|
Letters to Lutheran
Pastors, No. 22 The Deconfessionalization of
Lutheranism? Remarks on the present
situation of the Lutheran Churches.
Dear Brothers in the Office! Three years have passed since the first of these letters came into your
hands. That letter sought to depict, in brief strokes, the situation faced by
the Lutheran Churches as it made note of the two-fold tendency in the most
recent history of our church: a strong external ascendance of Lutheranism,
which is accompanied by a threatening diminution of the dogmatic-confessional
substance. Most of you will agree with me that the developments of the past
three years have corroborated this viewpoint. It is to be feared that the
meeting of the Lutheran World Federation in Hannover will not contradict this
view. How pleased would we all be, all of us who are so very concerned for the
future of our church, if this meeting would prove us wrong, if it shall have
revealed something of an ascendancy of the inner spiritual life of the church,
of a renewal of the old faithfulness to the confession of the eternal truth,
which once found a home in Lower Saxony. But from what one reads in "Lutherischen
Rundschau" of the preparations in Hanover it appears to be much like
the massive marches and manipulating demonstrations which the evangelical
churches of Germany inherited from the Third Reich, which satisfy a deep
psychological need of modern masses. There is no doubt hat the Hannover session
of the Lutheran World Federation will be just as beautiful and enchanting as
the Berlin Kirchentag of the EkiD and as the great royal nuptial
celebrations of Hannover in previous years. The very same men who in Berlin
were so enthused over the unity of the Evangelical Church in German [EkiD]
("We are still brothers!"), will be enthused in Hannover over the
Lutheran Church. And they will proudly allow the church banners to stream,
among which also is the banner of the LWF with Luther's seal, just as at royal
weddings the old Hannoverian flags suddenly fluttered again and the old
uniforms of the Hannoverian army of 1866 experienced a remarkable resurrection.
What a testimony of loyalty that was! Only it was forgotten that it was all
merely a beautiful show. The princes no longer rule. The flag of a state was
displayed which has long since gone under. The people passionately celebrated a
loyalty, which had long since been violated. That is the genius loci of
Hannover. Should it also rule the session of the Lutheran World Federation in
August? If not, then it is time to exorcise it. We theologians in any case will
remain sober and guard ourselves from the enthusiasm which in every form is the
mortal enemy of the true faith. With Lutheran sobriety, which means for us at
the same time with constant faith in the reality of the Church of God, we
desire to seek to understand the situation of Lutheranism regarding a few
essential points at the beginning of this fateful year. 1. The letters, which at Christmas time came from various areas of the
Lutheran Church of Europe and America, from territorial and free churches,
large and small churches, spoke without exception of the deep inner distress of
the churches. They spoke of distressing matters scarcely found in the church
papers, matters of which one can not speak publicly at all, or only in a very
limited way. But all these voices give one who resides at a place on the earth
outside Europe and America the impression that a single illness threatens the
Lutheran Churches of the world. It is the very secularization of the church
itself. If 25 years ago the secularization of culture was recognized as the
great illness of the time, then it is soberly to be asserted today that
secularism is now the illness of the church. It is gripping to see that, in
order to fulfill the missiological goal of calling the peoples of the west back
to the Christian faith, the church itself must first be turned back to this
faith. "Sweden's people are God' people." That was the solution a
generation ago. Today the question is to what extent the Church of
Sweden is still the church of God? And so it is in all nations. Great
missionary endeavors and evangelization efforts will still be carried out, but
it is precisely the most serious evangelists who are coming to the conviction
that the gospel preaching church must be the first object of their
evangelization. This understanding was already once given as a gift to German
evangelical churchdom. The consequence of the theology of Karl Barth in the
time of his great influence in the first half of the 1930's was based upon this
recognition. That was the meaning of his struggle against Dibelius and his
"Century of the Church." That was the most profound power of the "Confessing
Churches" of all persuasions in Germany, however they may have differed
from each other as Lutherans, Reformed, or United [Churches]. That was really
the renewal of the Reformation; for Reformation is indeed the repentance of the
church. The end of this repentance meant the end of the "Confessing
Church." What then followed was mere restoration. Every revolution ends
with collapse and the convulsive efforts to restore everything to what it was
before. That is an inborn propensity of natural man. From the far southern and
eastern portion of the world, one has the impression that the Japanese people
have been struck at the very core of their existence in a more profound way,
and that there are more penitent men, men who have heard the New Testament
summons to repentance, than among us Germans. One need simply glance at Lilje's
"Sunday Paper" [Sonntagsblatt] or the propaganda paper
broadcast throughout the world, "Christ and World" [Christ und Welt]
with the following in mind: What remains here of the Stuttgart confession of
guilt which was at least true in 1945? Where the church, however, loses and
surrenders the authority to preach repentance, neither can she preach
justification. There she loses the Gospel. There she does not experience that
repentance which makes the church the church of Christ. There she can still
proclaim a Christian worldview; she can train scholars and workers, doctors and
philosophers, engineers and journalists at evangelical academies. There her
theologians can still proclaim a theory of the forgiveness of sins, but she no
longer has the authority to call sinners to repentance. Karl Holl once made an
excellent statement regarding the sermons of Schleiermacher from the years
after the collapse of Prussia: "One gets the impression that Schleiermacher
too perceived the deepening of the understanding of sin in the sense of strict
Christianity at that time as a certain hindrance to the necessary ascendance of
the father land." (Ges Aufsatze [Umlaut over "a"] III, p.
357). That is Prussian Christianity, the Christianity of the "German
Christians" and their kindred spirits in all nations of the earth: One
reckons one's own sins against those of others, and quickly forgets his own.
But God forgets not. He forgives, but only the truly repentant. No where is the secularization of the Lutheran Church more visible than
in the loss of her confessional conscience. In these letters we have often
recounted that and why the Lutheran Church is a confessional church kat
exochen. The confession means for her more than it does for the Reformed,
indeed, in many respect even more than for the [Roman] Catholics. The Reformed
Churches can survive if the confession is relativized, when it is stated:
"We do not know precisely whether next Sunday we will continue to interpret
Scripture in the way we do today." Catholicism actually celebrates a
triumph when a dogma is proclaimed by the pope, the correctness of which is
doubted by many of the best Catholics and which they then in worthy obedience
accept, though they themselves know that the proof of tradition is defective
and therefore doubtful. Both these groups [Reformed and Roman] lack that
ultimate seriousness regarding the question of truth, which was the proprium
of the Lutheran Reformation. We Lutherans are quite happy to boast about
this virtue, but perhaps no longer with justification, just as the Swiss still
boast of the bravery which their fathers showed on the battle fields of Europe
centuries ago. Indeed, the church does not live on from the faith of the fathers.
