Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1973 · 50th Convention › Page 79
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 79
front matter 1
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 148
Sheet 143
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
'
:
i
i
|
rr AO SORE Te HIME I NCNM EO RRR EOP FE nH Reece ERA eR RCE PNR Ce
THE CONVENTION ESSAY 79
righteous one will live. If he shrinks back, I will not be
pleased with him. Now, we're not those who shrink back
and so are lost, but we have faith and so are saved.
The same Lord was in her midst motivating, direct-
ing, filling the hearts of His people with His love and
willing sacrifice. In spite of the painful struggles and
selfish pride He forged a willingness to endure, a Scrip-
tural and confessional commitment, and we rejoice in
His mercy. Amen.
mi
The Theological Power Pack
Have you ever had the experience of trying to get
away from one evil situation, only to find yourself con-
fronting another? This is what happened to our synodi-
cal forefathers. Theologically, they jumped from the
European frying pan into the American fire. Hardly
had they emerged from the rationalism and pietism of
European Lutheranism, when they found themselves
in the fire of a similar problem in America. Today
we will examine the theological climate in which the
newly organized Synod found itself and the specific
theological platform which it adopted.
At the time that the Frankonian, Saxon, Prussian,
and other immigrants arrived in America, Lutherans in
this country were going through one of the most severe
struggles in their history. The period of the 1840s and
1850s in American Lutheranism can best be described
as one of internal convulsion coupled with agonizing
efforts to redefine the essence of Lutheranism.
At the center of this struggle was the General Synod,
a federation of synods organized in 1820. In its own
way it attempted to oppose rationalism which at-
tempted to place reason above the Scriptures. Even
among America’s Lutherans, some held that faith in
Christ was merely an imitation of a life-style.
President F. H. Quitman (1768—1832), of the New York
Ministerium, in his 1814 catechism raised the question
“What is faith in Christ?” Without embarrassment he
taught: “A firm belief in the divine authority of Jesus,
and His doctrine and promises, expressed by a sincere
zeal to cherish Christian sentiments and dispositions, and
cultivate Christian graces.” [F. H. Quitman, Evangelical
Catechism or a Short Exposition of the Principal Doc-
trines and Precepts of the Christian Religion, For Use of
the Churches Belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran
Synod of the State of New York (Hudson: William E.
Norman, 1814), pp. 47—48]
Closely allied with the problem of subjecting Scrip-
tures to human reason was the transition from German
to English. A lack of English Lutheran literature made
it difficult for the pastors and people to make the change.
The Lutheran Confessions, for example, did not appear
in English in their entirety until 1851: The Christian
Book of Concord (New Market: Published by Solomon
D. Henkel and Brs. 1851). Besides, so many of the
Lutherans were not even interested in theology, and
thought that revivalism was the answer to the church’s
renewal.
Because of this, Lutherans in America developed
two theological parties: those who agitated for none or
as little support or subscription to Lutheran Confessions
The Local Convention Committee
as possible, and those who advocated total commitment
to them. Those who rejoiced in such subscription saw
the Confessions as the proclamation of their faith and
fellowship, and a bulwark against various un-Lutheran
tendencies.
One of the most renowned leaders in Lutheranism
in America at this time was Dr. S. S. Schmucker, presi-
dent and professor at the only theological seminary
Lutherans had, located at Gettysburg, Pa. At first
he worked strenuously to introduce the Augsburg
Confession when it was virtually unknown; in 1834,
however, he wrote a dogmatics textbook warning against
a confessional subscription:
The Lutheran divines of this country are not willing to
bind either themselves or others to anything more than
the fundamental doctrines of the Christian revelation,
believing that an immense mass of evil has resulted to
the church of God from the rigid requisition of extensive
and detailed creeds. [S. S. Schmucker, Elements of Popu-
lar Theology, 2nd edition (New York: Levit, Lord and
Co., 1834), p. 41]
To make things worse, Schmucker and his colleagues
tried to demonstrate to the union church of Germany,
that they were on the same theological wavelength with
them, protesting against subscription to the Lutheran
Confessions. In a letter written two years before the
formation of the Missouri Synod Schumucker appealed
to the German church:
Now as to our doctrinal views, we confess without dis-
guise, indeed confess it loudly and openly, that the great-
est majority of us are not old Lutherans. . .. We are
convinced that, if the great Luther were still living, he
would not be a member of it either. We believe that
the three last centuries have also produced men who
were capable of independent thought, research and
growth equal to the sixteenth.
. . . But, nevertheless, we are Evangelical Lutheran.
Committed to Luther’s fundamental principle that God’s
Word is without error. . . . The distinctive views which
separate the old Lutherans and the Reformed Church we
do not consider essential; and the tendency of the so-
called old Lutheran party seems to us to be behind our
time. . . . The peculiar view of Luther on the bodily
presence of the Lord in the Lord’s Supper has been
abandoned long ago by the great majority of our preach-
ers.... {“Aus Amerika,” Zeitschrift fiir Protestantismus
und Kirche, XI (1846), pp. 263—264]
The climax of the controversy over confessional sub-