USA > Ohio > History of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other states from the earliest beginnings to 1919 > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
169
were capable of devising extensive plans for the furtherance of the Church :
We, the undersigned committee, appointed to confer with a committee of the venerable Synod of Missouri on the union of both synods beg leave to report the following propositions as the result of their conference :
1. That the German Synods of the Synodical Conference be called upon to carry out at once the plan of forming state synods.
2. That the state synods form two or three synodical bodies, of which the East may constitute one, the West another and the North West the third General Synod.
NOTE. - The boundaries of the Eastern General Synod might be: Ohio and all States that lie wholly East of the Western boundary line of Ohio.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota and all congrega- tions and synods that may be formed West of Dakota might con- stitute the General Synod of the North West.
The Western General Synod might embrace the territory lying West of the Eastern and South of the North Western Synod.
3. That the two or three General Synods so formed, estab- lish, if possible, in connection with the Norwegian Synod, a Theo- logical Joint Seminary, probably in or near Milwaukee, and that the Practical Seminary at Springfield, Ill., together with the Nor- mal School (Seminary) in Addison, Ill., become the common prop- erty of the two or three General Synods.
In case the Norwegian Synod should not be able or willing to participate, other localities might be selected, as for instance, St. Louis, Columbus or Richmond, Ind.
4. The Joint Seminary is to comprise three departments with three different theological faculties, to wit, a German, an English and a Norwegian Faculty.
5. The colleges now in existence shall remain the property of that General Synod in whose bounds they may be located.
6. We suggest that the English Synods of the Synodical Con- ference might become District Synods of the respective General Synods to whose territory they may belong.
7. The execution of this plan shall not be dependent upon its being accepted by all the synods severally,
170 HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
8. The execution of the above named propositions shall be conditioned by the execution of all of them.
M. LOY, C. A. FRANK.
After Synod had heard this report it was resolved to ascertain, by the calling of the synodical roll, what action
EMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH, SPOKANE, WASH.
had been taken by the congregations of our Synod to which this question had been referred by the Pres., Prof. F. W. Lehmann.
"The calling of the roll resulted in showing that a com- paratively small number of our congregations have de- cided in favor of state synods and joint seminary, a larger
171
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
number in favor of state synods without the joint seminary, while a much larger number have taken action against both, and a very large majority have not been able to reach any decision whatever." Hereupon a letter from the Presi- dent, Prof. F. W. Lehmann, written by him in the midst of great suffering and addressed to the Synod, was read. From this letter it appeared that our dear brother most sincerely invokes upon this Synod and its proceedings the blessing of God, but also declares that his position, upon the very important subject now before us is the same as he occupied at Wheeling, two years ago, for which reason he urgently advises the Synod to use great caution in the ac- tion that may be taken.
From such expressions, and especially from the state of feeling manifested by our congregations respecting this matter, all the members of Synod derived the impression that the time had not yet come for final action. Accord- ingly a member of the committee that had presented the propositions having in view a union of synods, offered a resolution to table the report of the committee and thereby also the respective propositions of the Synodical Confer- ence. The earnest desire however that seemed to prevail with all the brethren, was to arrive at a clearer view of this subject, especially also for the sake of such of our congregations as have not yet reached final action. Among those who expressed themselves on the subject nearly all took the position, that the action of the congregations of the Synod is sufficient evidence that the Synod as such is not prepared at present to adopt the propositions of the committee and of the Synodical Conference.
Finally Synod adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, That the report of the committee, comprising the propositions of the Synodical Conference be and is herewith laid on the table, and that this Synod hereby declares that at present
172 HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
it is not prepared to decide in favor of the formation of state synods and a consolidated seminary.
More serious however than synodical boundary lines or consolidation of seminaries was the predestination con- troversy which began to portend the dissolution of the Synodical Conference. The controversy was occasioned by Calvinistic utterances made by Dr. Walther in the minutes of the Western District of the Missouri Synod in 1877. Volumes have been written since on both sides of the controversy. This is hardly the place to even attempt a complete historical presentation of the long continued discussion. It would lead us entirely beyond the scope of this brief history and would no doubt become somewhat tedious.
