The Lutherans of New York Part 9

The object of this chapter is to ascertain the historic principles of the Lutheran Church in regard to church members.h.i.+p, to test their validity by Scriptures and to apply them to present conditions.

The Church is primarily the communion of saints. Thus in the Small Catechism: "even as He (the Holy Ghost) ... sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth." In the Large Catechism the same thought, that the Church is the product of the Holy Ghost, is expressed in ample terms. Rome's doctrine of the Church, as essentially an external organism, was answered in the 7th Article of the Augustana with the statement that the Church is the "congregation of saints," and this Article was the object of special attack in the Confutation. In the Apologia the Church is the congregation of those who confess one Gospel, have a knowledge of Christ and a Holy Spirit who renews, sanctifies and governs their hearts (Mueller 153, 8). In the Smalcald Articles: "Thank G.o.d, a child of seven years knows what the Church is, namely the holy believers and the lambs who hear their Shepherd's voice." The Formula of Concord has no special article on the Church, but touches the question incidentally and confirms the statements of the other symbols. (See Rohnert, Dogmatik, p. 505.)

These teachings are in harmony with New Testament doctrine. Jesus said: "Upon this rock will I build my church," the congregation of G.o.d's children, the spiritual house which in the years to come "I will build."

This Church was founded through the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. When the Epistles were written Ecclesia had become the established term. In Acts 2, 42, we find that Koinonia was one of the essential characteristics of the Church. John uses the same term in his first letter. This is the very truth repeated in the 7th Article of the Augustana. Paul, in his letter to t.i.tus, refers to Christians as those who have believed in G.o.d; Romans 8, "G.o.d's elect;" also in Colossians 3, 1, "elect of G.o.d;" I. Peter 2, "holy nation, peculiar people;" I. Cor.

1, "Sanctified in Christ Jesus," etc., etc. They form a "spiritual house," I. Peter, 2; "G.o.d's building," I. Cor, 3; "body of Christ" in process of edification, Eph. 4. This body of Christ is an organic unity in which the Holy Ghost dwells as in a temple, I. Cor., 3 ; and of which Christ is the head, Eph. 1, 22. The Church is the "bride of Christ," II.

Cor, 11, 2; destined to be "holy and without blemish," Eph., 5, 27.

The Romish doctrine of the Church began with Cyprian in the third century. When the Puritans of that day, the Montanists, Novatians and Donatists unduly emphasized the ideal character of the Church, there was justification for the answer of Cyprian, emphasizing its empiric character, its actual condition. When after thirteen centuries of abuse of this position a Reformation occurred, it was to be expected that the Reformers would first of all emphasize the ideal, the inner character of the Church.

But while this movement, which Julius Stahl felicitously termed the Conservative Reformation, was going on, there was also a radical Reformation which repudiated the idea of a visible church. The Romanists, in their confutation of the Augustana, called attention to this view, and wrongfully charged the Lutherans with holding it. In controverting this position, the Romanists very properly quoted the parable of the tares and the parable of the net with all kinds of fishes. The Apologia replied by showing that the 8th Article of the Augustana had repudiated this position, and that bad men and hypocrites were not excluded _ab externa societate_.

Thus the Romanists regard the Church as essentially visible, the Reformed, as essentially invisible, while Lutherans hold that she is both. The invisible Church is contained within the visible just as the soul is contained within the body. The Church is not merely a congregation of believers, but also an inst.i.tution for the promotion of the Kingdom of G.o.d.

In their controversy with Rome Lutherans held that the Church did not exist merely in partic.i.p.ation of external rites, but chiefly in the possession of the inward life, the heavenly gifts. As yet the kingdom of Christ is not revealed, and the visible Church is a _corpus mixtum_.

Thus the Apologia distinguishes clearly between the _ecclesia proprie et large dicta_ (church in the proper and church in the wider sense of the term).

Nevertheless this Kingdom of Christ has a visible existence. "We are not dreaming of a Platonic commonwealth," says the Apologia, "for it has external marks, the preaching of the pure Gospel and the administration of the sacraments." And this Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth," for she is built upon the true foundation, Christ, and upon this foundation Christians are built up.

