to an intense study of its possible solution.

Ministers can contribute much toward its solution. It is true our hands are full and more than full with the ordinary care of our flocks. But our office constantly brings us into association with this large outer fringe of our congregations at times when their hearts are responsive to anything that we may have to say. We meet them at weddings and at funerals. We baptize their children and we bury their dead. Once in a while some of them even come to church. In spite of all their wanderings and intellectual idiosyncrasies they still claim to be Christians. And whatever their own attitude toward Christianity may be, there are few who do not desire to have their children brought up in the Christian faith. We have before us an open door.

The churches can do more than they are doing now to win these lapsed Lutherans. Some people are kept out of church through no fault of their own. For example, the rented pew system, still in vogue in some congregations, is an effective means of barring out visitors. Few care to force themselves into the precincts of a private club even if it bears the name of a church.

A pecuniary method of effecting friendly relations is not without its merits. In this city of frequent removals there are many families who have lost all connection with the congregation to which they claim to belong. An opportunity to contribute to the church of their new neighborhood might be for them a secondary means of grace. They become as it were proselytes of the gate. Having taken the first step, many may again enter into full communion with the church.

A Lutheran church, however, does not forget the warning of the prophet: "They have healed the hurt of my daughter slightly." The evangelization of this great army of lapsed Lutherans is not to be accomplished by such a simple expedient as taking up a collection. What most of them need is a return to the faith. Somebody must guide them.

For this no societies or new ecclesiastical machinery will be required. The force to do this work is already enlisted in the communicant membership of our one hundred and fifty organized congregations. We have approximately 60,000 communicants. These are our under-shepherds whose business it is to aid the pastor in searching for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Shall we not have a concerted effort on the part of all the churches?

We may certainly win back again into our communion many of whom the Good Shepherd was speaking when He said: "them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd."

To accomplish such a task, however, an orderly system must be adopted.

When our Lord fed the five thousand, He first commanded them to sit down by companies. "And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties." These 400,000 souls may first of all be grouped in families. Let us say 90,000 families. These are scattered all over the greater city, most of them in close proximity to some one of our 150 churches. To each church may be given an average assignment of 600 families.

The average number of communicants in each of our churches is nearly 400. Some churches have less, others more. To an average company of 400 communicants is committed the task of evangelizing 600 families, not aliens or strangers, but members of our own household of faith, people who in many eases will heartily welcome the invitation. Some of these 400 potential evangelists will beg to be excused. Let us make a selective draft of 300 to do the work. The task required of each member of this army is to visit two families.

Whatever else may be said of such a computation it certainly does not present an insuperable task. It can be done in one year, in one month, in one week, in one day.

Without presuming to insist upon a particular method of solving this problem, is it not incumbent upon the Lutheran churches of New York to face it with the determination to accomplish an extraordinary work if need be in an extraordinary manner? "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force."

Seventy years ago a great company of Christian men met in the old Luther town of Wittenberg to consider the needs of the Fatherland. It was the year of the Revolution. It was a time of political confusion and of desperate spiritual need. It was then that Wichern, in an address of impassioned eloquence, pointed the way toward the mobilization of all Christians in a campaign of spiritual service.

He was directed to prepare the program. It appeared in 1849 under the title "Die Innere Mission."

It was a clarion call to personal service and it met with an immediate and remarkable response. The movement marked an epoch in the history of the church.

Because the Inner Mission lends itself in a peculiar way to works of charity it is often regarded as synonymous with the care of the helpless and afflicted. In this use of the term we lose sight of the larger meaning and scope of the work which has made it one of the great religious forces of the nineteenth century. It should therefore be more accurately described as that movement of the nineteenth century which, recognizing the alienation of multitudes within the church from the Christian faith and life appeals [sic] to all disciples of Christ by all means to carry the Gospel to men of all classes who have strayed away and to gather them into the communion and confession of the church. It is a mission within the church and hence bears the name of Inner Mission.

Such a call comes to us at a time when we are confronted with a problem which almost staggers the imagination and when we are offered an opportunity such as no other Protestant church enjoys.

The Problem of Statistics

The word statistics, according to the Century Dictionary, refers not merely to a collection of numbers, but it comprehends also "all those topics of inquiry which interest the statesman." The dignity thus given to the subject is enhanced by a secondary definition which calls it "the science of human society, so far as deduced from enumerations."

No branch of human activity can be studied in our day without the use of statistics. Statesmen and sociologists make a careful study of figures before they attempt to formulate laws or policies.

