The Control of Lutheran Theological Education in America (Part I)

The other day, I stumbled upon an interesting book in the library—The Control of Lutheran Theological Education in America, by Oscar Ahlenius Winfield (Augustana, 1933). While I found the entire book to be worth reading, I have decided to only pull out certain quotes which pertain to the Missouri Synod, as well as a few other interesting tidbits of information. This post is part one. Excerpts pertaining to the recruitment of students for the seminary and the control of seminary students can be found at their respective links.

Basic Lutheran Ideas Regarding the Ministry:
Educational Qualifications: The ministers are, as a rule, required to spend three years at a Lutheran Seminary, preferably the seminary belonging to and controlled by the Synod into which the candidate for ordination wishes to enter.... The customary educational requirement for entrance to the seminary is the B.A. degree with reading knowledge of Latin and Greek, and in some cases, as in the Missouri Synod seminary at St. Louis, Hebrew is required for entrance. Since much of Lutheran Church work is carried on among immigrants, a large share of the ministers must be able to speak at least one modern European language. (p. 50-51)

Preparatory Education of Theological Students:
Elementary Education: The only Lutheran body that seriously sponsors a program of parochial elementary education is the Missouri Synod. This Lutheran group constitutes about one fourth of the Lutherans in America. According to its Statistical Yearbook there were 77,837 children in the parochial schools of the Synod in 1928 [excluding the Argentine and Brazil districts]. Another table in the same yearbook shows that there are 18,534 "Lutheran children" not attending the parochial school. This means that nearly 81 per cent of the school children of the Missouri Synod are attending its parochial schools.

No figures are available showing what percentage of the ministers of this Synod come from the parochial schools, but the proportion of 81 and 19 will probably hold its own. In other words, it seems safe to conclude that 81 per cent of the ministers come from the parochial schools. This seems more likely in view of the recruiting value that may lie in parochial education. (p. 68-69)

In the case of the Concordia Seminary at St. Louis, Missouri, owned and controlled by the Missouri Synod, 99 per cent [footnote: From statement by Dean Fritz in a personal letter to the writer] of the students have been educated in either the high schools of the Synod, or in one of its junior colleges. The junior colleges of this Synod are administered on a six-year plan, receiving students from the eighth grade of the parochial school. Ordinarily, one who has decided for the ministry will attend such a junior college, from which he may directly enter Concordia Seminary. The chart on page 71 (below) shows college and seminary enrollment, suggesting a very close coordination throughout. (p. 70-72)

What has been said of the Concordia Seminary and its relation to secondary education is equally true in its relation to college education. The Missouri Synod sponsors a system of junior colleges and in nearly every case the seminary at St. Louis receives its students from these colleges. (p. 73)

Fire at St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne

On December 2, 1903, a fire began in the basement of St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN, following its Wednesday Advent service. The fire started in the coal furnace and quickly spread throughout the rest of the church. Despite the early detection and the fire department's best efforts, the entire edifice was destroyed. The church was reconstructed using the same walls and rededicated a year and a half later, this reconstructed church being the one which is still in use today. The photos below are taken from the Allen County Community Album.

Prayer at Beginning of a New Church Year

O THOU Eternal God and faithful Father, upon entering a new church year we render Thee humble thanks above all for all the spiritual benefits received at Thy hands during the past year. Thou hast suffered us to retain Thy holy word and the public preaching thereof, together with the Holy Sacraments, while we by our ingratitude have fully deserved that we should be deprived of such blessings; for we are no better and have sinned no less against Thee than many of our brethren at other places, from whom, in Thy just judgment, Thou hast either wholly withdrawn the word and preaching of Thy gospel or greatly curtailed it. And it appears that also at many other places Thou art about to remove the light of Thy word in pursuance of Thy judgment. O Lord, we are not at all worthy of all the mercies Thou hast shown unto us, Thine unprofitable servants, treating us, to this day, with such longsuffering. We now pray Thee, forgive all our sins wherewith in the past church year we have transgressed against Thee, either by doing what was wrong, or by failing to do what was right. As the first mark of Thy grace, cancel, we pray Thee, our sins of the past church year with the blood of Thy dear Son, and in order to render us worthy of this grace, engender in our hearts true repentance, so that we do not carry any unforgiven sins over into the new church year, sins that we are not by Thy power willing entirely to abandon. Preserve unto us, also in the future, Thy holy Word and Sacraments, and thus the kingdom of Thy Son, and do not suffer the enemy to deprive us of this great blessing and to extend his kingdom of darkness among us. And in this do not look upon any worthiness of ours, but rather upon this that the honor of Thy Son be not blasphemed by the enemies, who fancy to have wrecked Thy kingdom among us. Preserve all our faithful teachers and preachers, whom Thou hast given us and bestow upon them in this church year new light and the power of Thy Holy Spirit, that they may in Thy presence and power proclaim to us Thy word in its truth and purity, without the adulteration of anything human. Grant also to them at all times wisdom and insight rightly to determine what is most necessary to be discussed in public discourse.

Do Thou, therefore, not suffer them to speak what they please, but do Thou guide their tongues and hearts to speak at all times, what is pleasing unto Thee. Give efficacy to Thy word and to Thy holy Sacraments that also in this church year we may behold in them the blessed means of our salvation, which saves our souls. Confirm anew the good Thou didst already in the past year effect in the hearts of Thy people, quickening Thy Word in them, and let this word continue to show its efficacy in instructing the simple, in converting the unregenerate, in convincing the malicious, in strengthening the souls that already know Thee, the number of which Thou wouldst, we pray Thee, increase also this year, according to Thy good pleasure. Grant also to all hearers of Thy word, that they receive it from the mouths of their ministers with attention and meekness not only, but that they, when hearing the word at all times submit their hearts to you in such quietness and meekness as will permit the Holy Spirit to accomplish the work of faith in them, to the end that all live a life before Thee in this church year more holy than formerly. Especially do Thou grant grace, that a firm foundation of the knowledge of the truth be laid among us, so that it may become a living knowledge, which praises Thee by its fruits, and we come to know in very deed that this is life eternal, that Thou, Father, art the only true God and whom Thou hast sent is Jesus Christ, life everlasting. Amen.

 From the Abridged Treasury of Prayers, p. 111-114.

A Game for Seminarians

Here's One for Seminarians 

While we are on the subject of games, here is one for seminarians. It is called "Incorrect Ideas or Actions." In each of the following sentences is something that was done in violation of approved liturgical practice or good taste. See how many incorrect ideas or actions you can underline.

1. The missal-stand stood in the center of the altar as the pastor began the service.

2. With a full Diapason chorus and tremolo, the organist launched into the festival hymn.

3. The pastor read the solemn Marriage Service, accompanied by luscious soft music on the organ.

4. Having sung the Vesper Service, Holy Communion followed.

5. The open casket, banked with flowers, stood at the head of the center aisle.

6. In the Lutheran Church, the last Sunday after the Epiphany is always observed as Transfiguration Sunday.

7. Gazing over the bowed heads of the congregation, the pastor repeated with them the words of the prayer.

8. There will be services this evening at 7 :45.

9. The confirmation class noted the palms and the white altar paraments, reminding them that it was Palm Sunday.

10. The choir proceeded up the aisle, led by the pastor.

11. The bell tolled solemnly for the Good Friday service.

12. The pastor chanted the Communion liturgy, accompanied by the melodious music of the great organ.

13. At the close of the service, the pastor hurried to the door to greet the people.

14. Potted Easter lilies stood on the altar, and a great spray of white roses filled the font.

15. After the Apostles' Creed and the sermon, there will be a celebration of Holy Communion.

This is but a small part of the list we had in mind. First of all, underline all that you consider bad form. Do this before reading the next paragraph. Then read the following corrections:

1. The missal stand is at the pastor's right at the beginning of the service. 2. The tremolo is never used with Diapasons, nor for hymn playing. 3. Organ accompaniment, while one is reading, is a silly affectation. 4. The Vesper Service is never used when there is Communion. 5. Nowadays it is considered bad form to open a casket in church. 6. In many parts of the Lutheran Church, August 6 is still the date. 7. The pastor should have faced the altar. 8. A service is a service, not a "services." 9. Violet is the proper color for Palm Sunday, regardless of confirmation. 10. If the pastor must come in with the choir, he follows it. 11. Bells are not tolled during Holy Week. 12. If the pastor chants, he should do it without accompaniment. 13. Pastors of humility of spirit rarely rush to the door. It reminds us of an old German woman who said sharply, "What are you doing here'? Fishing for compliments'?" 14. Potted plants are never placed on the altar, and flowers are never put in the font. 16. The Nicene Creed is always used at Communion.