The confession can have a purely historical significance like the flags and
uniforms of Hannover. If it is correct that the confessio, the
confession of the faith, is indissoluably connected with confessio in
the sense of the confession of sin and of the praise of God, is not then our
lack of repentance and our lack of joyful praise of God in newer hymns a
notable parallel to the regression of the dogmatic confession [of the faith]?
Allow me to cite the following sentence from the Christmas letter of an American
friend as an illustration of this state of affairs: "I am afraid we have
come to a point in American Lutheranism where we no longer dare discuss
controversial doctrines. There is a deep concern in all hearts for outward
unity, but with that there often goes, as you know, doctrinal differences (read
"indifference") and even compromise on truth. The concern for truth
has lost its power in our country, not least because of the philosophy of
goverment and the corruption in government that we have seen for the last two
decades. It reaches all the way down into the church because the young people
are educated into this kind of a philosophy. God help us to be fearless in our
presentation of the truth and in our battle against falsehood." Thus the
great secularization process, which is today passing through all churches,
affects in Lutheranism a troubling regression of confessional consciousness and
with this also of dogmatic substance. And this judgement applies, even in view of the fact that the collapse in
other churches is happening much more quickly and is more eminent than in the
Lutheran Church. I will comment on this in what follows. But no reference to
the great sickness of secularism already farther advanced in other communions
of Christendom can release us from the duty of acknowledging the sickness in
its entire gravity and of reminding ourselves of the means and path to healing
to which the merciful patience of God points us. 2. Allow me to clarify the dogmatic-confessional problem of the Lutheran
Church by noting one of the many ecumenical plans which in our day, especially
on the mission field and in the great lands of immigration such as Australia,
are supposed to solve the church's problem. The "World Council of
Churches" indeed assures us that it does not desire to be a "super
church," and that it also refused to be, as Dr. Leiper says, a
"marriage beaurue" for churches. Thus in the theses of Toronto
regarding the ecclesiological significance of the World Council of Churches,
III.2, it states: "The task of the Council is not to facilitate union
between churches. Such negotiations can only be carried out by the churches
themselves at their own initiative. Its task is to bring the churches into a
living perception of each other, and thus to promote study and the discussion
of questions of church unification." (Translated from "The Ecumenical
Revue" III, No. 1, Oct. 1950, p. 48). This thesis is explained by the
following: "By its very existence and activity the Council bears witness
to the necessity of a clear manifestation of the unity of the church of Christ.
But it remains the right and duty of each individual church on the basis of its
ecumenical experience to come to those conclusions which they themselves
believe they must come to on the basis of their own convictions. No church,
therefore, needs to fear that the Council will necessitate decisions from them
regarding unification with other churches" (ibidem). It is stated thereby
that the World Council is in fact something like a match-maker, where the
partners are brought together and encouraged to express decisions regarding
future marital agreements. The ecumenical movement, which a quarter century ago
facilitated the encounter of the churches, the new ordering of their mutual
relationships and their common consciousness of the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic church as confessed in the Nicaenum, has in large measure
thereby become a union movement in which the tragedy of all such union
movements is repeated: Instead of reducing the number of churches, the number
is increased through the founding of new churches, just as after 1817 in
Germany out of the Lutheran and Reformed [Churches] something like five union
churches of various confession had been created. And the unification is not
unification in faith, but rather unification in doubt, namely the famous
"agree[ment] to disagree" [ Sasse's original states this in English.
Trans.]. Just what such a church looks like is shown by the plan for a
"Reunited Church" of Australia, which on the basis of the Union of
South India and the plan for other union churches in the far east has been
worked out by the "Commission for Faith and Order" with the
"Australian Council of the World Council of Churches" and in fully
official manner set before the ecumenical sessions of this year, especially the
Faith and Order Conference in Lund, and commended to the churches of Australia The "Reunited Church" is to consist of member churches which,
to a certain extent, retain their independence, but mutually acknowledge each
other's faith and the validity of their respective offices. Each particular
church delegates certain powers to the larger church [Gesamtkirche].
This has already been realized in Germany in the EkiD, and this is why the EkiD
enjoys such great favor through the ecumenical movement. It is exactly the same
plan which is behind the new "National Council of Churches in Christ in
America" (NCCCA), the continuation of the old Federal Council of 1908.
According to the view of the present leader of the ecumenical movement this
plan shall bring about the solution to the world-wide unification problem,
especially on the mission field: Unity in diversity, maintenance of the
heritage of the individual confessions while setting aside the old absolute
dogmatic claims. This is the realization of the Masonic idea so dear to the
western world - the "religion in which we all agree" [Sasse's
original in English], making possible further development of the church toward
a full realization of the Una Sancta "under the direction of the
Holy Spirit." The creedal basis in the case of Australia is that which is
held to be basic to the Christian faith: Apostolicum and Niceanum as
expressions of faith in the Triune God. How one understands the assertions of
these confessions on individual points is, accordingly, not asked. All
questions which in these confessions are not answered, remain open, especially
all the questions raised by the Reformation. Regarding the Holy Scriptures, for
instance, the plan says that the churches accept the writings of the Old and
New Testaments as "given by God, in order to give us the revelation of
himself in many parts and many ways, which is fulfilled in the Lord Jesus
Christ." Not only does it remain an open question whether the Holy Scriptures
are God's word, as the church of all times has believed, but also whether they
are the only source and norm of doctrine, or whether there is a tradition also
alongside them. New declarations of faith should certainly only be allowed
provided "such statements are agreeable to the truths of the Christian
religion which is revealed in Holy Scripture." This much of the sola
scriptura of the Reformation yet remains. We find here the uniquely flawed
position of the present day Anglican Church regarding the scriptures. When the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York in previous years protested against the
Dogma of the Assumptio Mariae it did not mean, as was understood by
Lutherans, that they held that the dogma was false. All Anglo-catholics
celebrate the 15th of August with the Roman liturgy of the day, thereby
confessing their personal belief in the dogma, and thus declare publicly that
they accept the Assumptio. No Anglican bishop denies them this right.
