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.