Quoted from F. R. Webber in The American Lutheran, Vol. 22, No. 5 (May, 1939), p. 15

The Altar and its Vestments

The three liturgical stations in our Church, as accepted by all our writers upon this subject, are:—The Baptismal Font; The Pulpit and its co-ordinate, the Lectern; and The Altar. The place for the font is by almost universal usage fixed at the entrance to the chancel, on the floor of the approach from the nave. Here it will not intercept the view of the altar, yet it will be in line with it in the middle of the church; a place where it suggests that the only way of approach to the altar is by Baptism and faith.

The Pulpit is generally placed on the south side of the church where the chancel or choir joins the nave. Meurer says in his "Kirchbau," page 214: "The question whether the pulpit should be placed on the north or south side, in respect to which there has been no established usage, becomes for us simply a question of expediency; for the distinction between the women's and men's side of the nave, or between the Gospel and Epistle side, has for us no longer any significance. The south side might be preferred simply for this reason, because the preacher facing north, is at no time in danger of having the sun shine in his eyes." We would add to this that since the preacher will make most of his gestures with his right hand and thus unconsciously turn his right side to the audience, it always seemed to us that the south side was the more appropriate place for the pulpit. Since the custom of placing the organ on one side of the choir or chancel instead of in a loft over the west entrance is becoming quite common with us, and since the organ, when thus placed is generally on the north side we expect to see the pulpit maintain its old position on the south side of the church. It should be fixed as far out into the nave, i.e., as near to the people, as possible. Under no circumstances should it be combined with the altar, where it places the communion table beneath the preacher's feet; and care should be taken, especially in small churches, that it is not built so inordinately high as to compel the preacher to contract every muscle in his throat while looking down at his people who invariably go home with stiff necks after looking up at him during the sermon.

The Lectern is not commonly found in our German churches, where it is the general custom to read the lessons from the altar. There are a number of reasons to show that this custom is an objectionable one, and Lochner insists upon the adoption of the lectern, not only by urging the usage of the ancient Church, but by pointing to the use of the lectern in the Lutheran Church, as proved by the Leipsic Agende of 1681 and a description of an old Dresden church in 1717. He answers the objection that the necessity of moving from the altar to the lectern and back to the altar causes an awkward interruption, by pointing out that such interruption does not exist for the congregation which sings the "amen" after the collect while the pastor takes his place at the lectern and begins to sing the Credo after the reading of the Gospel. With us this objection also fails to apply, for the pastor approaches the lectern during the singing of the Amen and resumes his place at the altar during the singing of the "Praise be to Thee, O Christ," after the Gospel and before repeating the Creed. It should also not be overlooked that the reading of the lesson from the lectern saves the pastor the handling of what is very often a somewhat unwieldly (sic) Bible, which at times proves such a strain, that we have seen ministers lean against the altar, seemingly unable to support its awful weight. Besides, a lectern, where it is a fixture, decides for once and all where the layreader is to stand in case a service is held during the pastor's absence. The common form for this most useful article of church furniture is the eagle, the symbol of John the Evangelist, resting upon a pedestal, and its proper place is the north side of the chancel, opposite the pulpit. The Bible is to be placed on the lectern, but the place for the Book of Forms or "Agenda," is the altar. It is of this, easily the most prominent and important piece of church furniture, and of its vestments that we wish to speak. We have, however, deemed it necessary to mention font, pulpit, and lectern, not only because their place is determined by the position of the altar, but also because the hangings for pulpit and lectern must correspond in color and material to the season vestments of the altar.

The first visible accessory to worship of which we have any account was an altar. Gen. 8:20, and Gen. 12:7 ff. It's (sic) place is easily the most conspicuous in the entire church edifice, opposite the west entrance at the end of the center aisle in the choir or chancel, in other words, the recess or opse which corresponds to the coucha or testudo of the ancient basilica. This recess, in a Lutheran church, should never be built so deep as is the Anglican custom, where it is occupied by the vested choir as a sort of a minor order of the clergy, and very often separated from the nave by a rood screen, for in the Church of the Word the altar must be so placed as to enable every person in the congregation to see and hear every thing that is there done or said by the minister. For this reason it should also be sufficiently raised above the floor of the nave, so as to be readily seen by the whole congregation when standing for prayer. On the other hand it must not be too shallow, for it is the Lutheran custom to receive the sacrament inside of the choir or chancel, and not at a rail which separates chancel and nave, as is the custom in the Romish Church. This recess should have sufficient width and depth to provide plenty of room for all acts which are performed before the altar, such as Ordination, Confirmation, Marriage, etc. Nor is it according to the best usage to place the altar against the rear wall of the chancel, which is its usual position in the Anglican Church.

The Old Testament altars were, no doubt, square or oblong piles of stones. Our Church, though retaining this general form, builds its altars of wood or stone. The Reformed churches of this country use an ordinary table, and thus, strictly speaking, have no altar, but only a table placed on the floor below the pulpit platform where it is equally serviceable and convenient for any use to which pastor, deacons or committee on decorations may desire to put it. Indeed, they repudiate the very name and speak only of the "communion table." And yet, strange to say, the significance of this their communion table, so far as it has any, approaches to that of the Romish altar of sacrifice. For the Lord's Supper has with them, utterly lost its sacramental character. God therein gives them nothing; it is no real means of grace, but a mere memorial feast, where they show their faith in Christ and love to the brethren. They give and sacrifice, rather than receive from God. Just as a Romish priest at the altar claims to give and present to God "an unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead!" The moment you go away from the Lutheran Church, you go towards Rome.

The altar in the Lutheran Church does indeed speak to us of a sacrifice, but it is the one sacrifice made for our sins forever by the one man Christ Jesus. (Heb. 10:10-14) It is thus the "Table of our Lord," the place where He gives us Himself with all His benefits, His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. And thus we call the Lord's Supper, "the Sacrament of the Altar." Only secondarily does our Altar suggest to us that at this place, above all others, the church should, with uplifting of hands, offer to her Lord the sweet incense of the only acceptable New Testament Sacrifice, prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. It need hardly be pointed out that this conception of the altar is eminently Scriptural. First laying all stress on the words, "Take, eat, my Body, given for you; Take, drink, my Blood, shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins" it does not lose sight of the command: "This do in remembrance of me." Rome and Ultra-Protestantism both emphasize only "This do! This do!" and utterly forget everything that goes before. We, therefore, say again: the altar of a Romish church with its tabernacle and reliquary as well as the plain table of the Protestant sects differ radically both as to purpose and significance from the Altar of the Lutheran Church.

This truth must never be lost sight of in the ornamentation of altar and chancel. True as it is that the chancel, with altar, pulpit, and font, is the organic center of the whole church edifice and that here color and decoration must not be stinted, as the chancel gives character to the whole building, yet it is just here, especially in the ornamentation of the altar, that the canons of good taste and Lutheran usage are most often transgressed.

Lutheran usage permits and even favors the building of a reredos or screen upon the rear of the altar. The reredos must correspond with the general style of the church's architecture. The circular lines of the Romanesque style are out of place in a Gothic church. The reredos of the Anglican churches are as a rule, too low and squatty, probably because of their penchant for placing the altar against the rear chancel wall and their fondness for large East windows. In a Gothic church, we prefer a polygonal apse and side windows; if the rear wall is straight, use a rose window or some large trefoil design. Give the chancel plenty of light. To use dossal hangings instead of a reredos is rather an Anglican than a Lutheran usage. We do not favor them for they are seldom found in our churches, they submit to no artistic treatment, and, so far as we know, have no meaning.

All statuary and painting on the reredos must have distinctive reference to the redemptive work of Christ and to the Sacrament. To simply place any Biblical picture, regardless of its reference to the Sacrament behind the altar in a cheap gilt frame can hardly be called good taste. The ancient sacramental typology (Abel, Melchizedek, Abraham and Isaac, the brazen serpent, etc.), or symbolism (the Agnus Dei, the vine, a chalice, ears of wheat, etc.) can hardly be improved upon. If a picture is used, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Institution of the Lord's Supper, or Christ's Agony in Gethsemane, are the favorite subjects. St. Mark's, Detroit, has the Lord's Supper in stained glass filling the whole rear wall of the chancel. The altar has no reredos and its top is on a level with the table of the pictured window. The general effect is very fine. A good subject for a window in the straight chancel wall of a larger Gothic church would be Christ's Coming to Judgment, in allusion to the "till He come" of I Cor. 11:26.—A slight and inconspicuous altar rail, always open in front of the altar, because of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, is permitted, not as a barrier to the altar, but as a rest and support to the kneeling communicants.