Subsequently, in his Loci, Melanchthon developed still further the idea of the Church as an _inst.i.tutum_. This may have been because of the fanatics, or it may have been because of his entire disposition as a teacher and pedagogue. Followed as he was in support of his views by the dogmaticians, the Lutheran Church acquired that distinctive character which has marked her history as an educating and training force. This position is still further explained from the fact that the Lutherans, unlike the Reformed, were placed in charge of nations and peoples, and had to be responsible for their Christian guidance and training. As a national church, her relations to the people were different from those of the Reformed, who, on the continent, existed mainly in smaller communities and congregations where it was comparatively easy to enforce church discipline.

In this relation the Church is not only the product, but also the organ of the Holy Ghost. It is her duty to nourish the life of its members (_parturit et alit_), and to spread the blessings of the Church to others. According to the Large Catechism, she is the spiritual mother of the faithful. Her pedagogic duty is pointed out. (See Rohnert, Dogmatik, pp. 508 and 487.)

This visible character of the Church is recognized in the New Testament in the various commands and promises given to her: the power of the keys, the duty to confess before men, to serve one another in love, of united intercession, of contending against the kingdom of darkness. In the Epistles the presence of sinful men is everywhere recognized, nevertheless the members of the Church are termed "the called" of Jesus Christ.

Lutheranism of the 16th century stood between two opposite errors, Rome on the one hand with its exaggerated ideas of the Church as an inst.i.tution, and Reform on the other hand with its one-sided notions of the invisible church. The Lutheran Church took the _via media_, declaring that the Church, _proprie_, was spiritual, but that it was also an inst.i.tution. The question for us is whether we Lutherans of the twentieth century have remained on the _via media_ or whether we have not slipped too far to the right or to the left.

To find the answer one would naturally consult our church formulas and const.i.tutions. According to Dr. Walther's "Pastorale," the candidate for admission to a "Missouri" church must be a truly converted and regenerated Christian. The General Council requires that the candidate shall have been admitted to the Lord's Supper and shall accept the const.i.tution. The Synod of New York requires that candidates be confirmed, accept the Augsburg Confession, lead a Christian life, obey the const.i.tution and any other regulations that may hereafter be adopted.

From this it seems that "Missouri" is the only body that emphasizes the _interna virtus_. The others place the emphasis upon conformity with certain outward forms and requirements.

But we cannot always judge from the printed const.i.tution. To bring the information up to date, and to ascertain the actual usage of the churches, the author obtained from forty pastors of this city an account of their practice. Some of their replies will be embodied in this chapter.

Theoretically we enter the church through baptism. Practically, for most Lutherans, confirmation is the door of admission.

This rite is a comparatively new measure among us. Prior to the eighteenth century it had only a limited use in the Lutheran Church, and it has attained an inordinately prominent place. Spener was among the first to recognize its practical value, and its beautiful ritual made a strong appeal to the popular imagination. It is one of the ancient ceremonies to which we do not object if it is properly used.

Now tell us, you who make so much of confirmation and so little of catechization, seeing that you are content with six months of the latter, in adopting a rite which Spener and the Pietists introduced into the church, have you also adopted the principles which governed Spener and the Pietists in the practice of confirmation? Their object in catechization and confirmation was conversion. "A stranger visited my cla.s.s one day," says Spener. "The next day he called to see me and expressed his great pleasure with my instruction. 'But,' said he, 'this instruction is for the head. The question is how to bring the head to the heart.' And these words he repeated three times. I will not deny that they made such an impression upon me that for the rest of my days I shall not forget them."

We are not advocating extravagant ideas of conversion, or requiring a religious experience from children of fourteen years which in the nature of the case they cannot have. But have we a right in this crisis in the history of the child to overlook that infinitely important experience which our dogmaticians termed _regressus ad baptismum?_ Said Professor Kaftan, in an address to a Ministers' Conference: "The word conversion is the appropriate term for expressing the way in which a man becomes a Christian and a believer. Most Christians can tell you something about how it happened that they sought a new aim and chose another path in life. Even among those who have had a peaceful and gradual development, there came a time when they reached a conscious and decisive resolution to belong no more to the world but to G.o.d. _"Man wird nicht von selbst ein Christ, man muss sich bekehren um ein Christ zu werden."_ We do not repudiate the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as it is held in the Lutheran Church. On this point we are in accord with our Confessions.

