# Der Lutheraner_Frankfurt am Main_Mai 1949_S54
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Page 54                              May 1949                              Number 5.

VELKD and Lutheran Free Churches

An Answer to D. Meiser

The presiding bishop of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, D. Hans Meiser, delivered a report on activities to the synod of this church in Leipzig on January 26, which is available to us in excerpt from the "Nachrichten für die ev.-luth. Geistlichen in Bayern" (Volume 4, No. 5, of March 15, 1949). In this report the bishop gave a general overview of the development of the VELKD, in order then to take issue with the forces which, after Eisenach, in his opinion, threaten to endanger the fellowship that had been achieved with the EKD. In both contexts he also spoke of the relationship to the Lutheran free churches.

Since in the bishop's remarks not only was the position of the free churches in general attacked, but beyond that, as proof of his assertions, an article from our paper was also explicitly quoted before the open synod, we feel compelled to take a position.

First, the bishop said, within the framework of describing the relationship of the VELKD to other Lutheran churches, in general:

"A particularly difficult and painful question is the relationship to the Lutheran free churches. In another context I shall have to speak of this in more detail. Here let it merely be mentioned that the bishops' conference has again declared its readiness to seek a path that leads to an orderly relationship with the free churches, even though at the moment it cannot be said what this path is."

In the context of his further report on the development beginning after Eisenach, the bishop stated:

"Immediately after Eisenach not inconsiderable difficulties arose; from an authoritative mouth we heard the word about the federal character of the union, to which nevertheless the predicate of a church applies, and about the establishment of a fellowship of the Lord's Supper, in which, however, the existing doctrinal differences are taken into account. Other similar statements also became known, and what was to be feared came to pass: that through the manner in which Eisenach was subsequently spoken of, the result of Eisenach was nearly called into question. For these statements gave strong impetus to those circles which had at first been very critical of a union, and gave their reservations a semblance of justification. Both in Bavaria, but also in Hanover and Saxony, right-leaning Lutheran circles emerged from their previous reserve and openly took a stand against the joining of the Lutheran church to the Evangelical Church in Germany. In individual cases people went so far as to accuse their own church leadership of acting contrary to the confession, to deny it ecclesiastical legitimacy, to call upon clergy and congregations to disregard all regulations issued by the territorial churches on the basis of directives from the EKiD. The Lutheran free churches, who had already taken the resolutions of Treysa II as occasion to terminate pulpit and altar fellowship with the Lutheran territorial churches, now saw themselves all the more justified in their rejecting stance, and their language against us has become increasingly polemical.

An article by Rector P. Hans Kirsten in "Der Lutheraner" is quoted, which contains, among other things, the words: "Thus, unfortunately, there can remain no doubt: the idea of union has triumphed at Eisenach. All the reservations that the Lutherans have raised, all the limitations they may have achieved, change nothing about the fact that now, outside the Lutheran free church, no independent Lutheran churches exist in Germany that could build and order themselves according to their confession. The Lutheran territorial churches have now presumably finally bowed to a foreign spirit, which is not of the truth, and will feel the consequences of this (literally: "will have to bear the consequences," ed.)

Now, however, for anyone who reads the basic order [Grundordnung] of the EKiD without prejudice and interprets it honestly, letting the matters stand as they are stated, there can be no doubt that the EKiD is indeed not a church in the sense of Augustana VII, least of all a union church, that in it no unrestricted fellowship of the Lord's Supper has been established, and that according to Article X, Section 1 of the basic order, every member church would violate the constitution if it did not allow its confession to become effective in the doctrine, life, and order of the church. All false conclusions thus fall away which the right-leaning Lutheran circles in the territorial churches and the German Lutheran free churches draw from our joining the EKiD. From all that has been said, it becomes clear why a number of territorial churches have considered it indispensable to accompany their resolution to join the EKiD with certain fundamental declarations.

The well-known declarations on the basic order of Bavaria, Thuringia, and Hanover are cited, which can be summarized in substance in the brief wording of the Hanover declaration:

"In that the provisional church senate and the territorial synod express their assent to the basic order of the Evangelical Church in Germany, they establish that the final decision concerning confession-bound action in cases of doubt lies with the member churches."

These declarations are not reservations, but merely once again clearly state, in all brevity, the self-understanding of the EKiD as it results from the basic order, and as it is the presupposition for the joining of our Lutheran territorial church to the EKiD."

We have given space to these statements of the presiding bishop of the VELKD in such detail also in order to do full justice to the standpoint of the other side, and at the same time to give our readers the opportunity to form their own judgment from all sides. On the matter itself we have already taken such a fundamental position more than once since Eisenach (most recently in No. 4 through a representative of "right-leaning Lutheranism" within the territorial churches), that we can limit ourselves here to a summary of the essentials.

To us the judgment "from an authoritative mouth" (evidently meaning territorial bishop D. Wurm, cf. our article in "Der Lutheraner" No. 9) "about the federal character of the union, to which nevertheless the predicate of a church applies," does not seem so far-fetched or even malicious as one keeps trying to make believe in Munich. We do not go so far, as D. Meiser does with regard to us, as to question the honesty of the other side. (We would not like to take the word "honest" in the sense in which it stands there!) But should it not give the men of the VELKD pause that with their interpretation of the basic order they really stand quite alone? All the assurances they had given to themselves in Eisenach, all the ever more complicated and hair-splitting (to the congregations opaque) formulations of their reservations, all the supplementary declarations with which they have subsequently interpreted the agreements of Eisenach, cannot after all change the facts—facts which not only "right-leaning Lutherans" and the Lutheran free churches, but all sober and objectively judging interpreters of the wording of the basic order establish, and from which they all draw the same conclusions. Instead of complaining on all sides about malice, the Lutheran territorial churches too should recognize that they are simply caught in an error when, with all their might, against the united front from right and left, they maintain the fiction that nothing happened at Eisenach that impaired their previous standing as independent Lutheran churches. It is and remains a fact (to put it very cautiously) that the Lutheran territorial churches, within the EKiD, have entered into a union with churches of other or mixed confession, to which, according to the agreements made, the character of a church cannot be denied. This is attested by the articles of the "basic order," which transfer to the "union"—which it expressly calls a church—a wealth of powers such as cannot belong to a mere "union." We must and can spare ourselves from documenting this once more in detail at this point, since we have already presented the proof, with all thoroughness, in the article cited and in a public declaration by all the Lutheran free churches.

In general, we consider it more fruitful and more important to keep leading the conversation away from the level of day-to-day questions and to come to an understanding on the basis of Scripture and the confession of our church. From this standpoint we would also like to state once again at this point that it is anything but "bias" when we, as a Lutheran free church, take such a firm stand in the present ecclesiastical confusion. We wish thereby, in holy earnestness, to bear witness to our awareness of our worldwide responsibility for the cause of the Lutheran church and the pure proclamation of the Gospel. We know that this service is necessary and cannot at all be dispensed with, if the church is to be preserved, in the great hour of worldly temptation of these last days, from the so pressing danger of surrendering the Gospel and the truth for the sake of allegedly greater possibilities of effectiveness in a larger unity. We know: in the church of Jesus Christ there is only a single unity, namely that in the truth. So may we also

[illegible]