What is contested is only that this doctrine must be believed by all Christians
as binding dogma. The Church of England and world Anglicanism see an error not
in the belief in the Marian dogmas of [Roman] Catholicism, rather only in the
fact of the dogmatization itself. This limitation of the scriptural principle
corresponds to the fact that the tradition [of the Assumption] again achieved a
significance in Anglicanism which was denied it by the Reformation. We have
elsewhere already once pointed out the pronouncement of the present Archbishop
of Canterbury that the highest authority in questions of doctrine is the Holy
Spirit, who speaks in the Holy Scriptures, in tradition, and in the present,
living experience of the church. One may happily accept a tradition as an
article of faith, only one must not ascribe to it general binding force. On the
other hand, it is not stated that a binding dogma must be taken from the
Scriptures, which is a basic principle of all churches of the Reformation. It
just must not contradict Scripture; it must be reconcilable to the revealed truth
in Scripture. These basic principles of modern Anglicanism have here been made
a norm of faith in the "Reunited Church." Can the sola scriptura of
the Reformation be taught within it? Yes, but only as a private opinion of
individual Christians or groups of Christians! Can the Tridentine dogma of
Scripture and tradition be taught within it? Once again, yes, but only as a
private opinion! At first glance it appears to be a remarkable unification of
Protestantism and Catholicism, and in this sense its advocates perceived the
plan. But upon closer examination one notes that here precisely that is
abandoned regarding which Luther, Calvin and Trent were actually in agreement,
namely the recognition of the Bible as the Word of God! But it is precisely the
same with all the doctrines of the confessional churches of Christianity. One
may teach the sola scriptura or the Tridentine doctrine of
justification, Calvin's predestination doctrine or Arminianism, but always and
only as a private opinion. The Lutherans may retain the Book of Concord, the
Reformed their confessions, the Catholics the Tridentinum, provided that
they do not absolutize their their particular traditions. The sola fide of
the Lutheran Reformation can be maintained as a private opinion, but it may no
longer be asserted that it is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. The
same applies to all the particular doctrines of all confessions. The
union-character of this church finds it expression, naturally, most especially
in the sacraments. Both sacraments based in the gospel, Baptism and the Holy
Supper, are essential for the church. Whether or not there are additional
sacraments, remains an open question. Confirmation is regarded as the necessary
fulfillment of Baptism. A bishop must administer it. "Baptism is sign and
seal of the covenant of grace, the unification with Christ in his body, through
which we die to sin and are reborn unto righteousness and through the reception
of the Holy Spirit become children of God." Infant baptism and adult baptism
are looked upon as having equal legitimacy. If parents do not desire to have
their children baptized, the parents should make use a special ceremony to
dedicate them to God. "Baptism should thus be imparted as publicly as
possible where by the essence of the Sacrament is illustrated in appropriate
fashion before the assembled congregation, so that the significance of baptism
be quite clearly asserted." Children who die unbaptized should be given a
Christian burial. Basing infant baptism upon its necessity for salvation is avoided. Bible passages are not cited, nor is the necessity of
confirmation by a bishop [given scriptural basis]. Of what instruction
regarding baptism is to consist is not said. It must contain language at which
neither a Lutheran, nor a Baptist, nor an Anglo-catholic nor a disciple of the
Salvation Army can take offense. The solution to the problem of the Supper is
not so complicated. This sacrament, to be celebrated with bread and wine, with
prayer and the words of institution, serves for the remembrance of the
death of Christ, the proclamation of the sacrifice of Christ, and the reception
of the benefits of the sacrament. Wherein these benefits consist, is not
stated. The body and blood of Christ are in general not mentioned, which
has the great advantage that no controversy regarding the meaning of the words
of institution can transpire. The doctrine of the Supper is left to the private
understanding of individuals. Should anyone think to ask the reunited church
what is actually received in the sacrament of the Supper, the answer would have
to be: "This the church does not know." It is not necessary here to
enter into the stipulations regarding constitution, regarding the offices of
the bishop, presbyter and deacon, how through a mutual laying on of hands a
form of reciprocal acknowledgment of offices is to ensue as a replacement for
re-ordination. What interests us is unfortunately the fact that here, under the
blessing of the World Council of Churches, a fantastic union church is planned,
in which the individual confessional churches are to find their higher unity,
without giving up their own existence. No words would need to be wasted
regarding the plan if the leading circles of Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist,
and Congregationalist Churches of Australia, also the Baptists - not all of
them - the Salvation Army and a few other fellowships did not support it, and
if this plan did not correspond precisely to what is planned for the great
mission fields of the far east, and in part, has already been realized. 3. It is self evident - or should it perhaps already no longer be
self-evident? - that the Lutheran Church can only speak a decisive
"No" to this and similar plans. Nor can it allow itself to take part
in an improvement of such plans. The only thing which the Church of the
Augsburg Confession can do here is tell the other churches why such a
"reunited church" must needs be the end of the Church of Christ. For
it would in fact not be a "reunited" church. For such a church has
never existed, not immediately previous to the Reformation or in ancient times.
It is the fantasy dreamed up by churchmen who can think neither historically
nor theologically. They would tolerate Protestants and Catholics but what kind
of Protestants maintain that the sola scriptura and the sola fide are
each a non-binding theologoumenon? What kind of Catholics confesses
Tridentine dogma without condemning the doctrines of the Reformation? How could
such a church attempt to carry out missions in a serious fashion? How can I
call men to the faith if I can not tell them what the Christian faith is? How
can I preach justification without mentioning what justification is? How can I
exhort men to allow themselves to be baptized if I can not answer the question
of what baptism gives or profits? How can I dispense the Holy Supper to men if
either they or I are able to say what they receive in this sacrament? The
objection that these questions were not yet answered in the first 1500 years of
the church is perverted. The liturgies of the east as well as the west always
stated very precisely what the sacraments give. And even if all these had been
"open questions" before the Reformation, we still could not undo the
fact that since the sixteenth century answers have been given, certain answers
which contradict one another, answers which one can reject, but answers which
one can not ignore. And indeed, if an unnerved Protestant Christianity no
longer will venture to answer these questions, Rome will do it. And in spite of
all its errors Rome will still have preserved several truths. Shall it actually
come to the point that the Pope must say to the world that the Bible is the
Word of God, that Christ through his death rendered full satisfaction for our
sins, that we receive in the Sacrament of the Altar His true body and His true
blood, that Baptism actually is the washing of regeneration and is necessary
for salvation? Is it really too much to state that that "reunited
church" would be the end of the Church of Christ? For without these truths
of the Holy Scriptures the church can not live. But if this is the case, if the Lutheran Church must say all of
this to Christianity, then it must also say this to the World Council of
Churches. This means it must protest in every way that such a union plan be
propagandized and affected in the name of the World Council, or with its
consent or indulgence. Should its protest find no hearing then it must break
all connections to this ecumenical organization. It is false to say, "We
Lutherans must be present, in order to influence developments, in order to
avoid something worse." The author of this letter has paid attention to
the ecumenical movement for 25 years, and not merely as an observer. He
dedicated several years of his life to it, especially to the "Faith and
Order" movement. He worked closely with its great leaders, from Charles
Brent to William Temple. He still recalls with thankfulness the conferences
where we came together, as Bishop Palmer of Bombay expressed it, not as negotiators,
but as those who sought the truth. "Our conference is about the truth, not
about reunification," thus this Anglican Bishop began his great address
regarding the Office of the Ministry [geistliche Amt] at Lausanne 1927 (Die
Weltkonferenz fur [*Umlaut over u] Glauben und Kirchenverfassung,
Official German Report, p. 298; compare passages cited in the index (p.