The Altar Vestments are the Altar hangings, the Altar cloth and the Chancel carpet. For a chancel carpet a quiet plain pattern should be selected and its color should harmonize with the general color scheme of the church decorations. Large, loud flower patterns must by all means be avoided. It is also not considered good taste to have crosses in the carpet pattern: it is not seemly to tread upon the cross. As a biblical reference for the use of a chancel carpet Liturgists give Exod. 3:5.

"The altar carpet of silk or other stuff, ought, according to the use of the Anglican Church, to cover the whole Altar, reaching to the ground," says Jebb, of the Altar hangings. This applies in our church, only where the altar is so poorly built, that it may not be shown without drapery. As a rule our altars are Gothic in design and the woodwork should not be hidden by the "altar carpet," which is either one piece of sufficient size to drop from the top of the altar to about one third of the distance to the floor, or a long piece, hanging the proper distance over each end of the altar, and provided with a strip to drape the front. The advantage of the latter plan of draping the altar is the prevention of unsightly folds at the corners, and the best taste requires that the altar be smoothly and plainly draped. Puffs and frills may have their place in a dressmaker's show-window; here they are out of place. Sometimes an Antipendium is used. It is a strip of cloth ornamented with some ecclesiastical design, about one-third the top width of the altar, dropped from the top center until it almost touches the floor. Only the best of materials should be used for such spreads; be it silk velvet, silk plush, or broadcloth. They are generally bordered with gilt or silk fringe and decorated with a short inscription or some appropriate emblem. The same applies to the hangings for pulpit and lectern.

To mark the different periods of the Church Year, our Church used the ancient liturgical colors for these spreads. They are five: Purple, White, Red, Green and Black. Purple is used for Advent and for Lent, beginning with Septuagesima Sunday. White is used for Christmas until Epiphany, for Easter, Purification, Annunciation and Visitation. Green is used for Epiphany until Septuagesima Sunday, and the whole Trinity Season. Red is used for Whit-Sunday and Trinity Sunday, for St John's day, the Apostle days and any festivals after Trinity Sunday. Black is used for Good Friday, days of humiliation and prayer, which with us is usually on Ash Wednesday, and for funerals. Thus Lochner; the Roman missal prescribes a somewhat different use. Lochner insists upon at least two colors as the minimum for our churches, Black and Green. If possible add Red, then White and Purple.

The white Altar cloth, which is spread over the season vestments, will be described in the article on the Communion Vessels and Altar Linen. Suffice it, therefore, to say again that it, with the season vestments, should at all times be upon the altar, whether the sacrament is to be administered or not. Bookmarks should be made in colors correspond with the season vestments. A description of altar ornaments, i.e., crucifix, lights, flowers and missal-stand, will form the subject of another article.

D. H. STEFFENS.

Lutheran Witness, Vol. XXI, No. 8 (April 10, 1902), p. 57-58.

The Ornaments of the Altar

A Lutheran D. D., brought up and educated for the Lutheran ministry in Pennsylvania, once described to the writer the feeling of horror he experienced at hearing a Lutheran professor at a German university tell his students that no Lutheran altar is completely furnished unless it have a crucifix and the two eucharistic lights. "Well," we asked, "how do you feel about it now?" "O," he replied, "I have learned something since that time." We would that some of the Lutherans of this country had learned with him! But how often are we told by people who consider themselves very good Lutherans that these things are "catholic." Which reminds us of a story.

An old pastor of one of our Michigan churches, was once approached by a member of his congregation, probably a Wuertemberger, who made the usual objection to these altar ornaments and to the intoning of versicles and collects by the pastor. "Why, Herr Pfarrar," he says, "that's 'catholic.'" "Indeed," says the pastor, "so everything a 'Catholic' does is of necessity 'catholic' and consequently wrong?" "To be sure," was the reply. "So if he eats his dinner with a fork, I must use a spoon to eat mine, or better still, do without eating?" "O," said the objector, "but I did not mean that." "Possibly, but that is your argument," replied the pastor. It is needless to say that the man, for want of any further arguments, kept his peace.

Nevertheless, no amount of explanation and instruction will ever silence this silly objection:—"Why, that is catholic." It is, however, provoking in the extreme to hear Lutherans, people who ought to know that neither the Reformer himself nor the church called after his name was ever narrow and bigotted (sic) enough to exclude all plastic and pictorial art from its houses of worship,—advance such puerile objections. "Why," says Luther, "whether I want to or not, when I hear of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross, rises up in my heart; just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water. Now, if it is not sinful for me to have Christ's picture in my heart, why should it be sinful to have it before my eyes? But, as we said above, no amount of explanation and instruction will ever silence that narrow, intolerant Carlstadtian spirit which still so profoundly influences most of the Protestant denominations of this country, and which, through these denominations, has influenced certain positions of our own Church to the detriment of their doctrine, worship, and spirit.

Suffice it therefore, to say with the above mentioned professor: We believe that no Lutheran altar is completely furnished unless it have a crucifix and the two eucharistic lights. Ask yourself: What should be my first thought upon entering a Christian church? Why, Christ and Him crucified. Certainly; and for this reason the Church, from the days of Constantine, if not earlier, was wont to place a crucifix upon the altar, where it must strike the eye of everyone who entered her doors, as a reminder of Him "who was delivered up for our offences and raised again for our justification." And therefore, a crucifix, not a plain cross, which some have adopted from the Anglicans in defiance of all Lutheran usage. No other symbol can ever become a substitute for this, the sign of completed redemption and perfect reconciliation, of the gospel of peace and its appropriation by faith. John 3:14, 15; 2 Cor. 5. Chiefly for this reason, among many others, this ornament should be carefully selected, provided it is not a part of the reredos carving, when it should be carved of the same kind of wood as the reredos. In size it should always be of a greater height than the candle-sticks, but proportioned to the general size of the altar. Its material should not be of fragile composition, such as plaster or bisque, but rather of wood, in its natural color, or of bronze, gold or silver-plated. The most handsome crucifix we ever saw was carved of ivory. Its place is the center of the altar, between the lights.

The use of altar lights is certainly not popish. The custom of having large lights, which were lit even in the daytime, during the most sacred parts of the service, was retained by the Church all over the world. For this we have the testimony of the Church Father, St. Jerome, who says: "In all the churches of the Orient, when the Gospel is to be read, candles are lighted, even though the sun be shining; not to lighten the darkness, but to make a sign of joy." This custom was probably derived from the sevenfold candle-stick in the Jewish Temple or from the synagogue of the Jews. When lighted during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, they are a reminder of the night when the Sacrament was instituted. They are also emblematical of Christ the Light of the world, John 1:6-9, 2 Cor. 4:6, and a symbol of joy, as Jerome says. For this reason they are, in some churches, lighted during the reading of the Gospel. Alt also sees in these altar lights a memorial of the times of persecution, when the Christians were compelled to assemble for worship in the darkness of night, in caves and catacombs. It can hardly be decided which were originally used, lamps or candles. In St. Chrysostom's time, however, candles were universally used, especially for the altar. We have seen four candle-sticks on a Lutheran altar in a Milwaukee church, but almost universal usage limits their number to two. They should be made of metal in some good design; cheap glass or porcelain candle-sticks are hardly in place on an altar. Nor could we ever admire the imitation candle gas-fixture affairs found in some of our city churches. We also confess to the American desire to have things handy, but where the candle-stick is a fixture it is almost impossible smoothly and properly to place the altar vestments and altar cloth. Moreover the general appearance of such imitation candle-sticks, especially when carelessly lighted, makes the deception too apparent.

Besides crucifix and lights it is also the Lutheran usage to place two vases with flowers upon the altar. By all means get good vases and use natural flowers. Happily, the glass covered abominations so common in our boyhood days are no longer seen. The artificial flowers furnished by dealers in church goods are not much better; for they very soon become faded and dusty. Good artificial flowers cost money, as every minister's wife knows. And we feel that natural flowers, even if furnished only on communion Sundays and taken to the sick or to some hospital after the close of the service, are much more beautiful and appropriate.

Lastly, we might mention the Missal-stand (the name is inappropriate, for we use no missals), the small board or desk upon which the Book of Forms is laid. Lochner calls it the "Altarpult."

It is a most useful piece of altar furniture. That it is ornamental, particularly in the form usually found in our German churches, we very much doubt. But it is easy enough to find an appropriate pattern for this altar desk or Agenda-stand, and any pastor, who has tried to read the communion service, stooping over a church book, lying flat on the altar, will appreciate this little article which enables him to see and read while standing upright and maintaining a position of some dignity and decorum while ministering before his people. We have not felt its need in our English churches where the want of a Book of Forms has compelled us to read the service from the hymnal, which the minister holds in his hand even during the consecration of the elements in the communion. As this want is about to be supplied, we will the more feel the need of this little stand or "Altarpult," so commonly found in our German churches.

