The Lutheran Witness on Pope (St.) Piux X

Under the leadership of Martin Sommer and Theodore Graebner, the Lutheran Witness developed a strongly anti-Roman Catholic feel. Most of the articles discussing Roman Catholicism were frankly polemical and sometimes bigoted, but they could be amusing on occasion as well. The opening several lines of this article are a good example. The rest of the article I found interesting in light of the great respect shown to Pius X by Roman Catholics, culminating in his canonization. He even has a group of Lefebvrists named after him .

"A few days ago the Roman Catholic Church found itself without a head; the Pope had died. Romanists continually tell us Protestants that the Pope is an absolute necessity for the Church, yet at this writing they are still without a head, but seem to be getting along fairly well in this decapitated condition. The Pope who has just died, known as Pius X, did not cut much of a figure. He was personally a kind of uninfluential old man, who, when he was elected to what the Roman Catholics claim is the highest place in Christendom, declared that he would much rather have remained quietly in his diocese of Venice. It is generally conceded that he had little ability. It is certainly remarkable that in the eleven years of his pontificate he accomplished so little, and yet managed to work so much havoc. In spite of the fawning adulation which he received from subordinates, there was heaped upon him much contempt and opposition from many quarters. Upon his entering the Vatican, the press generally lauded his attempts at reforming that worst of all European courts, the Vatican household, a court that is supposed to be spiritual, but imitates the vices of the vilest courts, and generally proceeds to a vulgarity which they know how to avoid. If he was in earnest about this reformation of the papal household, he seems not to have applied any more severe methods than did Eli in the case of his sons, nor had he any better success.

"By his Ne Temere decree he again attracted the attention of all who will see to the tyranny and presumptuousness of Rome. By his encyclical on the reformation he aspersed the character and the work of a man whose very shoe's latchet he was unworthy to unloose. Think of an old man who waddles about his palace, spending his time in putting on gorgeous robes, and in lifting up hands to mumble stereotype benedictions, uttering a few weak denunciations against such a spiritual and mental giant, such a mighty man of God as Martin Luther!

"With all the idle priests, monks, and officials at his command it is surprising to see what a failure he made of his negotiations with the French government; it is pitiable to note that with all the wealth, influence, and men at his disposal he failed to conciliate Spain and Portugal, two of the most Catholic countries of the globe. As far as we know, he had not the courage even to take up the tangle in which his predecessor had left the affairs of the curia with the Italian government. . . .

"The Catholics themselves seem to feel that the dead Pope will have a hard time at the judgment-seat of Christ, for we read in one of our Catholic exchanges; 'Now that he is gone before the final judgment-seat to give an account of the great stewardship committed to him, all his children of every clime and nation and tongue will join in prayer that God may be merciful to him.'

"It is too late to pray for poor Pius X, but we pray that God may be merciful and grant light to those whom the Pope left in darkness."

Quoted from The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 33, No. 19 (September 8, 1914), p. 146.

The Missouri Synod Not Liturgical?

In the mid-1800s, the Missouri and Buffalo Synods were considered offensively liturgical by their Eastern Lutheran counterparts, with accusations of "Romanism" regularly thrown their way, but as the General Synod began to recover more aspects of the traditional Mass (ultimately resulting in the publication of the Common Service), those perceptions began to change, as can be seen from the following quote:

"Many of our good people have the erroneous idea that liturgik and symbolik are necessarily concomitant [this perception still lingers today]. Facts disprove that assumption [as, again, they still do today]. Not a few of our General Synod men who are not suspected of strong confessional leanings are still ardent supporters of the liturgy, and the Missourians, who are distinguished for their symbolism, have little or no liturgy as we understand the word. Their altar service is more simple than that of most of our own unliturgical churches."

Nevertheless, the Missouri Synod still persisted in retaining certain liturgical aspects which were uncommon in the General Synod. These include the use of crucifixes, candles, statues, and the black clerical gown.

"The use of the clerical gown has not become general [in the General Synod], and the most of those [General Synod] churches in which it is worn by the minister, introduced it with their origin. There are very few indeed which have adopted it as a new element, after they had been in existence for some years without it. It is an innovation which few would sanction, and it has never been considered of sufficient importance to awaken much interest in the church."