On the other hand we of a succeeding generation would not have it understood that we consider the great predestination controversy simply a war of words and an indulgence in biting personalities. There was too much earnest study and research expended in the discussion to have it lightly brushed aside as a kind of "monk's quarrel."
It sent men into the treasure house of the Sacred Scriptures as well as back into the study of the Confessions of the Church. Indeed it would almost seem to us now that the mighty force which held the Lutheran Church of this country to her moorings in the now passing age of rationalism, higher criticism and evolution was the close study given in many quarters to the faith of the fathers when scholasticism, the papacy and the lusts of the flesh threatened Evangelical Christianity. It may be that this generation after getting the proper perspective may be able to discern the "unfortunate controversy" as a blessing in disguise. The atmosphere is clearing, discussions are calmer, personal animosities are being forgotten. There
173
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
is more convergence on fundamentals, sweet peace and unity are in the air despite the war of nations. We trust our hopes and prayers for a united Lutheran Church of Amer- ica in this generation may be realized.
But our task requires that we recount how it came about that the Joint Synod withdrew from the Synodical Conference at Wheeling in 1881.
President Loy in his address to Synod had this to say :
Already at our last regular synod in Dayton, it appeared that no small dangers were threatening our Synodical Conference. Since that time the prospects have not become better .. The pleas- ant relation in which, for ten years, we stood with other Ev. Lutheran synods, has been disturbed in such a manner that many brethren considered an extraordinary meeting of our synod neces- sary, and, in accordance with their express wish, this extra session has been convoked.
At our session last autumn we did not suppose that our synod would be obliged so soon to give its decision on the ques- tion of election. We are not wont to act so hastily in such im- portant matters. I have no doubt that most, if not all the members of our synod would be willing, if circumstances permitted it, in patience and love, to discuss the disputed points for years, in the hope, by God's grace, finally to effect unity of doctrine among us. Our relations, however, are of such a nature as to compel us, I think, to take a clear and decided position in the burning question. This would in no wise hinder us from patiently bearing with those of different opinion among us so far as they do not feel them- selves constrained to condemn our doctrine, and afterwards dis- cussing with them the points of difference in brotherly love.
What in my estimation urges us to a decision is the action of the Missouri Synod in the present controversy. She treats the difference, if not in and of itself, yet in view of the accusations which among others, members of our synod also find themselves constrained to raise against her as a point of separation between churches, and therefore feels herself called upon to discontinue church-fellowship with her opponents. This is important for us in a twofold aspect. In the first place, we must decide whether we must refuse or welcome into our midst as brethren such pastors
174 HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
and congregations as can no longer remain in that synod and apply for admission among us. In the second place, we must decide in what relation we stand to that body after she has instructed her delegates to the Synodical Conference not to sit and confer with those who have raised against her the accusation of Calvinizing tendencies.
After several committees had been appointed, Theses on Predestination or Election were presented by a com- mittee for discussion. The discussion of these theses con- tinued uninterruptedly during six sessions of Synod. Per- haps never before in the history of Synod were the doc- trines of the Church so thoroughly discussed. At times the debates would become animated and the situation tense, but there was a seriousness and a frankness which made a lasting impression upon all who attended. It was very evident that men had not come together to simply debate or take the advantage of an opportunity to show their great learning or their adroitness in controversy. The serious- ness of disturbing the peace and harmony of the Church except for conscience' sake seemed to be considered by all. At last, many worn and wearied by the heat of the day as well as by the almost endless discussion called for a deci- sion on the momentous question. But not until late Satur- day night did the hour of decision come.