For church statistics we are chiefly dependent upon the tables of the Synodical Minutes. The original source of our information is the pastor's report of his particular congregation. Unfortunately the value of these tables is greatly impaired by the absence of a common standard of membership.

The New York Ministerium has no column for "communicant" members. There is a column for "contributing" members, but these do not necessarily mean communicants. Among the records of Ministerial Acts, such as marriages and funerals, there is also a column for "Kommuniziert." But even if the Holy Communion were to be classed among Ministerial Acts, it sometimes happens that others besides members partake of the communion. The term "Kommuniziert" therefore does not convey definite information on the subject of communicant membership. For example, a congregation with 160 "contributing members" reports 770 "Kommuniziert." It is hardly conceivable that out of 770 communicant members only 160 are contributing members and that 610 communicants are non-contributors. Otherwise there would seem to be room for improvement in another direction besides statistics.

The New York Ministerium also has no column for "souls," that is, for all baptized persons, including children, connected with the congregation. There are also many blanks, and many figures that look like "round numbers." For thirty years I have tried in vain to comprehend its statistics. Hinc illae lacrymae.

The Missouri Synod has three membership rubrics: souls, communicant members, voting members. When however, a congregation of 900 communicants reports only 80 voting members, one wonders whether some of the 820 non-voters ought not be admitted to the right of suffrage. The congregational system favors democracy. It should be remembered also that the laws of the State define the right to vote at a church election.

The Synod of New York has three membership rubrics: Communicants, Confirmed, Baptized. The first includes all members who actually commune within a year. The second adds to the communicants all others who are entitled to commune even if they neglect the privilege. The third adds to the preceding class baptized children and all other baptized persons in any way related to the congregation, provided they have not been formally excommunicated.

The Swedish Augustana Synod has three rubrics: Communicants, Children, Total. "Communicants" may or may not be enrolled members of the congregation. This classification therefore is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive and may account in part, for the discrepancy between the number of Lutheran Swedes in New York and the number enrolled in the Swedish Lutheran Churches.

None of the synodical reports take note of "families." Pastors seldom speak of their membership in terms of families. In the book of Jeremiah (31, 1) we are told: "At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people." The captions of the five parts of Luther's Small Catechism proceed upon the assumption of the family as a unit. It is true we are living in an age of disrupted families, but it would seem that some recognition of the family should be made in the statistical tables of the Christian Church, especially when in the families with which we have to do, most of the individuals are baptized members of the church and have not been formally excommunicated. Until, therefore, we agree upon a common standard, our figures will be the despair of the statisticians. A reformation must come. Without it, we shall not be able to formulate needed policies of church extension.

In view of the complicated character of our membership it will not be an easy task to reconstruct our statistical methods. But it is evident that our missionary and evangelistic work will be greatly furthered when we have exact information in regard to our parochial material. Our figures should include every soul, man, woman and child, in any way related to our congregations, classified in such a way as to show clearly in what relation they stand to the church. A church that does not count its members as carefully as a bank counts its dollars is in danger of bankruptcy.

Church bookkeeping ought to be taught in the Theological Seminary. But if the pastor himself is not a good bookkeeper, almost every congregation has young men or young women who are experts in this art, who could render good service to the church by keeping its membership rolls.

Complete records are especially necessary in our great city with its constant removals and changes of population. The individual is like the proverbial needle in the haystack, unless we adopt a method of accounting not only for each family but for each individual down to the latest-born child.* *In order that I may not be as one that beateth the air, I venture to suggest a method of laying the foundation of records that has been helpful in my own work. I send to each family a "Family Register" blank with spaces for the name, birthday and place of birth of each member of the family. The information thus obtained is transferred to a card catalogue in which the additional relation of each individual to the church and its work is noted. In this way, or by means of a loose-leaf record book, available and up-to-date information can easily be kept.

When important records, such as synodical minutes, are printed, several copies at least should be printed on durable paper and deposited in public libraries where they may be consulted by the historian. Ordinary paper is perishable. Within a few years it will crumble to dust. The records might as well be written on sand so far as their value for future historians is concerned.

Congregational histories, pamphlets or bound volumes, jubilee volumes and similar contributions to local church history should be sent to the publlic libraries of the city and of the denominational schools.

In search of recent information the author consulted the card index of the New York Public Library. He found only nine cards relating to Lutheran churches. And yet we wonder why our church is not better known in this city.