Both of the above quotes are from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore, 1878), 351).

Do Lutherans Teach Consubstantiation?

Despite what many people – Lutheran, Protestant, and Roman Catholic alike – believe, the Lutheran Church does not teach consubstantiation. The following quotes clearly demonstrate that the Lutheran Church in fact rejects and condemns consubstantiation.

Note: I will continue to add to these quotes as I come upon further references to consubstantiation from Lutheran sources. I may also end up putting together a second article of quotes from major non-Lutheran sources which incorrectly ascribe consubstantiation to the Lutheran Church.

Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Ev. Luth. Church (1876, 1899)

"Other erroneous conceptions are guarded against by [Abraham] Cal[ov(ius)] (IX, 307), as follows: 'We maintain that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Supper, not . . . by substantial transmutation, as the Papists hold; nor by . . . consubstantiation, which the Calvinists calumniously charge upon us. . ." (p. 579).

(Quoting from Matthew Hafenreffer, Compendium Locorum Theologicorum (1610), 517): "The sacramental union is not . . . a consubstantiation or commixture of the substances, but in both the bread and wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed" (p. 587).

"The late Dr. Krauth has given the following tabular statement, which will show how the Lutheran doctrine has often been mistaken for consubstantiation. . . . Consubstantiation, impanation, as held by John of Paris and Rupert; falsely charged on the Lutheran Church" (Third Ed. (1899), p. 571).

John G. Morris, Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (1896)
"CONSUBSTANTIATION. We have for many years been surprised, and somewhat vexed also, because very respectable and intelligent writers continue to charge us, as a church, with holding the doctrine of consubstantiation. We have repudiated it over and over again, and have quoted the absolute denial from many of our old theologians, but it all seems to be of no service. The imputation is repeated again and again, notwithstanding our proofs to the contrary. Even such a learned and respectable writer as Dr. Schaff, who knows better, allows the false accusation to appear in some of his books. The learned Prof. —— repeats it, and the minor writers follow the lead of their superiors without any further investigation, blindly assuming that it is all right. (Morris, John G., Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896), 263).

Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (1914)
"We Lutherans ought to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination (sic) in the Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, there are men even today who allege this error to be ours." (Keyser, Leander S., Election and Conversion: A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis (Burlington: German Literacy Board, 1914), 8).

George Henry Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (1917)
"The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called bread and the fruit of the vine, before, during and after consecration and distribution satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still." (Gerberding, G. H., The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 123-124).

Andrew George Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics (1917)

"In the Lord's Supper there is an earthly material, bread and wine, and a celestial material, the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation identifies these; that of consubstantiation or impanation confuses and mingles them; the symbolic doctrine separates them; the Lutheran doctrine of real presence unites them. The Lutheran Church holds to a sacramental union. . . ." (Voigt, A. G., Biblical Dogmatics (Columbia: Lutheran Board of Publication, 1917), 214-215)

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (1920, 1953)

"The union of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantio)" (Pieper, Francis, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953; originally published in German in 1920), 362).

The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (1947)

"The words 'in, with, and under' are used to safeguard ourselves and our church against three false teachings that have been imputed to us, those of transubstantiation, impanation, and consubstantiation" (Zucker, F. R., "The Lord's Supper" in Laetsch, Theodore, ed., The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947) , 432).

Lutheran Cyclopedia (1954), Christian Cyclopedia (1975)
"The bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body (Roman Catholic doctrine), nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body (a teaching of which the Reformed accused the Lutherans)" (Luecker, Erwin, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 428).

"Consubstantiation: View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner."

Lutheranism 101 (2010)

"Another theory is called consubstantiation, and teaches that Jesus' body is present along with the bread. Both are there, and together they form a third substance. Many think that this is what Lutherans believe, but this is not the case. Jesus didn't say, "My body is now with this bread." He said, "This is My body." Holding strictly to the words He spoke, Lutherans believe that they receive both bread and His body, because the bread is His body. It's not two different things making a third" (Kinnaman, Scot A., ed., Lutheranism 101 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010), 151).