That the reader may know on just what the vote was taken we append the resolutions offered Synod for adop- tion but which had been tabled for a time :
Resolved, I. That the Joint Synod of Ohio and other States, much as it regrets the step, herewith separates itself from the Synodical Conference of North America, because the honorable Synod of Missouri, which, as is known, represents the great ma- jority of the Synodical Conference, has
1. Set forth and definitely adopted (last May) a doctrine concerning election which we cannot accept; and
175
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
IMMANUEL CHURCH AND PASTOR, W. STEINMANN, D. D., SEGUIN, TEXAS.
I76
HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
2. Has definitely declared that it cannot confer with the majority of the delegates our districts have elected this year, be- cause they have felt it to be their duty publicly to declare that the above-mentioned doctrine is Calvinizing ;
II. That we do not consider the difference which has thus far manifested itself in our synod in reference to the doctrine of election, to be of a church-dividing character ;
III. That in the future as in the past we confess the old Lutheran doctrine, that the election of those persons who are in- fallibly saved took place in view of the merits of Christ appre- hended by faith.
After these resolutions had been read it was resolved that the III. one be discussed first. A substitute for the III. resolution was offered to the following effect :
SUBSTITUTE FOR III.
We again herewith confess the doctrine of election as it is contained in the Formula of Concord, and also as it has in accord- ance therewith been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our church; especially do we hold the doctrine of our fathers, that the ordination of the elect to eternal life took place in view of faith, i. e., in view of the merits of Christ appropriated by faith, to be in accord with the Scriptures and our Confessions ; Therefore,
Resolved, That in the future as in the past the doctrine here anew confessed be alone authorized in our institutions, schools, publications and churches.
1
The vote on Saturday evening was taken on the sub- stitute for the III. Resolution as given above. The roll of pastors and lay delegates was called. Those in favor of the substitute voted in the affirmative, those opposed voted, no. Slowly the names were called. Firmly came the responses. 109 pastors and 33 lay delegates voted "Yes." 19 pastors and 3 delegates responded, "No." Thus came the decision and the end of a strenuous week.
177
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
After the refreshing services of the Lord's Day the brethren came together again Monday morning to finish the business for which they had come. Protests seemed to be first in order. Pastor P. Brand and several other pas- tors came with this one: "We hold that synod, by passing this resolution, has adopted a doctrinal position which al- together changes the former confessional standpoint of Synod, and against which we must protest for the follow- ing reasons" :
Four reasons were given for the protest. For the most part they are a reiteration of the points discussed and practically disposed of in the previous debates. We have room for only the last one :
I. 4. Finally, although synod did not directly pronounce the condemnation of the opposite doctrine, as the proposition originally was, we must nevertheless declare, that all right is denied the opposite doctrine, because the doctrine confessed in this resolution is henceforth solely to have right in our Institutions, Schools, Publications, and Churches. We cannot permit ourselves to be thus bound in conscience to teach, that the Formula of Concord teaches an election in the widest sense. (We here refer to declara- tions made before the vote was taken). And also that election took place in view of faith, i. e. in foresight of Christ's merits as apprehended by faith. We have not bound ourselves nor can we permit ourselves to be bound to more than this: Not to deviate from our Confessions either in "Rebus" or in "Phrasibus." We consider this resolution of synod as un-Lutheran and oppressive of consciences.
Rev. G. F. H. Meiser and five other pastors handed in their reasons for voting "No," at the same time indicating a willingness to vote "Yes" if Synod will grant the follow- ing request :
II. If now this honorable body will permit the undersigned to teach in his church and school after this manner, to-wit, that God had elected us "unto faith," his view of the doctrine being 12
178
HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
the following: "That God, after He had from eternity decreed the redemption of the human race and had likewise ordained the means through which this redemption should be appropriated by men, foresaw who among men would stubbornly resist and not permit themselves to be brought unto salvation, and that He elected those, in whom He could carry on His work unto faith and with it unto all the gifts of His grace, and keep them unto life eternal in spite of Satan, the world and the flesh," -then he sees no reason for severing the fraternal bonds by which we have hitherto been united. If, however, this honorable body cannot tolerate this mode of teaching on the part of its members, then it would follow that the honorable body considers the modus docendi of the undersigned as of a church-dividing character and would have to refuse to hold fellowship with him.