D. H. STEFFENS.

D. H. Steffens, "The Ornaments of the Altar," Lutheran Witness, Vol. XXI, No. 9 (April 24, 1902), pp. 67-68.

Google Books: The Lutheran Witness

For the past several months, a lengthy draft article has been sitting in my catalogue of posts, gathering metaphorical dust. The article consists of hyperlinks to Google Books digitizations of a variety of different Lutheran periodicals, such as the Lutheran Witness, the Lutheran Watchman, the Lutheran Pioneer, the Evangelical Review, etc. Since the article is doing no good to anyone (myself included) in its present draft state, I've decided to finally post it. However, due to its length, I've decided to split it up so that each periodical will have its own dedicated blog post. This is the first of these posts—a catalogue of Lutheran Witness volumes.

The Lutheran Witness
Volumes 1-2, May 21, 1882–May 7, 1884
Volume 3, May 21, 1884– May 7, 1885
Volumes 3-5, May 21, 1884–May 7, 1887
Volume 4, May 21, 1885–May 7, 1886 (scanned twice)
Volume 5, May 21, 1886–May 7, 1887
Volume 6, June 7, 1887–May 21, 1888
Volumes 6-8, June 7, 1887–May 21, 1890
Volume 9, June 7, 1890–May 21, 1891
Volumes 9-11, June 7, 1890–May 21, 1893
Volume 10, June 7, 1891–May 21, 1892
Volume 11, June 7, 1892–May 21, 1893
Volume 12, June 7, 1893–May 21, 1894
Volume 13, June 7, 1894–May 21, 1895
Volume 14
Volumes 15-17, June 7, 1896–May 21, 1899
Volumes 18-21, June 7, 1899–December 18, 1902
Volume 22
Volume 23
Volume 24
Volume 25
Volume 26
Volume 27
Volume 28
Volume 29
Volume 30
Volume 31
Volume 32, 1913
Volume 33, 1914
Volume 34, 1915
Volume 35
Volume 36
Volume 37, 1918

Procrastination

Even though I haven't been posting about Lutheran history on this blog near as often as I had originally intended, I still would like to take a break in order to copy out another article which is of interest to me. In order to make it seem slightly less tangential, I'll note that it provides a sort of defense of my lackluster posting habits. Anyway, I hope any theoretical blog readers enjoy the article.

FEW CHARACTERISTICS are more common to human nature than procrastination. Yet it is universally considered a bad thing, demanding excuse or apology. I believe it is time for someone to step forward in defense of productive procrastination. (Actually, I have thought so for a while, but just haven’t gotten around to doing something about it.)

When we face a necessary but unpleasant project—like paying bills or doing paperwork—we set about to find ways to put it off. The key to positive procrastination lies in harnessing, for useful purposes, this creative ability to duck responsibility.

A productive procrastinator puts off a distasteful duty by first working on other things for which there has not been time. For these people, procrastination is a force for social good. It first leads to greater accomplishments in other worthwhile areas, then gives way to a sense of duty that motivates them to finish the unappealing task they worked so hard to avoid.

Positive procrastination broadens our horizons. Without it, I’m convinced, most journalists would be out of a job. Spring cleaning would seldom take place if it were not for the possibility of putting off doing our taxes till the last minute. Houses are vacuumed and cars are waxed because of procrastination. It leads us to better eating. Having something to put off can result in some good “home cooking” that would otherwise be too time-consuming. Procrastination gets us to communicate with one another. Parents, avoiding work, spend time with their families. Letters get written and phone calls get made, continuing or re-establishing relationships.

There are other benefits to productive procrastination. It can lead you to gain better information prior to making a decision. It allows some problems to go away by themselves with the passage of time. Introspection can be painful but extremely useful—so agonizing, in fact, that it can take an even more painful alter-native to lead us to it.

Putting off things gives you a ready-made excuse when someone wants to impose (“I’d love to, Bob, but I really have to…”). Those who procrastinate have the strategic advantage over those who don’t, because they can always outwait them.

So let’s stop denigrating all forms of this nearly universal human trait. Productive procrastination is the answer. It allows us to accomplish more than we could without it. ("The Power of Positive Procrastination", condensed from the Christian Science Monitor, by Gary M. Galles, copyright 1987)

Church Fathers on Abortion

This topic is well outside the intended scope of this blog, but as it is a topic which has come up several times on another blog on which I comment, and as I would like to keep this information somewhat handy (and not least, as this is my blog and I can do with it whatever I please), I have decided to post this collection of quotes from the Church Fathers on the topic of abortion. I have been surprised to discover that some people aren't aware that the Church condemned abortion as murder from the very beginning; these quotes should help demonstrate that this was, in fact, the case. I hope to add to this post as I come across other quotes from early Christians regarding abortion, so this list may end up growing as time goes on. I also plan to add several other similar posts about pedophilia, birth control, homosexuality, and any other topics which may come up during the course of conversation elsewhere on the Internet. With that, the quotes:

Ecclesiastical Quotes:

"You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born." —Barnabas, c. 70-130.

"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born." —Didache, c. 80-140.

"We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say they will have to give an account to God for the abortion... We also teach that it is wrong to expose an infant. For those who expose them are guilty of child murder." —Athenagoras, c. 175.

"What cause is there for the exposure of a child? The man who did not desire to beget children had no right to marry at all. He certainly does not have the right to become the murderer of his children, because of licentious indulgence." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195.

"There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels. So they commit murder before they bring forth." —Mark Minucius Felix, c. 200.

"You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill the baby that is born. For 'everything that is shaped and has received a soul from God, if it is slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Ezekiel 21:23, LXX) —Apostolic Constitutions, c. 390.

Note that most of these quotes on abortion also discussed infanticide in the same context. The early Christians did not see a difference between those two acts.

Non-Ecclesial Sources:

(The following quotes are from Abortions in Byzantine Times (325-1453 AD):)

"Similar opinions about abortions were expressed by the Imperial Legislation, that whenever practised, meant destruction of a living being."

"The Imperial Legislation never accepted legal abortions except those performed for medical reasons. Justinian's Digest included experts on early Roman law. The punishments for the women are usually banishment, divorce when the abortion is practised and the husband ignores it, corporal punishments especially for the unmarried.

"Even in the 14th c. collection Hexabiblos, the providers of drugs and herbs for abortion are considered as murderers."

"In conclusion: civil and canon law, as well as the lay opinion in Byzantine times equated abortion with murder and consequently condemned it."

The following quote purports to be from the Code of Justinian, but it is a questionable quote as far as I can determine. I will include it here regardless, but do not take it at face value, as it may be spurious:

"Those who expose children, possibly hoping they would die, and those who use the potions of the abortionist, are subject to the full penalty of the law for murder." —Code of Justinian, 18.51-52

Service Book and Hymnal Recordings: Setting Three

In 1945, a number of different American Lutheran synods came together to produce a new hymnal, one based upon the Common Service of 1888. After 13 years of labor, the Service Book and Hymnal was completed and published. It immediately became the hymnal of choice for the churches of the AELC, ALC, Augustana Synod, ELC, Finnish Suomi Synod, Lutheran Free Church, UELC, and ULCA (all of whom eventually ended up, through a series of mergers, in the ELCA). In order to help introduce the hymnal to these synods, a set of records was published, with recordings of each of the three settings of the Mass. The recordings for setting one and setting two have already been posted. The third setting, which is the focus of this post, uses the tunes of the ancient Missa Orbis Factor, as arranged by Ernest White. Due to space constraints, the third setting was printed separately from the hymnal and was consequently much less popular than the first two settings. Listen and enjoy (and many thanks to swedishlutheran for uploading these).

Invocation, Confession and Absolution, and Introit

Lenten Gloria Patri (not from the original records)

End of Introit (repeated), Kyrie, Gloria, Salutation, and Collect

Alleluia settings and Lenten Sentence (not from the original records)

Choral Alleluia and Verse, Holy Gospel, Nicene Creed (sung),
and Hymn ("Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty")

Entire Communion Service

As he did for SBH settings one and two, Stefan Gramenz put together a YouTube playlist for setting three. The playlist for setting three can be found here.

For the purpose of comparison, the following video contains the ordinary of the original, Latin Missa Orbis Factor:

Finally, if anyone knows where I might be able to get my hands on a set of the original LP recordings, I would be extremely grateful if you could leave a comment below. I would like at some point to make high quality digital copies of the complete recordings if I am able.