631) under "Wahrheit und Einheit" ["truth and
unity"][Sasse was editor of this work. Trans.]). But who today still
seriously asks the question of truth? To be sure, serious theologians of all
confessions, also in the World Council of Churches do this. But who listens to
them? The type of "church leaders" who meanwhile have taken the
rudder of the churches, the bishops and church presidents in Europe, the presidents
of the great churches and synods of America, have entirely different concerns
than the concern for the truth, for pure doctrine - aside from a few very
out-moded men in remote churches, who are not taken seriously because they play
no roll in world wide church politics. This also is part of the secularization
of the church, which is apparently the unavoidable fate of Christianity. Where
the cause for this development lays is an idle question, whether the failures
of men destroy church government, or whether a false church government shatters
men. Perhaps it is both. And so today in the history of the church there are no
longer men such as Bezzel, Ihmels and Zoellner in Germany, Hein in America,
Johannsson in Finnland, Charles Gore in England. Those familiar with Roman
Catholicism maintain that a similar situation has, for the most part, also
transpired there. But if the "church leaders," because of wisdom or what they
believe is wisdom, are silent, then others must speak. And it is time for such
individuals in the Lutheran Churches of the world to finally study the reality
of the World Council of Churches. How is it that the World Council, in spite of
its express reserve in the question of actual union, in spite of its efforts
not to injure the dogmatic substance of the churches, has become a sad tool of
unionism? For its defenders will also grant this, that at least the champions
of ecclesiastical indifference and undogmatic unionism make use of the World
Council of Churches in order to carry out their plans. How is it that such a
glaring contradiction exists between the carefully crafted theses of the
declaration of Toronto 1950 regarding what the World Council is and what it is
not, and the reality, at least at the organizational level, in individual
countries? There are two reasons for this: its insufficient dogmatic
foundation, and the fact that the World Council does not take seriously its
dogmatic foundation. The theologically meaningless formula that the churches of
the World Council confess Jesus Christ as God and Savior is completely
inadequate. Why is not a clear confession of orthodox Christology, of the Nicaenum
as explicated by the Chalcedonense demanded? Why has it surrendered
that which in this regard already 25 years ago was achieved at Lausanne in the
acknowledgement of the Nicaenum? Indeed, the reason is that the ancient
confession of the church, which still actually expresses the common inheritance
of the faith for all churches, was not taken seriously. This can be a sign of
honorableness. It is certainly more honorable not to mention the Nicaenum if
one believes neither the virgin birth of the Lord nor his bodily resurrection,
just to mention these dogmas of the old Credo. But in what sense then is
Christ's divinity confessed? The confessional formula of the constitution of
the World Council of Churches has hitherto prevented no church from joining in
which the denial of the divinity of the Lord is tolerated and allowed. The
Evangelical Church of Switzerland, for instance, in which the affirmation and
the denial of the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas have equal right, was
given the express assurance that it need express no objections regarding the
confessional formula. But if churches are received which expressly declare that
they have no official confession of the divinity of Christ, what sense does it
make to maintain the formula? This means there will not and can not be any
examination of the faith or heresy trial. It must be left to the individual
member churches whether they are prepared to subscribe to the conditions of
membership, and they must be free to interpret them as they see fit. But one
must also be clear that the entire confessional basis is, for all practical
purposes suspended when its interpretation is left completely free. This is a
theology of the "as though," which Archbishop Fischer of Canterbury
or Bishop Oxnam of the Methodist Episcopal Church in American can tolerate. But
Lutheran churchmen may never go along with this. Indeed, one should expect protest
against this from Presbyterians and other serious Reformed [Christians]. He who
plays with the confession of the church plays with the Word of God, the
explication of which the confession desires to be. Perhaps Bultmann's critique
of the confessional basis of the World Council of Churches will provide the
occasion for a thorough going re-evaluation of what alone can be the dogmatic
basis for cooperative work of churches. According to the Lutheran confessions
it can be nothing other than the consensus in "the high articles of the
divine majesty," which according to the Schmalkald Articles form
the point of departure for every dialogue between confessional churches. We
once said this in vain during the preparation of the World Conference at
Amsterdam (Bericht ueber [**Umlaut] Amsterdam Bd. I, The
Universal Church in God's Design, 1948, p. 196f.). Perhaps the time will
come when it will be understood. This is what the Lutheran Church must say to
the World Council of Churches. No Church of the Augsburg Confession can with
good conscience belong to the World Council before this demand is fulfilled. A
true ecumenical movement can and will only exist after the confession of the
Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ has once again become a
confession of the heart and not merely a confession of lips, after the truths
of the Apostles' and Nicene confessions of the church are again confessed magno
consensu. Without this faith, without this consensus the World Council of
Churches is that which it de facto is today: An arena for power-hungry
church politicians and for the thoughtless construction of an illusionary
future church. And Lutherans ought keep their distance. They achieve nothing
other by participation than that the public pronouncements are written more
dubiously and circumspectly. And because they encumber themselves with the
guilt of half-believing syncretism and unionism, they surrender the power to
bear witness to the truth. They will slowly, but surely, if may say it, be
"de-confessionalized." 4. De-confessionalization -
That is the model which is taking place today in Lutheranism. For the price of
de-confessionalization Reformed Christianity today is - as it has been for the
most part since the sixteenth century - prepared to acknowledge the Lutheran Church.
No one has anything against the Evangelical Lutheran Church taking up its
residence in the great house of ecumenical Christianity. Within this house it
may foster its own tradition, preserve its confession, nurse its liturgy, its
tradition, and pass on its tradition and inheritance to the next generation.
That is the position of Lutheranism within the ecumenical movement as
represented by the World Council, the position of the Lutheran Churches of
Germany within the EkiD, the position which the United Lutheran Church and the
Augustana Synod accept within the "National Council of the Churches of
Christ in the USA," which according to the plans of Stanley Jones and
others shall soon develop into an American super-EkiD. It is the position,
which the Lutherans are to have in the building of conceived or planned union
churches on the mission fields of the world or in the "Reunited
Church" in Australia. One needs to understand the greatness of this view
of the church in order to perceive the power which it has come to have over the
souls of Protestant Christianity. We have experienced in the political life of
the world, since the ninetieth century, the new type of the federation of
states in the USA and its parallels (e.g. Brazil) in the British Commonwealth and
in the Commonwealths of Australia, Canada and South Africa. This is also seen
in the form the state has taken in Germany from German Federation, through the
German Reich, to the Federal Republic, and perhaps eventually in a united West
Europe. This is also the case in the east in the USSR and the new forms of the
Russian Empire. So also Christianity, at least Protestant Christianity, has
begun to develop forms of the church parallel [to these new forms of the
state]. As the federated state so also the federated church solves the problem
of how to bring into harmony with each other unity and diversity, ecumenicity
and confessionalism. It is all so remarkably "obvious" that the
advocates of this view of the church simply cannot conceive of anyone opposing
it. They can see in an opposing view only the worst sort of reaction, the
pointless attempt to repristinate the past. He who dares to swim against this
stream appears in the eyes of the world, the Christian and even Lutheran world,
as laughable. No publisher, no journal dares to print such an opposing view.