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (2013)
"Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation on philosophical grounds."

The Blogosphere, Etc.
After gathering the above quotes, I found several Lutheran blogs which have already covered this topic, some of them quite extensively (go on, check the last one. It has an amazing amount of information).

Abraham Lincoln and the Lutheran Church

"The Lutheran General Synod, that met in Philadelphia passed a resolution telling Lincoln that the Lutheran Church of the United States was praying for him and for the saving of the Union. My father, the Rev. Levi Sternberg, D.D., was appointed chairman of the committee to deliver in person the resolution. With him was my uncle, Alfred Hiller, and the Rev. Dr. Pohlman. After the resolution was accepted, my father introduced Dr. Pohlman who told Lincoln the following story that occurred on the floor of the synod. A German minister from Nashville, Tennessee told of praying for Lincoln. Some one asked him if he was not afraid to do so. "Oh! no," he said, "I prayed in German and the rebels don't understand German, but the Lord does." Mr. Lincoln laughed heartily. During his speech at Gettysburg he saw and recognized Dr. Pohlman and said "So the rebels don't understand German".

Typed manuscript from the Lincoln Financial Foundation's Abraham Lincoln Collection - "Abraham Lincoln and Religion: Lutheran"

Square Dancing (as opposed to other forms of the dance)

To give a bit of a preface to these remarks, I will briefly explain my own thoughts on dancing generally, namely, that most of it is intrinsically sinful. Be it the tango so strongly condemned in the early to mid 20th century or the dancing found in modern-day clubs and bars (and even wedding receptions!), the vast majority of 20th-21st century dancing is unabashedly sexualized and therefore sinful (not that sex is sinful, but extramarital sexual/sensual relations are, and for married couples, there are limits to what decency allows in public places. It is of course also possible to lust sinfully after one's own spouse, but that is a topic for another time). I do agree with the following passage regarding the square dance, however, and I think certain other forms of dance could very well be added to the list. Note that some earlier editions of this book were not as careful to distinguish between sinful and non-sinful dancing. Now, Graebner:

"All this is not identical with saying that in every dance the Christian boy, girl, man, or woman commits carnal sin. We have never endorsed the wholesale condemnation of this form of social amusement. Not to mention the square dance here, there are modern fancy dances which do not classify with the type to which the Christian should take exception. There are forms of  the ballet which are merely exhibitions of the grace of motion and of grouping. There are forms of tap dancing that are superb examples of rhythm and suggest nothing more. It would be folly to object to such entertainment in the proper place and on the right occasion. There are also forms in which couples take part promiscuously, occasionally seen in eating places, which are not of the tango type [previously strongly condemned], do not depend upon the embrace and upon other sensuous features for their attractiveness, but are properly done only when the partners remain separate. It would be absurd to place a general condemnation upon everything that is called a dance. But where do you see the kind of dancing that can be called unobjectionable? Where is anything to be seen that does not show its relation to the tango [or indeed, today, to dances which are just as bad if not worse], with the shuffles and glides that characterize the different popular steps?

"The old square dance is mentioned. This is not today, and never has been, in the mind of those who oppose dancing. The writer will say for himself that the Virginia reel and similar square "dances" were not objected to by him or his congregation at school picnics and young people's gathering. These dances are still in vogue in the Ozarks, in the Tennessee Mountains, and in other parts of the South. . . . And they have in more recent years taken a great hold upon the popular imagination, bringing, as they do, the atmosphere of the backwoods and of pioneer life into the modern ballroom. Today throughout the length and breadth of the land thousands of local groups have been organized for the cultivation of the square dance, and at the annual folk festival in St. Louis groups compete with each other, coming from every part of the United States. It would be an extreme pietism indeed that would fault young people – and also old – who find enjoyment in these old schottisches and quadrilles."

Theodore Graebner, The Borderland of Right and Wrong, 8th ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 114-115.

Christmas in Fort Wayne

"On the eve of the three great holidays of the Christian year, Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, there was a beautiful custom at St. Paul's to "ring in" these festivals. St. Paul's had three noble bells cast for the congregation. All three bells were run together, three times; and all three bells once every Saturday evening, to ring in the Sunday. . .