And here follows a request from one man, the Rev. L. A. Detzer. It shows at least how the minds of some were moving in that convention and how they were trying to get into the clear :
III. The debate last week strengthened me in my conviction that the two modes of teaching in reference to the doctrine of election, when untainted by Calvinistic blasphemy and unmixed with synergism, are truly Lutheran.
I am confident that the Faculty of our Synod will also in the future testify decidedly, both in writing and by word of mouth, against synergism. I therefore declare, as far as I am personally concerned, that the tropus chosen by the revered Faculty, "That God has elected those who are infallibly saved in view of the merits of Christ apprehended by faith," is not of a church-dividing character.
Now, personally, I hold to the tropus, "That God had elected those who are infallibly saved, in Christ, through, in and to faith," and reject all Calvinistic inferences.
In order, now, that I may be certain as to my future relation in and to the honorable Synod of Ohio and other States, I re- quest an answer to the question :
Does the honorable Synod of Ohio and other States consider
179
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
an adherence to the last-mentioned tropus to be of a church- dividing character ?
Please answer Yes or No.
Respectfully, L. A. DETZER.
With reference to the three papers, parts of which are cited above, Synod appointed a commttee of five to ex- amine said papers and report to Synod respecting them.
The committee's report with reference to the parts of the communications cited above was as follows:
I. Respecting what is said in the 4th point of the Protest we declare that, as a Lutheran Synod, we accept the Formula of Concord as the church has always accepted and understood it, namely in this sense, that the doctrine, "That the election of per- sons took place in view of faith," is in accord with that Confession and is therefore truly Lutheran. He, now, who really occupies a doctrinal position in opposition to ours, can of course not remain with us without being a unionist.
II. In reference to the Declaration referred to under point "b" your committee takes leave to declare: 1. That we do not approve of the expression, "God has elected unto faith," when considered in and of itself and without proper and correct ex- planation, because the same can easily be used in a wrong sense, and is so used at the present time. But as the same is used with limitations in the Declaration under consideration (namely that God, on the basis of the redemption and of the means of grace ordained for all and intended to be offered to all, foresaw from eternity who would obstinately resist and not permit themselves to be brought unto salvation, and elected, etc., those in whom He could carry on His work, unto faith, etc.,) we cannot reject it as false.
That we heartily rejoice in being able to say, in consideration of such a limitation in the use of said expression, that the doctrinal position of the brethren who signed the Declaration is in entire accord with the resolution of synod and that therefore they both could and should have voted Yes with us.
180
HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
III. With reference to the question referred to under "c," as to whether the honorable synod considers the expression, "God has elected in Christ through, in and unto faith," to be a church- dividing character, our answer is No, provided the meaning of it is not such a selection of persons according to which God uncon- ditionally elected a certain few in preference to others unto faith.
MR. C. NAGEL, Treasurer of Joint Synod for 30 Years.
Then it was :
Resolved, That we invite those brethren who are not yet fully satisfied with the explanation given by Synod to a conference with our Theological Faculty, at such time and place as may be agreed upon by both parties.
Certainly not a stone was left unturned that might aid in bringing about a clearer understanding of the doctrines
18I
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
involved or that would aid in bringing peace to a troubled Church.
The first of the resolutions laid before Synod after the doctrinal discussion on Predestination, but which had been tabled, was now taken up. We quote it again :
Resolved, 1. That the Joint Synod of Ohio and other States, much as it regrets the step, herewith separates itself from the Synodical Conference of North America, because the honorable Synod of Missouri, which, as is known represents the great ma- jority of the Synodical Conference, has,
1. Set forth and definitely adopted (last May) a doctrine concerning election which we cannot accept; and
2. Has definitely declared that it cannot confer with the majority of the delegates our districts have elected this year, be- cause they have felt it to be their duty publicly to declare that the above-mentioned doctrine is Calvinizing.