Should anyone ever be of the opinion that this should still be discussed
publicly, then "Lutheran" bishops are very anxious to censure such
attempts so they do not occur. So let it at least be stated here: This view of
the church is once again nothing other than the reflection and transference of
secular thought [into the church]. Just because the world today seeks a form of
communal life in which smaller communities are "united" or
"federated," it need not be the will of God that the church also
exist in this way. This is all the more so, if it appears that thereby motives
are coming to bear other than the needs of communal life. It is a definite view
of "Christendom" or of the "Christian religion" which is evidenced
in this view of the church. The "confessions" [i.e. denominations]
are understood as the great forms in which "Christendom" manifests
itself. There is a Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Reformed, Methodist
and Congregationalist "Christendom."
Between these forms there are closer or more distant kinships. There are
families and familial similarities. There is the family of the Lutheran
Churches and the branch of the family of the Reformed Churches. Even Swedish
theology, in spite of all the Luther scholarship retains so much residue of
Ritschlianism and religio-scientific interpretation of the Christian faith,
that it can not shake itself of this schema. Even a man such as Nygren thinks
in these categories when he speaks of the position of Lutheranism among the
confessions of Christianity. But one need only ask what Luther would say to
this in order to grasp the untenableness of this treatment of the question of
the various confessions. For Luther the Lutheran Church is not the social form
of one of the great forms of the Christian religion, which was stamped by the
religious experience of a gifted reformer, just as Roman Catholicism for him is
not a more and less justifiable form of manifestation of Christendom. Of
course, one can also seek to understand the Christian faith in a
religio-scientific manner. But in so doing one does not come upon the essence
of this faith, the essence of the confession of faith and the essence of the
Church in general. Churches are not plants. Therefore there is no morphology of
confessions. Neither are churches families, between which one may fix
similarities and dissimilarities. The confession [Konfession] the
confession of the faith [Bekenntnis des Glaubens] is not the expression
of religious sentiment. Dogmas are not, as Schleiermacher thought (Glaubenslehre
par. 15), "comprehensions of the pious Christian condition of the
heart presented in language." The Lord Christ had no interest in the pious
Christian heart of his apostles when he asked: "Who do you say that I
am?" There are no true or false plants, no true and false families, and
even the difference between the religious condition of the heart of a Hindu and
a Mohammedan can not be expressed in the categories of "true" and
"false." But there are true and false churches. There are Christian
dogmas to which the predicate of truth is attached, such as the dogma of the
ascension of Christ, and there are anti-Christian heresies, such as the heresy
of the assumption of Mary. This false view of the Christian faith as a religion, which arises in
various forms, stands behind the modern idea that various churches [Konfessionen]
complement each other. Every confession is thus a more or less perfect or
imperfect attempt to present the true Christian religion, to realize the one
Christendom which stands behind them all. Thus they all belong together and one
must bring them together that they may compliment each other. Christ, so it is
said, is so great that one single man, indeed, a single church can never
completely understand him. As a mountain viewed from various vantagepoints
presents completely diverse views, and as the scenes, which pass by the
individual traveler on either side, are necessarily diverse, but not false, so
it is with the Christian church. They should come together. Each shall keep its
uniqueness, each render completely its particular contribution, all the while
learning to understand its truth as one form of a truth which is multifaceted.
Thus the various "values" are preserved, and nothing gets lost. Thus
in the planned "Reunited Church of Australia" the value of infant
baptism and the value of believer's baptism are preserved - one wonders just
what "value" will come of the rejection of baptism by the Quakers.
Behind this view stands - this may and must finally be stated calmly - the
Masonic theory of the "religion in which we all agree" (Ben
Franklin). In the Masonic lodges of Europe and America that religion was
fostered which for the Deists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was
behind the "positive religions." There were the religions of
"true humanity," with their belief in God, the architect of the
universe, and in human freedom and the immortality of the soul. This is that
mystery religion regarding which one really can not speak in public ("Wise
men are but of one religion, but what this is, wise men will never tell,"
as Shaftesbury said [original in English]). This is that religion cultivated in
the secrecy of the lodge and principles of which FreeMasonry has advanced in
the world. Just as the history of the German unions can not be understood
without knowledge of the lodge and connections of the Protestant princely
houses to the lodge, so also the modern ecumenical movement will not be
understood without the participation of the English, and especially, the
American lodges. One must know that the Archbishop of Canterbury and something
like half the English bishops are members of the lodge, as well as the leading
men of the free churches. The same applies in the case of the great Reformed Churches
in America. The discussion regarding whether a bishop, who claims to be the
successor of the apostles, can simultaneously belong to a organization which is
the successor to the Gnostic sects, begun by a few serious Anglican theologians
in the monthly "Theology" a short time ago, was not continued. It
will have absolutely no practical consequence for the church. A corresponding
motion at the Convocation of Canterbury not to allow the matter to be
considered is as "bad in form and content" [orig. in English]. But it
must finally be stated that lodgedom is one of the most powerful factors in the
process of the dissolution of confessional consciousness, and indeed, not in
that it is a form of conspiracy against the church, as was earlier thought. It
is so rather because FreeMasonry, by means of its cultus and its communal, life
has created an atmosphere in which men, who are well intentioned, have lost the
sense for confession and dogma. It could be that the change which appears to
have transpired in the confessional consciousness of American Lutherans is
connected with the fact that the entire Lutheran Church has been brought up
through the process of Americanization in the atmosphere of the lodges, and has
appropriated their ideas completely unaware. Indeed, these ideas play a great
roll in the youth organizations (Boy Scouts). America will never overcome the
fact that the lodge stood in as "sponsor" at its founding and at the
genesis of the formation of its culture [Volkstum]. 5. With this the question is posed, which the Lutheran Churches have to
answer in the year 1952. Shall the process of de-confessionalization, which
world Lutheranism is currently undergoing, continue? Will it be stopped?