"The most notable and most frequented service at St. Paul's during the entire church-year was, and still is, "die Christmette" (Christmas matins) at six o'clock in the morning of the birthday of the Christ-child, the singing largely done by  the children specially trained in classes; and at the end of that unique service the teachers were remembered with Christmas presents."[1]

Old St. Paul's German Evangelical Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN
Image courtesy of the Allen County Public Library.

“In one particular matter there was at that time [1860s-1870s] a strong difference between Fort Wayne and St. Louis, I mean in the Christmette, held at 6 A. M. on Christmas morning. In Fort Wayne it was the most crowded service of the year, in which young and old most eagerly shared, in which “Vom Himmel hoch, da komm’ ich her,” “Lobt Gott, ihr Christen allzugleich,” and “Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ,” were sung with a rapture beyond words, in which the manger of Bethlehem was extolled especially by children’s concerted voices, in which the entire church was festooned with fragrant garlands of evergreen, and lighted up with every contrivance of festal illumination. In St. Louis, in those days, small and often shivering assemblies were generally content to listen to some one of us students.”[2]

N.b. The background image on this blog is a picture of Christmas at the present St. Paul's church, taken in 1907.

---

[1] Ernest G. Sihler, From Maumee to Thames and Tiber (New York: New York University Press, 1930), 23f.

[2] E. G. Sihler, “College and Seminary Life in the Olden Days,” in Ebenezer: Reviews of the Work of the Missouri Synod during Three Quarters of a Century, ed. W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1922), 260.

"True Lutheranism Never Dies"

"THE VITALITY OF LUTHERANISM

"Lutheranism is a hardy plant. It thrives in all climates and under all circumstances and is hard to exterminate. It is of God-planting and cannot be plucked up. We give the following as one of many instances. About forty years ago the Rev. S., a most pious and excellent young Lutheran minister, was called to the pastorate of the Lutheran church at M. He was full of life and fire. His preaching took effect upon the hearts of the people. An extensive revival followed. Many souls were awakened, and there was a very great excitement. Poor Bro. S. was himself made of very excitable material, and contrary to the convictions of his better judgment, he was also carried away in the maelstrom of physical excitement. His members became fanatical, and, under the pressure of excitement, ran every thing into the ground. Some few of the older, and more grave and intelligent members of the church, resisted this new style of Lutheranism, and contended for the good old ways of their fathers. The church split, the great body of the members going with the new party, leaving the few firm old Lutherans in a hopeless minority. The new party, as they supposed, with the wealth, the members, and all the piety on their side, would no doubt carry away the palm. They built a new church; they were not going to remain in the old rat hole—no not they! . . . But alas! [everything] went down, down, down until their congregation was scattered to the four winds! The last we heard of those reformed Lutherans, was that they had become Millerites [a sect which believed the Second Coming of Christ would be in 1843], and were among those who had their ascension robes ready to go up to glory! The church is long since among the things that were. Like Moses, it is dead, and buried, but no man knoweth unto this day where it is buried. Mr. S. has long since seen the errors of his youthful zeal without knowledge, and has been and is still laboring faithfully, and with acceptance and success, in the old Lutheran vineyard that hath not been destroyed by the wild boar of the forest.

"And now for the old rat hole. Few cases have occurred where Lutheranism had a better opportunity to give the world an exhibition of its vitality. Here it was an old dilapidated building, surrounded by a fanatical atmosphere, with nearly all its young material driven off—only a few old people left—the prospects were indeed dark and gloomy. But their motto was:

'Gottes Wort, und Luther's Lehr,

Vergehen nun und nimmerniehr.'

"They raised the old Lutheran standard, and the friends of Bible religion clustered around it. It is now a large flourishing and efficient congregation. What hath not God wrought?

"True Lutheranism never dies; it is immortal. Two hundred years ago it was planted on the frozen shores of Iceland, and it is still there in a flourishing condition. It was planted nearly a century ago on the burning plains of India, and is still there, bearing like the palm tree, its precious fruit. Where it once gets a foot hold it remains.—R. W.."

Quoted from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore: 1878),pages 558-560.

