# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1864_S116
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

116 Why a So-Called Old Lutheran Finally Fled into the United Church.

I have first of all to prove this disintegration of Lutheranism. Let me
begin with the direction from which I myself set out, with Löhe's
direction. To give the result of my observations right away: it has
become, out of a strictly confessional-Lutheran direction, a Union
direction. It was in the course of the chiliastic controversies that Löhe
declared: A church that cannot bear its own [various] directions crumbles
apart. That is an excellent saying! But it is clear that the earlier Löhe
would not have said it. His sermon "On Meeting Halfway," etc., had
aroused violent opposition among Lutherans. He was declared to be one
fallen away from Lutheranism, and the damnamus of the Augsburg
Confession against chiliasm was emphasized against him. Against this
Löhe set his own declaration, likewise, and especially by Münkel, violently
contested: one must interpret the symbols not dogmatically but
historically. And just as, already in the dispute over the question of the
[ministerial] office, he wanted the various views on it to be tolerated as
different "directions" within the church, so now chiliasm too was to be
tolerated as a "direction" within the Lutheran church. The synod of Iowa
in America, which represents Löhe's direction, accordingly also declares
that, despite the declared difference on the two questions, it wishes to
maintain communion — that is, church fellowship — with the two opposing
synods of Missouri and Buffalo. Missouri and Buffalo refuse to do this. In
my judgment one must acknowledge that the two synods are not to be
blamed from the strictly Lutheran standpoint. But Iowa, on its broader
standpoint, has more right on its side. This standpoint I have called a
Union standpoint. I know very well, of course, that the Löhe direction
still conducts itself, now as before, exclusively against the Reformed and
the United. But I hold this to be an inconsistency. Whoever wishes to
harbor within the church such opposites as have become manifest in the
dispute over "the office," in chiliasm and anti-chiliasm, must also take in
the Reformed and the United. To be sure, Löhe maintains — and this
explains his exclusiveness against the Reformed — that here we are
dealing with questions that were not brought to a settlement by the
Reformation. This I must deny. Löhe's concept of the office is, in my
judgment, incompatible with Lutheran principles, and was also reproved
by Luther with devastating clarity. And chiliasm is thoroughly contrary
to the Lutheran view. It may be, you will perhaps object, but the
difference in the doctrines just discussed does not come close to the
significance of the differing doctrines between the Lutheran and Reformed
churches. But I refer you to a further difference. It is well known that
throughout Lutheran circles there runs the fairly general complaint that
Löhe is "Romanizing." People point to various things. I would rather say:
Löhe is "Catholicizing." The Old Catholic character finds in him a
brilliant representative. His ascetic direction, his exceedingly great
emphasis on sanctification, are a foreign phenomenon in the Lutheran
church. — What a change has come over this direction! Having set out