Can it be stopped? What will the meeting of the Lutheran World Federation in
Hanover mean for this? Is the importance of this question absolutely clear? Many will not understand this question at all. We are Lutheran Churches,
Churches of the Augsburg Confession. We hold fast to this. No other doctrine,
such as that of the Variata, is valid among us. No other catechism than Luther's shall be used for
instruction. But precisely as Lutherans we desire to join with the other
Protestant confessions and give expression through cooperative efforts to the
great Christian and Protestant commonality which binds us together with other
Christians. To be sure, we all know that the boundaries of our church are not
the boundaries of the Una Sancta. The only thing which we desire to lay
aside is the old exclusive confessionalism, which pronounced condemnation upon
other churches, something only the odd confessional church did. What we desire
is an "inclusive confessionalism," as Edmund Schlink has
called the new view for which we strive. To this we counter: We also know that
the [Lutheran] church does not coincide with the Una Sancta. [Sasse's
original here, is certainly an unintentional error: We also know that the
Church of Christ does not coincide with the Una Sancta. Trans.] We also
confess the one holy, catholic church, which lives in, with and under the
churches of the world [Konfessionskirchen]. Nor do we let fall the
judgement of condemnation upon other Christians and other Churches. We testify
with the fathers of the Formula of Concord that the condemnation
formulas, the "damnant" ["they condemn"], the "improbant
secus docentes" ["they reject those who teach"], do not mean
"persons who err out of simplicity and do not blaspheme the truth of the
divine word, but much less entire churches within or without the Holy Empire of
the German Nation" (Forward to the F.C., Bek. Schr., Anniversary Edition,
p. 756, Muller [**Umlaut], p. 16), rather the heresies and their stiff-necked
advocates who force such matters in our churches. We too are prepared for every
necessary cooperatio with other Christians so far as is possible without
denial of the truth. There is one thing we cannot accept. We can under no
circumstances view false doctrine, contrary to scripture, as of equal
legitimacy with pure doctrine or tolerate it in the church only as a
hypothetical possibility. For this reason we have, as has the orthodox church
of every age, no communicatio in sacris cum haereticis. If this is
called intolerance then we confess that we are intolerant people in the same
sense the apostles were (I Tim. 6:20 f.; Tit. 4:10; I Jn. 4:1ff.) and as was
Luther. But we assert that this "intolerance" which is an abomination
to Deists of every age, because they know nothing nor can know anything of
ultimate truth, because they do not know Jesus Christ as the truth in person,
is of the essence of genuine Christian faith. Without this
"intolerance" over against heresy there is no real Lutheranism.
Without the condemnation formulas at the end of the individual articles the Augustana
loses its meaning. Without the "they reject those who teach" [improbant
secus docentes] there is no Lutheran doctrine of the Supper. Without
serious discipline with regard to the Supper so that only those are allowed to
come to the Lord's table who know what is received there and desire to receive
it, there is no Sacrament of the Altar. This is not Luther's discovery. This
was ever so in the church since the days of the apostles. The question to world
Lutheranism today is whether these principles still obtain[gelten]. They
do if the confession obtains. They are an element of the confession. It is
certainly not left to our pleasure whether we would continue to allow them to
obtain, for then we would have already fallen away from the confession. That is the enormous seriousness of the decision which confronts the
Lutheran Churches of the world this year. It is the ecclesiastico-historical
decision of Hannover. The men who have convened the World Federation in
Hannover need to be clear on just what accountability they bear, not only to
their churches as they exist today, but rather to the orthodox church of all
times. [They are bear an accountability] to the fathers who can no longer speak
to us except through the confessions which they wrote, and to those as yet
unborn who can not yet speak, but will finally speak at the last judgement. God
grant that when they do speak it will not be as our accusers! Lutheranism
desires to speak at this conference as "a responsible church" [orig.
in English], a church which is conscious of its responsibility. May it only be
conscious of this responsibility! Whether the session is a success or failure
will not be decided by what is said by the contemporaries, or the world press,
the other churches, the great publicity, the politicians, the citizens, the
workers, or the church governments and synods, to whom the delegates will have
to give account. Nor [will its success be determined by] what is said by the
congregations and pastors, to whom they will report. [The success or failure of
this conference will be determined] by what will be said at the last judgement. The first thing, which Hanover owes to the Christian, and to the
Lutheran world, is a clear, unmistakable statement regarding what a Church
of the Lutheran Confession is. We repeat thereby a question, which we posed
already last year (Letter 19: "World Lutheranism on the Way to
Hanover"). The World Federation owes Christianity an interpretation of its
articles regarding its confessional basis. Is a church a Lutheran Church
according to the meaning of the constitution if in it there can be a teaching
[enjoying the status of] publica doctrina other than the doctrine of the
Invariata? Can a church, or a church federation (such as the Federacao
Sinodal in Brazil) enjoy the full rights of membership and thereby render
decisions on what is Lutheran and what not, if this fellowship is just
beginning to, and has the intent over a given period of time, to establish the
Lutheran Confession as the sole legal publica doctrina [with in it]? Can
confirmation [of membership] be imparted on the basis of a confession to be
established later? And if the case is made that, on the basis of pedagogical
and missiological grounds, they must already be accepted, why then with the
full rights [of membership]? If one desires to lead churches to the Lutheran
confession, which is in fact a worthy and great task, to the accomplishment of
which we would all readily lend a hand, why is there not a sort of
catechumenate which precedes? Is the situation into which other churches are
brought by this practice not clear? But even without reference to the case of
the Brazilians the question must be posed as to what a Lutheran Church is and
what it is not in the view of the World Federation. What does appeal to the Augustana
mean, and what does it not mean. The second thing which must be decided, and which must be
answered in connection with the first question, is the relationship of the
Lutheran World Federation to the union churches which claim to be
Lutheran Churches in the sense of the Confessio Augustana and the
constitution of the LWF, or to be included in the LWF. The entire problem of
the union longs for a solution. It is very simple to determine whether a
church's constitution grants it the legal character of a Lutheran or a united
church. One hundred thousand Silesians with a few hundred pastors were taken
into the Lutheran Church of Bavaria from the United Church of Silesia. In what
sense are they now Lutherans? To be sure, they already had Luther's Catechism.
But they interpreted it, and continue to interpret it today, in the sense of
the union, [which grants] fellowship in the Supper with non-Lutherans. The
Bavarian Church does not officially grant this. Since it now officially
tolerates this - it finally even disclaimed this at the colloquium and even
placed a member of the Breslau United Church government into a unique position
of church administration - it has de facto changed its confession. There
no longer is any Lutheran territorial church in Germany in which fellowship in
the Supper is not practiced with non-Lutherans, and indeed, with the full
knowledge of the church government. This is so even in Neuendettelsau. With
what right does anyone demand of the Christian world that it respect the
boundaries which are now only a juridical fiction? What a profound untruth it
is to continue to maintain that fellowship in the supper is demanded by
emergency circumstances. Was it an emergency that communion fellowship in the
Christian student movement, without respect to differences, was brought about
in all Evangelical student congregations, and made the firm custom of the
entire society of young theologians, except for the free churches? The German
Lutheran territorial churches have placed terrible guilt upon themselves
through the profound untruthfulness with which they have dealt with the
question of communion fellowship. May this guilt not become the curse also of
the LWF. The Lutheran Churches of the world need a clear directive regarding
what is asserted by the Lutheran confession regarding communion fellowship and
its boundaries. It is a burning question for all Lutheran Churches. The third thing, which must be decided this year, is the question
whether the Lutheran Churches are ready to deal in a worthy manner with the doctrinal
differences which obtain between them. There is no purpose in resigning
ourselves to the illusion that there already is complete unity between the
Christian churches which call themselves Lutheran, and that only a few
intransigent, hyper-orthodox [churches] are destroying the peace, by making
their private theology norm for the church and its doctrine. As one who has
struggled for many years for the theological unification of Lutheranism, I can
only express the conviction that serious and very deep differences of opinion
regarding the meaning of the Lutheran Confessions make a complete unification
of the Lutheran Churches impossible at the present time. This may be deplored
(we all do deplore it), but nothing is helped when we shut our eyes to the
reality of this problem. It is an unspeakable problem, a real tragedy that this
Lutheranism, with the seventh article of the Augustana, steps
before world Christianity and desires to instruct it regarding what truth unity
of the church is, and that it is sufficient that the gospel be preached
unanimously according to a pure understanding of it, and the sacraments be
administered according to the institution of Christ. We must say this to the
Christian world although we hear the answer: "Physician, heal
thyself!" We must be clear regarding what lack of credibility we Lutherans
give to our message regarding the unity of the church. Now, it is indeed the
case that the Reformed Churches have no right to boast of a greater unity.