Service Book and Hymnal Recordings: Setting Two

In 1945, a number of different American Lutheran synods came together to produce a new hymnal, one based upon the Common Service of 1888. After 13 years of labor, the Service Book and Hymnal was completed and published. It immediately became the hymnal of choice for the churches of the AELC, ALC, Augustana Synod, ELC, Finnish Suomi Synod, Lutheran Free Church, UELC, and ULCA (all of whom eventually ended up, through a series of mergers, in the ELCA). In order to help introduce the hymnal to these synods, a set of records was published, with recordings of each of the three settings of the Mass. The recordings of the first setting have already been posted. The second setting, which is the focus of this post, was based on a setting of the Swedish Mass, as arranged by Regina Fryxell. It has been called "one of the high points in Lutheran liturgical music." Listen and enjoy (and many thanks to swedishlutheran for uploading these).

Kyrie, Gloria, Salutation, and Collect

Lenten Kyrie (not from the original records)

Alleluia (Prussian)

Alleluia (Missa de Angelis)

Holy Gospel, Nicene Creed (spoken)

Offertory (Create in me a clean heart, O God)

Communion Service, through Sanctus (Swedish)

Sanctus (German)

Agnus Dei (Braunschweig)

Pax Domini, Agnus Dei (Swedish)

Nunc Dimittis, Post-Communion Collect, Salutation, Benedicamus, Benediction

As he did for SBH setting one, Stefan Gramenz put together a YouTube playlist for setting two. The playlist for setting two can be found here.

Service Book and Hymnal Recordings: Setting One

In 1945, a number of different American Lutheran synods came together to produce a new hymnal, one based upon the Common Service of 1888. After 13 years of labor, the Service Book and Hymnal was completed and published. It immediately became the hymnal of choice for the churches of the AELC, ALC, Augustana Synod, ELC, Finnish Suomi Synod, Lutheran Free Church, UELC, and ULCA (all of whom eventually ended up, through a series of mergers, in the ELCA). In order to help introduce the hymnal to these synods, a set of records was published, with recordings of each of the three settings of the Mass. The first setting, which is the focus of this post, consists mostly of Anglican chant, with some plainsong and Reformation-era chants added in as well. This setting would have been fairly familiar to most of the people first using the hymnal, as it was similar to the settings used in most of the SBH's predecessor hymnals (it is also very similar to pages 5 and 15 in TLH). Listen and enjoy (and many thanks to swedishlutheran for uploading these).

Invocation, Confession, Introit

Kyrie

Gloria in Excelsis Deo, Salutation, Collect

(end of the Epistle), Alleluia, Gospel

Lenten Response (not from the original records)

Offertory (Create in me a clean heart, O God)

Entire Communion Service (including a glorious Nunc Dimittis)

Stefan Gramenz has helpfully put together YouTube playlists for each setting in the SBH. The playlist for setting one can be found here.

James Adams and the LCMS

James Adams was a reporter who worked for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in the 1960s-1970s. Within Missouri Synod circles, he is perhaps best known (though still not well-known) for his book Preus of Missouri, a sort of journalistic biography of J.A.O. Preus. If memory serves, Preus responded to the publication of the book by threatening legal action against Adams for libel. Regardless, Adams had a decent grasp on the Spirit of the Missouri Synod, as evidenced by this article. My initial intention was to copy out only those parts of the article which I thought provided a somewhat accurate portrayal of the Missouri Synod mindset; I have instead elected to copy out the entire article, warts and all, as I thought it might interest any who happen to stumble upon this blog. Bear in mind, therefore, that Adams was by no means an objective, disinterested observer. He had his own biases, some of which inevitably made their way into this article.

Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod:

Dynamic Tensions of Sect and Church

THROUGHOUT its history the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has been a hybrid denomination, combining the characteristics of both a sect and a church in a confusing but creative blend. Often it conceived of itself as more sect than church, more "Missouri Synod" than Lutheran and more German cultural enclave than American Protestant Establishment.

But along with the energy spent in denouncing the evils of religious "unionism" in the Boy Scout program or in upholding German as the language of the saints, the Missourians have always maintained missionary and outreach endeavors more characteristic of liberal Protestantism. Particularly in the past 30 years the synod's outreach programs, especially those using mass media, have been the envy of denominations many times the size of the 2.8 million-member synod. In fact, an observer unfamiliar with its official theology might easily assume that the Missouri Synod had taken a place in the ranks of the Lord's army of liberal American Protestant churches — or at least liberal Lutheran churches.

Identity Crisis
But now — on the eve of its 125th birthday — the Missouri Synod is having to pay some bills long overdue for a Christian organization which has always instinctively thought like a sect but instinctively acted like a church. The general cultural polarization which has exposed the bones of many a denomination in recent years has flushed out for the Missouri Synod a much more basic corporate identity crisis. The Missouri Synod has always defined itself as a sectarian-like fellowship linked by a uniform mind even on penultimate questions — if there are such questions for the synod. At heart it was — and remains — a "confessional" corporate body in which each member knows almost as a sacred right what the others confess. Everybody in the synod has always known by osmosis where the line was between "us" and "them." If on occasion the lines appeared to be blurring, they could be drawn once again when the full synod met in convention.

However, in racing across the frontiers of practical churchmanship, the Missouri Synod discovered that it had become a highly diversified and sophisticated organization in which uniformity was an impractical, if not impossible, ideal. To maintain its mission to the world and to keep many of its own bright lights, wouldn't the synod have to fall back to its broader, more basically Lutheran, ideals? Wouldn't it have to allow a loose definition of fellowship — one that could accommodate a divergence of opinion on doctrinal matters? How could the synod survive if it required of all its professors, pastors and teachers the same belief in the supreme transparency of Holy Writ that pious laymen have to hold?

Setting the Scene

Like a newly compromised virgin, the Missouri Synod has not found it easy to abandon an ideal buried deep in its psyche. In recent months the turmoil generated over the nature of its fellowship has taken on the climate of a civil war, making the word "fellowship" sound frightfully ironic.

This summer in Milwaukee the synod entered its 49th convention reeling from tensions created by a still-unresolved heresy inquiry at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; real or imagined power grabs within the synod; threats of schism by disgruntled parishes; and pervasive suspicions of ulterior motives on the part of those with opposing viewpoints.

A vocal minority of "sectarian"-minded forces had had second thoughts about the 1969 approval of altar and pulpit fellowship with the less conservative American Lutheran Church, particularly because that body had in the intervening time approved the ordination of women — a step which the Missouri Synod once again rejected. However, these forces were most concerned about "pure doctrine," which in times past was always the main line separating "us" from "them" but which now seemed to be fading in significance.

The President's Position
Jacob A. O. Preus, synod president, got to the heart of the sectarian concern in his opening convention address. Allowing divergence of opinion as a synodically sanctioned policy on such doctrinal matters as the meaning of scriptural inerrancy would in effect constitute a
redefinition of the Missouri Synod, Dr. Preus told the convention delegates. The issue, he suggested, was one not only of theological truth but also of moral responsibility to the brethren, who must not be denied the sacred right to know the confessional stands of others.

"We are a synod of brethren linked by our common confession of faith. To disregard the voice of the synod is a loveless and divisive act and may well reflect a lack of fidelity to our confessional commitment," the president declared in his address.

In a word, the issue behind the issues in the Missouri Synod today is loyalty. It was essential, maintained Dr. Preus, to approve once and for all an unequivocal statement binding all members to doctrinal positions endorsed by the full synod at convention.

Convention Action
After protracted debate the delegates rejected a tough proposal calling for dissenters to shut up or get out — preferably both. The resolution approved was a compromise which in the introduction affirmed the conservative position but in the main body substituted the action of asking, rather than requiring, pastors and theologians to honor and uphold all matters of doctrine adopted by church conventions. Delegates also turned down proposals to suspend fellowship ties with the American Lutheran Church, although the resolution passed amounts to a holding policy on further ecumenical programs. The voting on most of the key issues reflected roughly a 530-470 split in the convention, with the moderates slightly in the lead.

Now that the dust has settled from the stormy convention, it is clear that the Missouri Synod has only temporarily put off its collective identity crisis.

Ambiguities on Both Sides
Because both the sect-mentality and the church-mentality are so deeply rooted in the synod's history, there are ambiguities — if not outright contradictions — that will have to be hammered out. These ambiguities are nowhere better reflected than in the synod's president himself. A folksy, friendly Latin scholar, Dr. Preus speaks a "sectarian" language when there is the slightest ripple of a doctrinal divergence and acts genuinely surprised that any of his colleagues might openly be toying with such notions as the dual authorship of the book of Isaiah. But at the same time he is an aggressive churchman who wants the sun never to set on Missouri Synod outposts around the world.