Lutherans Make Lousy Revivalists

Based on the following anecdotes, it would seem that some 19th century Lutherans were just as poor at mimicking the revivalistic methods of their Methodist neighbors as many 21st century Lutherans are at mimicking the "Evangelical style" of today's big non-denominational churches. Instead, the result is a muddled mess that is neither Lutheran, nor Methodist, nor Evangelical, nor anything else.

"One of our ultra revival men, after having preached some time in his new charge, said to the people, 'You sit here like stupid blocks and say nothing. I know not whether I preach good sermons or indifferent ones. Where I came from I could always tell this, for whenever I said anything that pleased the people, or that was particularly good, a number of persons would say, "Amen." This would encourage me, and I could preach better. But here I never get any such encouragement.' He then began his sermon, and was soon in full swing. He waxed louder and louder, and eloquence was at its height, when he vociferated, 'We are all cold and dead. We all, minister and people, need a revival. Your sons and your daughters are on the road to hell.' 'Amen,' shouted out one of the audience. The preacher suddenly stopped, gave him one look, and then scolded the poor fellow more severely for saying 'Amen,' than he had some time before for not saying it. The old fellow muttered, as he came out [of the] church, 'He may say amen himself next time.'—D. H. B."

Quoted from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore: 1878), pages 555-556.

"An old-fashioned minister found his young people attending a Methodist revival, and some leaving him. Upon this, he made an appointment in the following language: 'To-morrow evening we will hold a revival in this house.' The evening came, and the house was crowded. A young man preached the sermon. At the end of the sermon, the old pastor arose and said, Now let all the young gentlemen, who wish to be prayed for, come forward and kneel around the altar.' Some dozens of young men obeyed the invitation, and the old man kneeled down and prayed, not forgetting 'God's ancient people, the Jews,' in the course of his supplications. He then arose and said, 'The young gentlemen will now go to their seats, and the young ladies will surround the altar.' Some scores of young ladies obeyed the summons, and the good old man went through the same long, tedious prayer, not forgetting the 'ancient people.' He then arose, remanded the young ladies to their seats, and appointed a revival for next evening, and dismissed the congregation. The next evening came, but all the young men and young ladies were at the Methodist church, and remained there.—D. H. B."

Ibid., pages 556-557

This second story is illustrative, to my mind, of the problem facing many Lutheran congregations today which try to ape the worship styles of large, non-sacramental churches – the Lutherans are simply not as good at those styles of worship as their non-Lutheran neighbors. The end result? They lose the very people they were trying to gain. Not only that, but they lose the rest as well. Note that at the beginning of this account, only some of the young people were leaving; by the end, all the young people had left. This is to be expected. If the Lutherans are merely offering a poor copy of what another church is doing, why bother? There is nothing distinctly Lutheran about it, and the services are poorly done to boot. The application today can surely not be lost on anyone who is a member of the LCMS or WELS, or indeed any traditional Christian denomination, and who has experienced varied attempts at "contemporary worship."

The Liturgical Society of Saint James

"But who is this clothed in a white linen garment, — the alb, if we mistake not, — preceded by a crucifer vested in amice and lab and followed by a thurifer, with a cloud of incense hovering over the group as they chant a tune in Gregorian plain-song?

"And who are those vested clerics at the altar who hold the book for another person in ecclesiastical gown while he chants the Gospel for the day? Who are these young men in tight-sleeved vestments who move a book from one sided of the altar to the other, who swing a censer against the clergyman, against his assistants, and finally against the congregation, while incense curls to the rafters above?

A beautiful Easter, 2013, at Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN

"What you are viewing is an illustration of the law of action and reaction. Again, what you are viewing is an illustration of the Lutheran principle that church ceremonies are to be classified as adiaphora. We are not accustomed to have more than one minister officiate at the consecration of the elements in the Eucharist. We are not accustomed to have the book of forms, or liturgy, moved from one part of the altar to another during the liturgical service. Making the sign of the cross has long been limited to the ritual of Baptism and Communion and is then only performed on another and not upon oneself. Similarly, kneeling and bowing has been limited to Holy Communion, while in the celebrating of full eucharistic services these genuflections are quite numerous.