But before we adopt without reservation the idea that baptized children are regenerate, we must revise our practice in the matter of baptizing infants. So long as we practice the _Winkeltaufe_ and baptize indiscriminately the children of people who give us no guarantee that the children will be brought up in the Christian faith, so long as the Church fails to recognize her obligation to these baptized children and does not take them under her nouris.h.i.+ng care from the time when they emerge from the family and enter into the larger life of the street and the school, we have no right to place such an emphasis upon baptismal regeneration. It is to be feared that the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal grace has in many minds been supplanted by a mechanical, thaumaturgiel conception which differs from the Roman doctrine only in being far more dangerous. Rome at least enforces the claims of tthe [sic] Church recognized in baptism. We baptize them and let them run. We corral a few of them for a few months just before confirmation and then let them run again. So does not Rome." [tr. note: original has no close quotation mark for Kaftan quotation]

Dr. Cremer, of Greifswald, an able defender of the Lutheran faith, in his reply to Dr. Lepsius on the subject of Baptismal Regeneration, says:

"It is sad indeed that in the use of the sacraments there is generally more of superst.i.tion than of faith. This must be openly confessed, for only then can conditions be improved when faults are recognized and made known. . . . We may continue to baptize chiildren [sic] of _Gewohnheitschristen_ (formal Christians), but it is a question whether we ought to continue to baptize the children of those who have given up the faith and among whom there is no guarantee of a Christian training.

This means also a reformation in our confirmation practice. Does confirmation mean a family party, or mark the time to leave school, or has it something to do with baptism? These are rocks of offense which must be cleared out of the way if the Church is to be restored to health."

Among the questions proposed to the pastors were the following:

1. Do you have a personal interview with each candidate prior to confirmation with the view of ascertaining his fitness for the act?

2. Do you at that interview inquire as to the candidate's repentance, faith, conversion, new life?

3. Is the confirmation of the candidate dependent upon the satisfactory result of this examination?

Among the answers were the following: "Not, individually." "No, except before the congregation." "Not formally so." "For at least six months."

"Only with certain ones," etc., etc.

A goodly number of pastors speak to the candidates _"unter vier Augen,"_ but they are the exceptions. The ordinary practice knows nothing of such a course. The public examination is little more than an exhibition.

In other words, we have strayed over to the Roman side of the road. The difference between us and the Roman priest being this: he will see them again at the confessional, but those whom we confirm in this superficial way, many of them, we shall never see again. Or, if perchance we should see some of them, it will be at long range, the same as when we first admitted them to confirmation. Imagine a doctor curing his patients in this way, getting them together in a room and prescribing for their diseases from what he sees of them in a crowd. The care of souls cannot be performed in bulk, it is the care of _a_ soul.

Besides what a privilege the pastor loses, the opportunity of a lifeline, not only to explain to an inquiring heart the mysteries of our faith in the light of his personal need, but also to put himself in such a relation to the individual that he may become a beloved _Beichvater_.

But alas, we have to a great extent lost the confessional. Instead of it we have a hybrid combination of Lutheran doctrine and Reformed practice, and we distribute our absolution _ore rotundo_ over mixed congregations on Sunday mornings and at the Preparatory Service. But the real confession we seldom hear and a valid absolution therefore we cannot p.r.o.nounce. The Keys have indeed been committed to us, but we seem to have lost them, for the door of the sheepfold hangs very loose in our churches and the sheep run in and out pretty much as they please.

But while some of our churches are thus leaning toward Rome, there is need of caution also against the opposite error. A false and exaggerated spirituality will lead to standards of holiness which are not warranted by the New Testament. Of these Luther himself somewhere said, "May the G.o.d of mercy preserve me from belonging to a congregation of holy people. I desire to belong to a church of poor sinners who constantly need forgiveness and the help of a good physician."*

*Methods of receiving candidates into active members.h.i.+p vary. Some synods, as we have seen, make no distinction whatever in their statistical reports between occasional communicants and actual members of the congregation. Admission to members.h.i.+p should take place by vote of the congregation or at least of the Church Council. There should likewise be some rite of initiation. In the case of adults who come from other congregations it need not and should not be a confirmation service, but it should at least be a public introduction of the candidate into the fellows.h.i.+p of the congregation with which he desires to become identified. (Matthew 10, 32).

Rome's position was a protest against Montanism. Without question there is a great truth in Cyprian's position as developed by Rome, and the Reformers, particularly Melanchthon, guarded it. How often do we hear in our day the declaration: "I do not need to go to church. I can be just as good a Christian without." This position Lutheranism rebukes by making preaching and the sacraments the pillars on which the church rests. Thus is conserved what was best in the inst.i.tutional theory of the ancient church, so that in spite of her many defects both as a national church and in her transplanted condition, the Lutheran church will remain an important factor in the development of Protestant Christianity.