Dr. Preus may not want to be a pope — some of his bitter critics have charged that he does — but it is clear that Roman Catholic ecclesiastical models are closer to his operative understanding of the Missouri Synod than, say, those of the Plymouth Brethren. Dr. Preus symbolizes a denomination that wants growth, influence and power — all evangelical, no doubt — but wants them to flow freely out of a tidy theological and psychological uniformity.

The ambiguities on the "liberal" or church-mentality side, while not as blatant, nevertheless are just as real — particularly to a sociologist of religion. Most of the "liberal" pastors and professors seem, ultimately, to want to be left alone to preach and teach out of a wider, more ecumenical background. They would prefer that the synod define itself as a fellowship of men in search of the truth, rather than in possession of the whole truth.

At the same time, these forces insist that the synod must remain a "confessional" body. · However, their explanations of how it can remain "confessional" in theory if "confessional" practices are to be scrapped have somewhat the same ring as Catholic contortions on the question of infallibility. While readily admitting that the synod has every right to investigate the doctrinal positions of its pastors and professors, this faction has a tendency to hedge at the point where the synod actually does something about orthodoxy. In other words, confessing and professing ultimately are not tribal affairs but private matters. It may be that adherents of this position are true followers of Martin Luther, but it does not necessarily follow that they are being true to the Missouri Synod.

No Split Likely
If the synod ever comes to a watershed decision, an assessment of which faction would have something unique to contribute to the American religious community would not be difficult: neither of them would. Should the sectarian forces win, they would not have the solid traditions of such groups as the Mennonites or the Friends to fall back on. In 20 years the Missouri Synod would probably be forgotten by everybody except the compilers of the Yearbook of American Churches. Should the church forces win, it would seem to be only a matter of time before one of two possibilities would come about: either the synod would be just another jewel in the crown of the liberal Protestant Establishment, or, with the sectarian strain gone, the synod would lose much of the fuel that impels its well oiled missionary endeavors and would become dross on the crown of the liberal Protestant Establishment.

However, for a variety of reasons the Missouri Synod quite possibly will never go one way or the other. In the first place, a formal schism that might break it down the middle is extremely unlikely. The Federation of Authentic Lutheranism, a loosely organized group of sectarian dissenters that promises to withdraw, would be lucky to attract 50 of the synod's 6,000 congregations. Politically speaking, the federation is a paper tiger. Second, the synod's biennial conventions are ever-recurring courts of last resort. Hope springs eternal in the heart of a Missourian because there will always be another convention at which to search for consensus, right wrongs and win friends. The power of the convention event itself perpetually to mold and rechannel the creative tension between sect and church is obvious from the synod's history. Practically every convention has been Armageddon for some group or other. And yet no convention has ever really become the "great day of God," after all.

One cannot understand the mystery that is the Missouri Synod until he sees the synod in convention. The convention is a semiliturgical event where the search for the uniformity once enjoyed by the founding fathers of Perry county, Mo., can prevail until the 11th hour— and then be set aside in favor of a practical decision which maintains unity.

The 1973 convention will not by itself solve the deep-seated divisions in the Missouri Synod. But perhaps the hope that it will is enough. When there is no "next convention" in the hearts and minds and pocketbooks of Missourians, then and only then is the synod in deep trouble.

JAMES E. ADAMS.

1123 Franklin Ave.,

St. Louis, Mo. 63101.

Christian Century, January 1, 1971, 1058-1062.

Lutheran Pastor Fined for Holding Confessions Sacred

The sacredness of the confessional is at issue in a case now being tried in a Minneapolis court. On February 27th the Rev. Emil Swenson, Lutheran minister, was fined $100 for contempt of court by District Judge Paul W. Guilford because he refused to testify to a "confession" made to him by the defendant in a divorce suit. The pastor was cited for contempt when he refused to divulge details of a confidential conversation he had with Arnold C. Sundseth, a divorce defendant, on the ground that the "confession" was made to him in his official capacity as a minister by a man seeking advice and help in his troubles.

The case raised the question whether a minister is ever compelled to reveal what he is told under the seal of confession. If Judge Guilford is quoted correctly in the press, he holds that the Lutheran Church does not countenance the confessional and that therefore the pastor was not bound by church law to keep the confidence and was guilty of contempt of court. Certainly it will be a surprise to Lutherans to know that their practise on this point is not known to the general public. In the Catechism used by Lutherans throughout the world there is a separate section devoted to confession and absolution, which absolution, pronounced by his pastor, whenever a sin rests heavily upon his heart. In accordance with this instruction and as a result of the general confidence which a parishioner has in his minister it is one of the commonest experiences in the Lutheran clergyman's life to hear confessions of sins and then to apply the Law and the Gospel, as the case may demand.

As for the obligation of the clergyman to keep inviolate under all circumstances what has been thus entrusted to him, — that, too, is commonly accepted among Lutherans. The attitude of our Church is that pronounced by Martin Luther in the following well-known words: "Since it is confessed, not to me, but to Christ, and since Christ keeps it secret, then I must also keep it secret and answer that I have heard nothing. What Christ has heard He can tell." Our text-books in pastoral theology take precisely the same stand. Walther's text-book goes so far as to say: "Under all circumstances a pastor who reveals confessions should be deposed." Professor Schaller's Pastorale, used in the Wisconsin Synod, contains the following: "The confessional seal covers the announcement for Holy Communion, private confession and, in fact, all official activity of the pastor. The things he hears in confession or that are in any other manner confidentially told him as the pastor, must not by him be revealed to any creature; for as pastor he stands in the place of God and hears only for God (Luther, St. Louis Ed. 21, 2514a; 22, 559, § 4). The one making a confession must have the fullest assurance that his confession will be kept secret; but he should be instructed that he on his part must not reveal to others what his pastor said to him."

Commenting on the decision of Judge Guilford, a Minneapolis clergyman is quoted as saying: "Common law always is regarded by courts unless a statute is found which supersedes it. It is the common law of the Church, even if it is not one of the rules, that a pastor who receives information in confidence must not reveal it." If by "common law" in this quotation the "common law" prevailing in the United States is referred to, the clergyman is in error. Mr. Carl Zollmann, in his treatise on American Civil Church Law, says, p. 333: "By common law, confessions made to a priest or minister were not regarded as privileged." However, he continues: "A clergyman was therefore continually in danger of being called upon to divulge such confessions in court. To remedy this condition, statutes have been passed putting such confessions on an equality with statements made to an attorney. They must, however, be made to the clergyman in his professional character. The mere fact that a person who hears a confession is a clergyman will not exclude it from the consideration of court or jury."

The Northwestern Lutheran quotes the Wisconsin law in the matter as follows: "325. 20. A clergyman or other minister of any religion shall not be allowed to disclose a confession made to him in his professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rule or practise of the religious body to which he belongs, without consent thereto by the party confessing."

The same paper quotes Attorney Ernst von Briesen to the effect that there have been two cases in Wisconsin. In one of these the court held that it was not an error to allow a clergyman to testify against a defendant when there was no confession, and it was apparent that he was not acting in a professional character at the time. It is self-evident that other communications to a minister, as, for instance, when a minister acts as a business adviser, etc., are not privileged, but it seems clear that under Wisconsin law the confessions of a person to his pastor are privileged.

The Swenson case is the first of its kind in the State of Minnesota. An appeal to the State Supreme Court was taken. Whether the point in which we are all interested will be settled through that court appears doubtful. If press dispatches are studied carefully, it seems that what was revealed to Rev. Swenson for the purpose of reconciliation he had already told the wronged party and the attorney, hence it was no longer secret and would in that case no longer be in the sense of our Church a matter resting under seal of private confession.

—Theodore Graebner, The Lutheran Witness, Vol. L., no. 7 (March 31, 1931), p. 121.

Respect for the Confessional. — The Supreme Court of Minnesota has now handed down its decision in the case of the Rev. Emil Swenson of Bethlehem Ev. Lutheran Church who was sentenced by a lower court to pay a fine of $100 and serve thirty days in jail because he refused to tell what a troubled soul had revealed to him. At that time Rev. Swenson declared that the information was in the nature of a confession and therefore sacred. The judge of the lower court, however, insisted that, since there is no obligatory private confession in the Lutheran Church, such a confession was not to be considered confidential. The higher court has now reversed the judgment and discharged Pastor Swenson, declaring that confidential confessions to a clergyman are privileged.

The case attracted nation-wide attention. Some legislatures were even moved to enact legislation to make a recurrence of such a conviction impossible.