"We see in this exuberance of ritual, now advocated in some quarters, a perfectly natural reaction to the bare, jejune, and unliturgical service found in so many of our churches. Instead of practically no liturgy at all we are asked to recover every element that has passed out of use, whether for good reasons or not, in the Lutheran Church.

"The Liturgical Society of St. James, while assuming no responsibility for the liturgical views or practises [sic] of individual members, does announce the purpose of fostering a revival of liturgy in our Church. Among its objects are the following: 'to preserve and to restore the traditional liturgy, rites, and ceremonials; to devote ourselves to the study and use of the Gregorian plain-chant; to restore to our Lutheran Church the consciousness of her unbroken tradition and her ecumenical and catholic tradition and ministry; to get one parish in every large Lutheran city in which the liturgical life may be fostered; to foster Christian day-schools in which the liturgy may be learned as well as the Gregorian chant and the children accustom themselves to certain devotional hours.'

"Now, if we weigh the merits of either tendency, that towards making the service bare of traditional liturgical elements and that of embellishing it with a colorful ritual, the latter is certainly more in harmony with original Lutheran tradition. The Church of the Reformation, however, did not attach much importance to the 'laudable practises' [sic] which were carried on into the Lutheran Church as a historical endowment. The Reformers treated them lightly. The elevation of ritual to a level equal to that which the sermon has in worship runs counter to Lutheran traditions. The liturgical part of the service, even the Eucharist, must remain subordinate to the sermon. And there are things liturgy cannot do. Liturgy will not rouse a dormant conscience; will not create a consciousness of sin which makes the heart eager for the consolation of the Gospel; will not instruct and in the best sense of the word edify, that is, build up the inner man with ever new additions of spiritual knowledge. Liturgics does not make plain the Word, does not lead into a better knowledge of Christian doctrine. Those who join in the liturgy — and I say, let it be ample, ornate, beautiful — have tasted the heavenly food, have been transformed by it, and praise God for His mercies. But the ministry of the Word alone will keep them sound in spirit and loyal to the truth, so that also their worshiping will be done 'in spirit and in truth.' In the Reformed churches, as already noted, the trend towards liturgy has not been altogether wholesome. In it not an aid to spiritual edification, but a substitute for it, the appeal of esthetics [sic] replacing the lost appeal of the Gospel, has been found. There is more and more of the form of worship and less and less of the contrite spirit eager for light and strength. The Lutheran Church should heed the lesson of this development. Ours in indeed a liturgical Church. Let our services be restored to uniformity, with none of the traditional elements of the Common Service omitted. Let those who desire that sort of thing indulge their liking for vestments, candles, and incense. But let nothing be done or implied that will mean a departure of the congregation from the Lutheran conception of the Sacrament and of the ministerial office."

The above quote is the conclusion to Theodore Graebner's essay, "Our Liturgical Chaos", which can be found in his book, The Problem of Lutheran Union and Other Essays (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1935), p. 164-166.

Crosses, Images, and Candles in Lutheran Churches

The following article was taken from the Lutheran Standard, an Ohio Synod newspaper begun in 1842. The first two paragraphs, in turn, were copied from the Lutheran Observer, a newspaper of the General Synod. It was written by a Lutheran who travelled through Detroit sometime during July of 1848.

"'The [St. Matthew's] Lutheran Church [in Detroit] is not as large as some others, yet it is distracted. The present preacher [the Rev. Johann Friedrich Winkler, of the "Old Lutheran" Buffalo Synod] went there and preached for the Lutherans, and they hired him. They prospered well. A good looking building was erected; but as soon as the edifice was completed, with the constitution and articles made according to his desire, and all things arranged for his purpose, he introduced in the church the use of the—cross, burning candles, and images. The members were not ready for such a debasing step. They were not prepared to return to the bosom of that church from which their immoral leader had long since taken them. They were unwilling to yield to his Catholic measures. To terrify them, he threatened them. Then assuming a dogmatic attitude, he tries to compel them. They revolted, and now they are in a most unfortunate situation. They would be Lutherans, but they cannot comply with such unholy requisitions. The German Methodists have established a missionary station there.—Those pious ones see the peace and harmony that reign among them, and many of them will undoubtedly ere long go to the embrace of another church, unless something is done for them.