Quite to the contrary! But they too indeed know nothing of the great "satis
est" of C.A. VII. This distressing situation of Lutheranism, its
splintering over doctrinal questions, exists in every part of the earth. Its
consequence is that loveless manner of speaking of each other, that complaining
of one church over against the other, which is a sickness which results from
schism. This circumstance, however, will not be overcome simply by acting as
though full unity already exists. The unity of American Lutheranism can be
achieved, but only through serious doctrinal discussion - a point regarding
which Dr. Behnken is doubtless correct over against his colleague of the ULC,
Dr. Fry. To be sure, this doctrinal discussion can not simply be the repetition
of discussions which, over the course of several generations, were conducted
with the same arguments always with the same unfortunate outcome. Today we must
move beyond theological schools discussing matters on the basis of the
thoughts, categories and prejudices of the nineteenth century, to the doctrine
of the Lutheran Reformation and the doctrine of the New Testament, which we in
many regards - in no way every way - understand better than our fathers one
hundred years ago. By so doing we will then by all means have to consider that
in the church only that theology avails which is rooted in the life of the
church, and is realized in the life of the church. Only the doctrine of the
sacrament is correct and has the power of conviction which is the expression of
the sacramental life of the parish. Thus doctrinal statements as such still
mean nothing if they are in no way practiced in the life of the church. The
theologians of the LWF must work on the basis of this insight. The commission's
work on the theological document which will be placed before the full assembly indicates
already fortuitous advancement. We repeat once more here what we pointed out
already in Letter 19, when we made reference to the Faith and Order movement
and to the Bad Boll discussions. The Lutheran Churches of the world need
coordination of the many doctrinal discussions which today are occurring in
many countries simultaneously, independent of each other, and under the
difficult conditions of the times, often with insufficient personnel and
practical means. It would take at least five years work in order to begin to
deal with the most important differences separating Lutheran Churches. This
would take new means and new viewpoints, so that the churches would come to a
thorough understanding, or to a separation into two large groups, which is completely
possible. But the unification conferences at which there are only speeches
regarding the necessity of unification, and regarding the insignificance of
doctrinal differences, are not worth the cost of travel. They would serve only
toward the ever further advancement of the de-confessionalization of
Lutheranism, and its dissolution into the broth of the substance-less
"Reunited Church" of the future. Should it turn out that the
theological commission of the LWF attain more than beautiful formulas, which
only conceal differences, should it produce a document which finds the
consensus of many Lutherans, then one might be able to expand it and make it a
representative working commission over the span of many years, which is
organized so that every Lutheran Church can take part with a good conscience.
It would have to possess enough independence that it were not simply an
instrument of church governments and have to work under their censure. The fourth thing which must be clarified in Hanover, is the relationship
between the LWF and the World Council of Churches. If the LWF is to be done
away with then it should be made the Lutheran department of the WCC. If it is
to be maintained then it should have complete organizational separation from
the World Council. One must be clear that there are a series of Lutheran
Churches which belong to the World Council, and there are others which under no
circumstances will join it. If the Lutheran Churches are to be brought together
into the LWF, then this bone of contention must be dealt with. The LWF as such
can not become a department of the World Council of Churches. And it must never
give the appearance that it is. A business connection may exist, and this will
obtain in many practical matters. But it is unbearable that the LWF already is
housed in the WCC building in Geneva, especially when this sharing of living
quarters leads also to joint worship [Hausandachten]. Also, that the
General Secretary of the LWF received his salary as an appointee of the WWC was
intolerable. With the death of Dr. Michelfelder this will hopefully now cease.
It would be best for the LWF to move its headquarters from Geneva to a country
in which the Lutheran Church is not merely a foreigner, in spite of all the
advantages Geneva affords for international authorities. It should be left to
the individual churches as to how they relate to the World Council, and these
developments should be left to them. Indeed, the World Council is today already
a de facto agent of the Reformed and United Churches. For the fragments
of the orthodox churches which have fled to the west do not really represent
Orthodoxy. And the Church of Greece, which is the sole larger eastern church in
the WCC, is connected to the World Council more through political interests than
churchly interests. The fifth matter which Hanover should bring about is a consideration of
the individual Lutheran Churches regarding their connection to heterodox
churches. The principle should apply that no Churches of the Augsburg
Confession may enter into ties with other churches which would estrange them
from their own [Lutheran] sister churches. This applies above all to the
Scandinavian Churches, such as the Swedish Church in its relationship with the
Church of England. We German Lutherans, who once experienced the comedy of the
Prussian-English Bishopric of Jerusalem, and the attempt to introduce apostolic
succession at the back door of Germany, have never taken seriously the attempt
of Anglicanism to achieve church fellowship with the Nordic Lutherans. The
entire matter, moreover, has a political taste to it like the connections
between the churches and states of England and Greece. Apostolic succession has
for a Lutheran Church such as that of Sweden, a completely different meaning
than for the Anglicans. For Lutherans it is only one of the human arrangements
in the church, and therefore belongs in the realm of adiaphora. We
Lutherans can not take a position in the controversy regarding the validity of
Anglican ordinations. Whether the Archbishop of Canterbury or the
Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster, together with their respective bishops, are
legitime successors of the apostles in England, we can not say. In all
plausibility neither of these parties can make this claim. The true successors
of the apostles in England are those who proclaim the pure doctrine of the
apostles, who ever they may be. Neither can we grant our Anglican friends that
if today one of the great Archbishops of Canterbury of the middle ages, such as
Anselm, were to appear, that he would find and recognize his church in present
day Canterbury. [We assert this], just as we would not admit that Luther, if he
were to return today, would recognize Otto Dibelius, the current Bishop of
Brandenburg, as his bishop, and go to communion in the City Church at
Wittenberg. No Lutheran Church, which still takes its catechism seriously, can
have fellowship in the Lord's Supper in any form, even only in special cases,
with the Church of England. We can not send the members of our congregations to
an altar (if an altar can be spoken of in the Anglican Church; for a real altar
is indeed forbidden there) where every communicant must read in his "Book
of Common Prayer" the words that the natural body and blood of Christ are
in heaven and not here, and [where it is asserted] that the body of Christ
would not be a true human body, if he were to be in more than one place at the
same time. So long as this "black rubric" stands in the Anglican