To us Lutherans it seems incomprehensible that a judge should decide as Judge Paul Guilford of the lower court did. Our children in school and in instruction for confirmation are taught that no court dare call upon a pastor to reveal what has been confided to him in private confession. We had not the least doubt that as soon as a more intelligent judge took hold of the matter, the proper decision would be returned. But even if a Government official would insist on sentencing a pastor for refusal to reveal a confession, the pastor must then suffer fine or jail sentence, as the case may be, rather than reveal anything that has been told him in private confession; for whatever is told a pastor in private confession is told not him, but God, just as he is at that time not speaking his own word or absolution, but pronouncing God's Word and absolution.

—Theodore Graebner, The Lutheran Witness, Vol. L., no. 14 (July 7, 1931), p. 233.

32 Thesen wider unevangelische Praxis

Thanks to a discussion at the ALPB Forum, an earlier post containing 32 Propositions on Unevangelical Practice has recently been receiving a large number of views. I noticed that one of the commenters on that site had asked a question about the original German, which has led me to create this post.

32 Thesen

wider unevangelische Praxis.

1. Evangelische Praxis besteht nicht darin, daß man nichts als Evangelium, sondern daß man Alles evangelisch handelt.
2. Darunter ist zu verstehen, daß man, weil man die Rechtfertigung vor Gott, die Erneuerung des Herzens und die Früchte des Geistes nur vom Evangelium erwartet, bei allem was man thut, das Eine im Auge hat, nämlich das Evangelium in Schwang zu bringen.
3. Eben deshalb wird bei evang. Praxis das Gesetz nicht etwa bei Seite gestellt oder durch Einmischung von Evangelium abgestumpft, sondern vielmehr mit um so größerm Ernst in voller Schärfe, aber in evangelischer Weise gehandhabt.
4. Evangelisch wird das Gesetz dann gebraucht, wenn man es lediglich dazu gebraucht, dem Evangelio den Boden zu bereiten und den aus dem Evangelio frei erwachsenden Erweisungen des neuen Lebens die göttliche Richtschnur vorzuhalten.
   Evangelisch wird das Evangelium dann gebraucht, wenn es Allen und unbedingt und unverkürzt dargeboten wird.
5. Es ist nicht evangelische Praxis, die Perlen des Evangelii vor die Säue zu werfen; noch viel weniger aber, sie in der Tasche zu behalten.
6. Evangel. Praxis erläßt kein Iota von dem, was Gott erfordert; fordert aber nichts anderes und mehr, als Glauben und Liebe.
7. Evang. Praxis fordert Beweisung des Glaubens und der Liebe bei Seelen Seligkeit; giebt aber über die einzelnen Erweisungen derselben nach Ziel, Maß und Weise kein Gebot.
8. Ev. Praxis fordert Erfüllung auch des kleinsten Buchstabens im Gesetz; macht aber vom Halten des Gesetzes den Gnadenstand nicht abhängig.
9. Ev. Praxis sucht der Wirkung des Evangelii durch das Gesetz zwar vorzuarbeiten, aber nicht nachzuhelfen; und weil sie die Früchte des Geistes allein vom Evangelio erwartet, so kann sie auf dieselben auch warten.
10. Ev. Praxis hält Alles, was nicht aus dem Evangelio d. i. aus dem Glauben erwachsen ist, für keinen wesentlichen Gewinn; trägt deshalb lieber allerlei Mängel, Uebelstände und Sünden, als daß sie dieselben bloß äußerlich beseitigt.
11. Ev. Pr. beschränkt die Seelsorge auf specielle Application des Gesetzes und des Evangelii; das Erforschen und Richten des Herzens überläßt sie dem Herzenskündiger.
12. Ev. Pr. hält auf gute menschliche Ordnung; vielmehr aber auf christliche Freiheit und läßt deshalb Mitteldinge auch wirklich Mitteldinge bleiben, d. h. überläßt sie schließlich dem Gewissen des Einzelnen.
13. Ev. Pr. ist treu im Kleinen, hat aber doch mehr das Große und Ganze im Auge, als das Einzelne.
14. Klug sein, wie die Schlangen—sich in die Zeit schicken—sich vom Satan nicht übervortheilen lassen—jedermann allerlei werden, um allenthalben etliche selig zu machen—sind auch Stücke evangelischer Praxis.
15. Ev. Pr. ist ebensoweit von antinomistischer als von gesetzlicher Praxis entfernt.
16. Aus evangelischer Erkenntniß und Gesinnung sollte wohl evangelische Praxis fließen; thuts aber selten und langsam.
17. Wir bleiben meist in Gesetzlichkeit stecken, oder fallen in antinomistische Schlaffheit. So fremd ist der Natur das Evangelium.
18. Es ist Gefahr nach beiden Seiten; für uns bis jetzt noch mehr nach der gesetzlichen Seite hin.
19. Von dem natürlichen Hange des alten Adam, dem Herkommen aus dem Pietismus u. a. abgesehen—bringt das schon unsere hiesige Lage und die nöthige Reaction gegen die herrschende Zuchtlosigkeit in Lehre und Leben mit sich.
20. Oder wie viel sind ihrer, die nicht heimlich doch noch mehr Angst davor hätten, einem Unwürdigen die Güter des Evangelii zu spenden, als davor, dieselben dem Bedürftigen zu versagen oder zu verkürzen? Wem stände nicht sein Gewissen im Wege, nach St. Pauli Vorgang Allen Alles zu werden?—Wo es aber so steht, da findet sich sicherlich auch noch gesetzliche Praxis.
21. Gesetzliche Praxis besteht nicht darin, daß man nichts als Gesetz, sondern Alles gesetzlich treibt, d. h. also treibt, daß man vor Allem darauf ausgeht, daß dem Gesetz sein Recht geschehe, und daß man durchs Gesetz oder gar durch Gesetze ausrichten will, was nur das Evangelium ausrichten kann.
22. Je mehr nun dazu noch (wie das oft geschieht, wo das innerlich Treibende eigentlich noch das Gesetz ist) der treibende Eifer schlägt, der nicht einmal die Liebe die Königin der Gebote bleiben läßt, die Weisheit als Rathgeberin verschmäht, und selbst dann, wann er nur zu lehren, zu strafen oder zu ermahnen wähnt, doch eigentlich Zwang, und zwar den schlimmsten nämlich moralischen Zwang anwendet—je unevangelischer wird die Praxis.
23. Unevangelisch-gesetzliche Praxis findet sich nicht bloß im Kirchen- und Gemeinde- sondern auch im Schul- und Haus-Regiment, so wie im brüderlichen Verkehr.
24. Die noch am meisten vorkommenden Beispiele im Predigtamt, Seelsorge und Gemeinderegierung möchten folgende sein:
    a.       in Predigten:
    Durchgeißeln einzelner Sünden, Uebelstände oder gar nur persönlich mißliebiger Dinge—, Abmalen bekannter Sünden bekannter Personen; anstatt die bittere Wurzel aufzudecken, aus welcher alle bösen Früchte wachsen.—Bloßes sogenanntes Zeugniß-ablegen ohne eigentliche Belehrung und Vermahnung. Unnöthiges oder verfrühtes oder unerbauliches Polemisiren.—Ermahnen zu Buße und Glauben, anstatt das zu predigen, was Buße und Glauben wirkt.—Pietistisches Classificiren der Zuhörer— Verclausuliren des Evangelii—Vorwiegende Darstellung des Glaubens nach seiner heiligenden Kraft.— Verkündigung der Gnade Gottes nur um alsobald Forderungen darauf zu bauen.
    b.      bei Beichte und heil. Abendmahl:
    Als Bedingung der Zulassung mehr fordern, als zu heilsamen Gebrauch unentbehrlich ist.—Schulmäßiges Katechismus- und inquisitorisches Herzens-Verhör.— Aufsparung dessen, was etwa zu strafen ist, auf die Anmeldung oder Beichte.—Drohen mit Abendmahlsversagung als Zwang-, Schreck- oder Zucht-Mittel.—Abweisung außer bei erweislicher Unbußfertigkeit.
    c.       bei Taufen:
    Kinder von Irrgläubigen oder Gottlosen, die doch unter dem Schalle des Wortes leben, auch wenn dabei in kein fremd Amt gegriffen wird, entweder gar nicht, oder nur unter allerlei menschlichen Garantien taufen wollen.—Zulassung zur Pathenschaft auf gleiche Linie mit Annahme zum Sacrament stellen.
    d.      bei Copulatione:
    Grundsätzliche Verweigerung derselben bei Solchen, welche außerhalb der Gemeinde stehen, auch wenn dieselben nicht offenbar gottlos sind.—Peinliches Halten auf eine bestimmte Form der elterlichen Einwilligung und Verlobung.
    e.      bei Beerdigungen:
    Unbedingtes Versagen derselben bei Allen, welche nicht irgendwie zur Gemeinde gehören, oder doch den Besuch des Pastors begehrt haben.—Befolgung des Grundsatzes, daß man jedesmal die Seligkeit oder Unseligkeit des Verstorbenen öffentlich zu bezeugen, ihre Sünden zu strafen und die Gelegenheit zu benutzen habe, die Sünden und Gebrechen der Angehörigen anzustechen.
    f.       in der Seelsorge:
    Beständiges Hobeln und Feilen an Jedermann, bis Alles fadenrecht ist.— Annahme irgendwelcher Zuträgereien.—Einmischung in Haus-, Familien- und Ehe-Sachen außer bei offenbaren Sünden.—Aus einzelnen Worten und Werken über den Herzensgrund richten.—Anwendung moralischen Zwangs durch Uebertreibung u. dgl.
    g.       in Gemeinde-Regiment und Kirchenzucht:
    Uebertriebene Anforderungen bei der Anfnahme neuer Glieder.—Versagung oder peremtorische Zeitbestimmung für den gastweisen Mitgenuß der geistlichen Gemeinde-Güter, sonderlich des heil. Abendmahls.—Gebotmäßiges Auflegen gleichmäßiger Beisteuer, oder zwangsweises Taxiren der Einzelnen.—Anwendung der Zucht gegen Dinge, die nicht offenbare Totsünden sind, oder gar gegen selbstprovocirte Sünden.—Jemand schon um deswillen als einen im Verstand überzeugten aber böslich widerstrebenden behandeln, weil er gegen die angeführten Gründe nichts mehr anzuführen weiß, oder gar beistimmt.—Mehr auf Formgerechtigkeit des Processes, als auf Erreichung des Zwecks der Zucht sehen.—Alle etwa zu leistenden öffentlichen Bekenntnisse in gleicher Form und gleichem Grade der Oeffentlichkeit verlangen.—Das Bestreben, die Kluft zwischen denen, die in- und denen, die außer der Gemeinde sind, recht groß zu machen, anstatt den Gegnern und Draußenstehenden Brücken zu bauen.—
25. Gesetzliche Praxis, so viel an ihr ist, macht das Evangelium zum Gesetz, das Gesetz zum Zuchtmeister,—als nicht auf Christum, die Beichte zur Marter, die Seelsorge zur Hudelei, das Sacrament zum Zeugniß und Siegel, daß man—dem Pastor genüge, die christliche Freiheit zum bloßen Schein, die Kirchenzucht zur Gewissenspresse, das Volk kleinlich, peinlich, werkerisch pharisäisch und die Kirche zur Policeianstalt.
26. Gesetzliche Praxis hat nur für die Blinden den Schein größerer Gewissenhaftigkeit, Tapferkeit und schnelleren Erfolges. Bei Licht besehen fehlt ihr der wahre Muth, Gott walten und Sein Wort wirken zu lassen; hre [sic] Gewissenhaftigkeit ist die eines irrenden Gewissens und sie selbst eins der größten Hindernisse der Wirkung sowohl des Gesetzes als des Evangelii.
27. Keiner Kirche steht gesetzliche Praxis so übel an, als der evangelisch-lutherischen.
28. Da, wo es gilt, die Kirche erst zu pflanzen, die schönen Ordnungen längst gepflanzter Kirchen ohne Weiteres für maaßgebend zu halten—ist nicht lutherisch.
29. Es giebt genug Dinge, da wir nicht hindern können, daß man Anstoß an uns nimmt; geben wir keinen durch unnöthige Schroffheit in der Praxis.
30. Machen wir getrost ein Ende mit aller unevangelischen Praxis; aber vergessen wir nicht: von gesetzlicher zu antinomischer Praxis ist bloß Ein Sprung.
31. Antinomistiche Praxis will sich vor Gesetzlichkeit hüten und Alles mit dem bloßen Evangelio ausrichten. Ihr fehlt ab er, weil der Ernst des Gesetzes, so auch die Gluth des Evangelii. Darum ist schlaffes zuchtloses Wesen ihre Folge.
32. Wo man aus gesetzlicher in antinomistische Praxis fällt, da ist übel ärger geworden.