The altar at Historic Trinity Lutheran Church, Detroit, MI.
One can only imagine the horror the author of this article would have expressed at this arrangement.

"'This, unfortunately for them, is also the condition of the Lutheran churches at Ann Arbor and Monroe. All have their crosses, candles, and images; and the good people of those places consider them as no better than the poor devotees of the Beast. If now at this critical situation of our church at Detroit, &c., some one with a devoted and lovely missionary spirit would go there, and contend like his Master for right over wrong, truth over error, I have no doubt but he, in time, and perhaps in a short time, would be able to win the hearts of these Lutherans, establish and build up a good evangelical society which God would bless, and which would be an ornament to our church in the "City of the Straits."' [This being a pretty way of making sheep-stealing between Lutherans look good.]

"We hope the account given in the above extract, will prove to be unfounded, and gladly will we publish the correction. If true, however, it is another humiliating evidence of the weakness of man, and his proneness to fly off to extremes. If, on the one hand, we have no sympathy with those who profess to 'get religion,' by kneeling at a 'mourner's bench,' on the other hand we are equally disgusted with the Popish superstition exhibited by bowing to crosses and images, and burning candles on the altar in the day time. The Lutheran Church in this country has always been noted for the majestic simplicity of her worship, and we hope it will never be laid aside, either for modern 'new measures' on the one hand, or for mummeries that date back to the dark ages on the other."
Quoted from The Lutheran Standard, vol. 6, no. 15 (September 13, 1848), p. 2, col. 5.

John H. Tietjen

President John H. Tietjen

For those who know anything about the history of the Seminex episode in LCMS history, the following excerpts may be of some interest:

"Concordia, St. Louis... has a new president. John H. Tietjen is the sixth president of the 130 year-old school founded by C.F.W. Walther in 1839. (During the same period there have been seven presidents of the Synod, including two who also headed Concordia Seminary, and nine popes of Rome - the latter office revealing thereby its relative instability.) Since Pastor Tietjen could serve 24 years before reaching mandatory retirement age, his presidency is probably no passing phenomenon and deserves comment at its start....

"Tietjen is well liked by almost everyone who knows him. He has shown an ability to deal with controversial issues and to emerge from the accompanying conflicts unscathed in the estimate of allies and opponents alike. This ability will be tested severely in his new office.... Hopefully... President Tietjen's tenure can be marked by something more creative than protecting the seminary from the assaults of the apostles of discord....

"We believe that John Tietjen can lead Concordia to a role of excellence in American theological education and wish him well in that endeavor."

Quoted from "Concordia's New President." Una Sancta 26, no. 1 (July, 1969): 12-14.

The Augustana and Missouri Synods

"[I]n 1944 O.H. Pannkoke, a Lutheran leader and fundraiser, wrote to [President] Bersell [of the Augustana Synod], alarmed at Missouri plans for activity in post-war Europe, calling it: '...the biggest sectarian invasion of Europe, to build a greater Missouri Synod on the ruins, the despair, the tragedy and the confusion of the European Lutherans.' In January 1945 Bersell responded to him: 'As to your comments on Missouri, I sympathize with your point of view. I am getting pretty well fed up with the machinations of the Missouri outfit.'"

Mark Granquist, "The Augustana Synod and the Missouri Synod." Lutheran Quarterly 24, no. 1 (March 1, 2010): 57.

Edit,4/21/2015: It occurred to me that the short quote above would perhaps be more interesting if I were to add some details about O. H. Pannkoke. Pannkoke was born in Germany, and even attended the Gymnasium there, before moving to the United States and attending Concordia College, Milwaukee, WI. He then attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, graduating in 1908. Pannkoke served as a Missouri Synod pastor until being expelled from the clergy roster in 1920 for false doctrine, though he continued to remain in the Missouri Synod as a layman. In 1933, his wife sued him for divorce, which resulted in his expulsion from the LCMS congregation to which he belonged. He appealed to the Synod, which finally exonerated him in 1947.