communion liturgy, there can be no communion fellowship between us and the
Anglicans, not to mention all the other hindrances which make it impossible for
us, despite all the great things which it has, to re-discover in the Church of
England the church of the gospel. The sixth and final matter which we request of Hanover is that Luther's
first thesis not be forgotten. The Lutheran Church, the Church of the
Reformation, is a church of repentance. She renders herself unbelievable
when she speaks to the world and to Christianity, when she calls both to
repentance, without considering that judgement begins in the house of God. The
judgment of God has come upon the Lutheran Church. The millions of Lutherans
driven from their native lands bear witness to this. The glorious churches,
which lay in rubble and ashes, bear witness to this. Luther once answered the
question why lightning had a predilection for striking church steeples. He
explained that there is no place, not even a whorehouse, in which so much sin
takes place through the transgression of the first and second commandments, and
through impure doctrine which robs the Lord Christ of his honor. We will not
recount here all the sins for which our church would have to repent, though it
would perhaps be necessary. For the worst sign of divine judgement is perhaps
the ease and glibness with which we superficialize the accusations which are
raised against our church, which may at least bear a kernel of truth, even
where we must rightly counter such accusations. In stead of the many attempts
at self-justification and instead of the complaints against others, a serious
self-evaluation might occur which could take place under the theme: "The
great apostasy - our apostasy." A great and solemn divine service of
repentance should not be missing among the arrangements at Hanover. It could be
the very soul of the entire session, the beginning of a genuine renewal. 6. Finally, honored brothers, allow me to raise a question directed to us
all. Who actually represents the Lutheran Churches of the world today? Who is
it who speaks and acts in the name of the churches? Who ever it may be, there
are two entities in our time which certainly do not do so. It is not the Christian
congregation [Gemeinde]. And it is not the Pastoral Office.
Neither will be represented in Hanover. Naturally the parishes of the Hanover
area will flock to the capital and take part by the thousands in the mass
events. But they will be represented as little as the many pastors who will
come to Hanover for the decisive sessions of the World Federation. Indeed, that
would be logistically completely impossible, even if it were the desire of all
participants for the pastorate and church membership to take part as much as
possible. And here we come up against an important phenomenon of more recent
church history, which must be much more carefully noted than has been the case.
The development of modern super-churches [Massenkirchen] and the
application of technical means for bringing together, influencing and leading
men, in regard to the church, has directly and strongly displaced two
significant factors, which together, according to Lutheran doctrine, fulfill
the proper life of the church: the congregatio sanctorum. These are the
congregation [Gemeinde], and the ministerium ecclesiasticum, the
Pastoral Office [Pfarramt]. Both no longer take part in the great
ecclesiastical decisions of our time, at least in Europe. Any knowledge the
congregations have obtained of the EKiD and the VELKD is from the
ecclesiastical press. Most of the congregational members have no idea what these
are. They were not asked. Neither were the pastors asked whether they approved
of these decisions. And they were crucial decisions rendered regarding their
Office and its obligations. They must be satisfied that everything has taken
place in a lawful manner. The territorial synods [Landessynode] prepared
a corresponding resolution. In Bavaria, this synod, if I am not mistaken,
consists of some 70 to 80 elected members. These individuals represent well
over a million church members. There is no court of appeal against this ecclesia
repraesentativa. Perhaps there is no other possible way to govern such an
enormous apparatus. But then one should not be amazed when the general
priesthood of believers dies. Nor are the pastors questioned [regarding what
takes place]. They are instructed, schooled, and if necessary, warned and
punished. But a small group of men render decisions for the consciences of
thousands of bearers of the Office. Is it an accident that in the more recent
history of the church the Pastoral Office in no way plays the roll which was
self-evident in previous centuries? There are still pastors in Europe: in
Scotland, in Holland, in France, in Switzerland. These are men who are still
responsible for ecclesiastical decisions, who still represent their churches.
In Sweden, in Denmark and now also in Germany, the church is represented by
Bishops and the other "church leaders." The individual pastor is
nothing. He can obtain something only as part of a large group such as the
pastoral conference [Pfarrerverrein]. When the bishop has won his
pastoral conference for something, then everything is in order. But the
pastoral conference has made no ordination vow, thus it can not break it. And
the bishop? We were so proud in Germany when we again had bishops. An entire
theology of the office of bishop has been developed. The enchantment with the
title of bishop is so great that even the Lutheran Churches of America are
playing with the idea of granting it to their presidents occupying chief
offices. It has thus far broken down over the episcopal office as an
essentially life long office. But one must be clear that the essence of the
bishop's office encompasses the episcopal functions of ordination and
visitation with his legitimate pastoral office. Even to the time of Augustine
"bishop" was the title of the local pastor. The characteristic of the
modern territorial bishop in Germany and, on a certain level, the office of a
president of one of the churches in America which consist of many synods, is however,
this: he exercises neither official pastoral nor episcopal functions or only
does so in exceptional cases. In Bavaria the circuit deacons [Kreisdekane],
and in Hanover the territorial superintendents are the real bishops. They
ordain and visit. The bishop sweeps over the entire church and its affairs [Kirchentum]
as "church leader." This was perhaps a necessary development. At any
rate, such an organism must be governed. The real tragedy, however, is that
this [development intended] as a support for the Spiritual Office, has actually
served to bring about the broader secularization of the church. One must have this tragic development before one's eyes in order to
grasp what the duty of the Lutheran Pastor is. We must, honored brothers, seek
to save the Office of the Lutheran Pastor which threatens to go under in modern
ecclesial secularism, so far as this is humanly possible. The highest virtue of
the pastor today appears to be silence, even in once so democratic America. The
modern type of the Lutheran Pastor began in Germany in the First World War,
when so many theologians became reserve officers. In America it began and in
the Second World War, when so many pastors became chaplains in the military.
Here they learned, along with the virtues of being an officer, also the virtue
of silent obedience. But every virtue has its down side, and the down side of
mute obedience can be that the pastor becomes a mute dog, that he become silent
even where it is of his office, mandated by the Lord Christ, to speak. It appears
that much of the difficulty, which has come upon the Lutheran Church, has its
origin in this false silence. Let us in this fateful year of the Lutheran
Church, in view of the threatening de-confessionalization of Lutheranism,
fearlessly say what must be said also to the great and powerful in the church.
We do not know for how long we will be able to continue to do so. In the communion of the faith, I greet you for the New Year, Your Hermann Sasse |