Again after considerable discussion the following sub- stitute was offered for the first resolution as given above :
Resolved, That we send delegates to the Synodical Confer- ence this year also,
(a) In order to do our duty in respect to that honorable body ;
(b) Further in order to bring about, if possible - seeing that the confidence between our synod and another belonging to the Synodical Conference, namely, the Synod of Missouri, has been so shaken by the present unfortunate doctrinal controversy that the two synods cannot expect to labor together successfully in the near future - a peaceful dissolution of the Synodical Conference as now existing, so that the different synods belonging to the Synodical Conference may hereafter, regarding each other as orthodox, not erect altar against altar and from now on exist side by side, but not in opposition to each other.
The mover of this resolution gave as his reason for handing it in that we are told to "give place unto wrath,"
182
HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
that is, to let the passions first subside. We are also re- sponsible to other synods in the Synodical Conference, and by means of this resolution we intend to discharge our duty toward them. But especially should we prevent, if possible, a return of the sad condition of affairs that formerly ob- tained, when through the erection of altar against altar the life of our congregations was destroyed and strife and con- tention were disseminated.
But it was feared that the adoption of this resolution would only postpone a rupture that seemed inevitable and likely make matters still worse. According to Missouri's resolution it seemed that a brotherly discussion and ex- planation was not possible.
The above substitute was finally laid on the table and the original resolution was adopted part by part and then as a whole.
Against this withdrawal of the Ohio Synod from the Synodical Conference the following declaration was laid before synod by several brethren :
DECLARATION.
The undersigned herewith announce to this honorable body that the reason why they voted against the point in the series of resolutions which states that this honorable body herewith with- draws from the Synodical Conference, because the honorable synod of Missouri teaches a doctrine concerning election which this hon- orable synod cannot accept, is this, to-wit: a) Although the under- signed cannot deny that expressions occur in the publications of the honorable synod of Missouri to which the undersigned cannot subscribe, inasmuch as those expressions left the impression that Calvinistic tendencies had crept into the doctrinal system of the honorable synod of Missouri - nevertheless :
b) The undersigned cannot say that in the Confession of the Missouri Synod as a synod, which she has set forth and adopted in the famous 13 Theses, there is any leaven of false doc-
183
EFFORTS AT LUTHERAN UNION.
trine; and therefore they could not, for this reason, withdraw from the Synodical Conference.
D. J. WARNS,
G. F. H. MEISER,
P. RAETHER,
P. BRAND,
F. WILHELM,
G. DILLMANN,
L. A. DETZER,
K. WALZ,
C. ENGELDER,
W. L. FISCHER,
F. W. FRANKE,
H. HENKEL,
E. A. BOEHME,
J. M. KOEPPLIN,
E. H. SCHEIPS,
F. KUEGELE.
G. BACHMANN,
Synod resolved to lay this declaration on the table for the present.
The following substitute was offered for the second point in the series of resolutions :
Resolved, That we tolerate those brethren who do not accept the position we have now taken, as long as they do not publicly oppose us.
This substitute, however, was rejected, and the second point in the original resolutions was stricken out.
This in brief is the history of our union with and withdrawal from the Synodical Conference. We have studied to be faithful to facts. We have found much in the union that was praiseworthy; much indeed that has helped to enrich the whole Lutheran Church of America. We have been impressed by the volumes of controversial writings that capable and earnest men on both sides have left for our perusal and consideration. We have hurriedly passed over some of the sharp and unbrotherly utterances that have come down to us. We are sorry for the all too prevalent belligerent spirit which characterized some of the champions in the great contention. But as we look up and out beyond us we would feign discern the dawning of
184
HISTORY OF THE EV. LUTH. JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO.
a greater era, a better day and a mightier Church, for which the efforts and contentions of the past have but paved the way.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.