When our Reformed neighbors charge us with Romanism, it is either because they do not understand our theory and have overlooked the historical development, or because they judge of us by the Romish practice of our own ministers who have thoughtlessly slipped over too far toward the inst.i.tutional theory. In the present condition of religious flux we have a mission not only in the field of doctrine, but also in practical theology, on the question of the Church. For we are still standing between two antagonists. Catholics on the one hand attract the ma.s.ses by the definiteness of their external organization.

Over against them we emphasize the essentially spiritual nature of the Church. There are Protestants on the other hand who, while placing the emphasis on the inner life, ignore the importance of the ordinances.

They maintain public wors.h.i.+p, it is true, but do so in combination with secular entertainment or by appealing to the intellectual or esthetic needs of the community. Others, more spiritually minded, base their hopes on the evangelist and the revival. But when the evangelist has taken his leave, and the people have to listen to the same voice they have heard so long before, having been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that it is not the Church that makes a man a Christian, that sacraments and ordinances are merely human devices, is it any wonder that many of them ignore the church altogether?

It is here that the Lutheran Church, with her catholic spirit and her evangelical doctrine, has a message for our times. Her doctrine of baptism, of Christian instruction as its corrollary, of repentance, faith, and the new life, of the Lord's Supper, of church attendance, of the sanctification of the Lord's Day, and a practical application of these doctrines to the life in the care of souls, establishes a standard of members.h.i.+p that ought to make our churches sources of spiritual power.

The Problem of Religious Education

Historically and doctrinally the Lutheran Church is committed to week-day instruction in religion. Historically, because in establis.h.i.+ng the public school her chief purpose was to provide instruction in religion; doctrinally, because from her point of view life is a unit and cannot be divided into secular and spiritual compartments.

American Christians are confronted with two apparently contradictory propositions. One is that there can be no true education without religion. The other is that we must have a public school, open to all children without regard to creed.

When our country was young, and Protestantism was the prevailing type of religion, these two ideas dwelt peacefully together. The founders of the Republic had no theory of education from which religion was divorced.

But the influx of millions of people of other faiths compels us to revise our methods and to test them by our principles, the principles of a free Church within a free State. Roman Catholics and Jews object to our traditions and charge us with inconsistency. If temporarily we withstand their objections, we feel that a great victory has been won for religion when a psalm is read and the Lord's Prayer said at the opening of the daily session of school. We still have "religion" in the publie school.

But the problem remains. On the one hand, those who doubt the propriety of introducing any religious instruction, however attenuated, into the public school, are not satisfied with the compromise. There are judicial decisions which place even the reading of the Bible under the head of sectarian instruction.

On the other hand, those who believe that religion has a supreme place in the education of a child, and that provision should therefore be made for it in its school life, realize the inadequacy of the present methods.

As Herbert Spencer says: "To prepare us for complete living is the function which education has to discharge." Character rather than acquirement is the chief aim of education. Hence we cannot ignore the place of religion in education without doing violence to the ultimate purpose of education.

The importance of the question is admitted on all sides. But it remains a complex and difficult problem. Thus far, with all our talent for practical measures, we have not succeeded in reaching a solution.

In New York, in common with other churches, we have the Sunday School.

We do not undervalue its influence and cannot dispense with its aid. But does the Sunday School meet the requirement of an adequate system of religious instruction? It is an inst.i.tution that has endeared itself to the hearts of millions. Originally intended for the waifs of an English manufacturing town, it has become among English-speaking people an important agency of religion. Apart from the instruction which it gives, we could not dispense with it as a field for the cultivation of lay activity, and a practical demonstration of the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless its best friends concede its limitations. From a pedagogical standpoint, no one thinks of comparing it with the secular school. With but half an hour a week for instruction, even the best of teachers could not expect important results. Its chief value lies in the personal influence of the teacher. But instruction in religion involves more than this.

Nor does the Sunday School reach all the children. Attendance is voluntary, and hence there is no guarantee that all the children of school age will obtain any instruction, to say nothing of graded and systematic instruction, taking account of the entire school life, and holding in mind the ultimate object of instruction, the preparation of children for full members.h.i.+p in the church. But this is one of the first duties of the churches, to look after all their children with this end in view.