Vorstehende Thesen wurden bis zur These 24 incl. von der Synode verhandelt und gebilligt. Für die Verhandlung der übrigen 8 fehlte es an Zeit.

The Society of the Incarnate Word

During the early-to-mid-twentieth century, a number of different Lutheran liturgical groups appeared, blossomed, and passed away. The most well-known of these groups was and remains the Liturgical Society of St. James, but there were a number of smaller, less well-known groups as well, such as the Society of St. Ambrose, and the Society of the Incarnate Word.

The Society of the Incarnate Word was always a relatively small organization, particularly when compared to the Society of St. James and the Valparaiso Institute of Liturgical Studies. It nevertheless gained a certain level of popularity among young pastors and seminarians within the LCMS. Its members were expected to follow a daily rule and observe certain monastic-style practices, such as fasting, Scriptural meditation, and praying the Divine Office (Matins and Vespers).

In 1960, the Society's former Superior gave the rational for the choice of name: "our concern [was] that sacramental life be emphasized; since apart from the activity of the Incarnate Word in the Gospel and the sacraments, Christians are not nourished nor are men brought to faith in Christ."

The Society's stated goal was "to work for a fuller sacramental life in the Church, and for the return of the Holy Eucharist to the central point of the worship life in the Church, and to make known, preserve and promote a full, liturgical, devotional and cultural life in our Church, guided by the heritage and standards of sixteenth-century Lutheran practice."

Beginning in 1959, the Society began publishing a series of tracts, eventually publishing a total of thirty different tracts:

The Royal Priesthood
Holy Absolution: A Voice from Heaven
The Sign of the Cross
The Weekly Celebration of the Holy Eucharist
Are You a Catholic?
What Is a Parent?
Holy Baptism
Private Confession and Absolution
What Is this Church Year?
The Holy Name of Jesus
Pray for the Dead?
"I Will Go unto the Altar of God"
How Often Should I Receive the Sacrament?
The Virgin Mary
The Incarnation
One Cup
Whosoever Shall Eat and Drink Unworthily
The Sacred Ministry
What Is the Augsburg Confession?
What Is a Sacrament?
Holy Confirmation
Holy Marriage
First Communion
The Offertory
What Shall I Call Him?
Interracial Marriage
Sex
From One—Every Nation
Love and Hate
The Table Prayers of Blessed Martin Luther

Most of these tracts are available online in a re-typeset and in some cases slightly modified form here.

Abortion and Birth Control

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL

1. Is it good to let a discussion on abortion and birth control start without a firm theological foundation concerning God's created orders?
2. Is it Christian to answer questions about these controversial subjects from a pragmatic and utilitarian point of view?
3. Can we speak of God's will without considering the family (the marriage relationship and the parents and children relationship) an order of creation?
4. Can a Christian let the exception allowed by the Mosaic Law for the "hardness of the heart" be valid for him and his own heart (reborn)?
5. Has not the hard-heartedness of man brought on the deplorable situations we are facing in our sick society?
6. Does not the finger of Christ pointing to Genesis ("from the beginning") imply that the "putting asunder" must be applied in all areas that concern the creative orders? (For instance putting asunder what God has joined together in marriage as well as in parenthood.)
7. Is it a Godly marriage which on the one hand enjoys the highest evidence of unity of the flesh in sexual intercourse, but on the other hand refuses to recognize God's order of creation as an intended reason for this union?
8. Is not something essential eliminated from marriage and intercourse when the potential life is eliminated?
9. What is the similarity between "putting asunder"the mother from the child in abortion and the separating of potential parents from their children by contraceptive measures?
10. When is a marriage responsibly faithful to God as well as to the personal relations between the spouses? Is contraception unfaithfulness to God?
11. If the absence of children does not, in principle, call into question the full meaning and purpose of marriage, is it not called into question if the willingness to have children is lacking, and moreover is lacking most of the time?
12. Is the push for "planned parenthood" and "abortion" a war of the present generation against the unborn generation?
13. Is the so-called population bomb to be made harmless by acts against God's created orders of marriage and family?
14. Can a Christian allow his "calculated" need for "security" (prosperity, egocentrical emphasis) to take precedence over confidence and faith in God?
15. Does the present ease of contraception or abortion present the responsible Christian spouses with a new and stronger temptation to misuse and, thereby, often destroy their marriage?

Dr. Martin J. Naumann, Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, IL

March 31, 1971