Pastor Wyneken's First Service in Baltimore

Pastor Wyneken during his time in Baltimore

"The following incident . . . is related of Rev. Mr. [Friedrich Conrad Dietrich] Wyneken, when he took charge of the [Second Evangelical St. Paul's] German Church in Baltimore [since closed], previously served by the Rev. Mr. Haesbaert:

"On the Sunday immediately following his installation, the Lord's Supper was to be celebrated. The preparation of the altar had been intrusted to the sexton. Wyneken's consternation may be more readily imagined than described, when, in the confessional service, he appeared before the sacramental table and instantly perceived, that in this place the Holy Supper had assuredly never yet been administered after the manner of the truly Lutheran Church! There was the wine in a huge earthen jug, and on the plate were wafers and bread side by side [a distinctive practice of Union (Lutheran-Reformed) congregations]. What was to be done ?

"He immediately called the deacons into the sacristy and explained to them, that the congregation is not Lutheran at all; that in extending a call to him he had been deceived; that he could not distribute the sacrament! The good people were filled with surprise and confusion, declared that they had not been aware that they were not purely Lutheran, and requested him to act in the case in accord with his conscience as a Lutheran Pastor. They thereupon urgently entreated him to distribute the Sacrament once more in the manner to which the people had hitherto been accustomed, for the purpose of avoiding the very great dissatisfaction that would otherwise arise among the communicants who were present.

"Under existing circumstances Wyneken likewise regarded this as the better course, and acted accordingly. After the sermon, however, he requested the congregation to remain in the church for a short time after the close of the service. And now he declared in the presence of the people, that he had not found them to he a Lutheran, but much more a unionistic congregation, and that therefore the best course for them to pursue would probably be, to dismiss him immediately; that, in case he should remain among them, he would certainly occasion many disturbances and dissatisfactions in the midst of such a mixed multitude.

"The congregation, however, would not consent to his going away, but was decided in its desire that he should remain. "Well, then," said Wyneken, "I will begin on next Sunday to take both the Lutheran and Heidelberg Catechisms with me into the pulpit, and will read from and explain both; then each one will have the opportunity of knowing and judging for himself as to which side has and confesses the complete truth of the divine word!" This, accordingly, was the course that Wyneken subsequently pursued. He explained from both catechisms the distinction between the Lutheran and Reformed doctrines; he rebuked the practice hitherto observed in administering the Lord's Supper, and showed from the Scriptures, that Reformed and Lutherans cannot possibly be members of one and the same congregation, inasmuch as every congregation that desires to act with true Christian candor and uprightness cannot adopt and adhere to more than one confession.

"This course resulted in a fearful storm in the congregation. The Reformed maintained that they had been betrayed, and the greater number of them did not even have the forbearance patiently to hear Wyneken's explanations ; and among the Lutherans also, they found erring friends who criticised the course of the new Pastor, and desired to have the former state of affairs retained. Not in the congregational meetings only, but also on the streets and in the homes of the people, lively and often bitter disputations took place. Many children of Reformed parents had become Lutherans; others were intermarried with Lutherans; accordingly daughters stood opposed to their mothers and husbands to their wives. It was a time of visitation; but the truth gained the victory. The Reformed left the congregation (on a single Sunday more than eighty names were announced from the pulpit of persons who severed their connection with the congregation) and built a German Reformed Church on Calvert street. It was self-evident that they regarded Wyneken as their enemy, and quite a length of time elapsed before the excitement that had arisen subsided."

Quoted from John G. Morris, Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry (Baltimore: 1878), pages 360-361.

A Very Brief Introduction

Instead of a fancy introduction, I will be brief and to the point: I have decided to create this blog as a place for me to post articles, book excerpts, photos, and the like, of tidbits from (primarily) Lutheran history which I find either interesting or amusing. I add "primarily" because I am sure I will not post exclusively about Lutheran history, but will deviate and post some other things which I find interesting. At least for the time being, most, if not all, of the things which I post will not be original work. That may change as time goes by. Of course, I also may end up deleting this blog as time goes by, so really, all bets are off for the future of this blog. For now, though, I hope that you, dear reader (as the saying used to go), will find at least some of the things I post as interesting as I do.