 |
To Pastor Lauritz Larsen I am indebted for the following sketch of our Norwegian churches:
"The Norwegians have always been a sea-faring people and a people looking for fields of labor all over the World. The real immigration begins about 1849, but there were Scandinavians on Manhattan Island in the Sixteenth Century. The Bronx is named after a Danish farmer, Jonas Bronck.
"I believe that the first Norwegian Lutheran Church in New York was organized by Lauritz Larsen, then Norwegian Professor in Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, who stopped here for a while on his way to and from Norway in the early sixties. The first resident pastor was Ole Juul, who came to New York in 1866 and labored here until 1876, when he was succeeded by Pastor Everson, who was actively engaged as pastor in New York and Brooklyn from 1873, until 1917, when failing health compelled him to retire.
"At present, the Norwegian Lutheran churches of Greater New York are carrying on an active and aggressive work. Their total membership is not as large as it might be. Partly because the Norwegians coming here from the State Church do not at once realize the importance or necessity of becoming members of local congregations, but have the idea that as long as they attend services, have their children baptized and confirmed, and so forth, they are members of the church. The report of the membership of the churches is therefore, hardly a correct indication of the number of people reached or even the strength of the Norwegian Lutherans in the Metropolis.
"The language question is one of great difficulty. Many of our people live, as it were, with one foot in Norway and one in America; and are thinking of returning to the old country at some time or other. There is also a constant influx of new people from Norway which makes it imperative to have Norwegian services constantly. On the other hand, the young people are rapidly Americanized and prefer to use the language of the country, which necessitates English work, and where this demand is made, the young people are, generally speaking, quite loyal to their church, but it is no easy matter to satisfy both elements and to keep the old and the young together in the same church.
"The Norwegians have been very active in Inner Mission and Social Service work. As witness: the organization of the Norwegian Lutheran Deaconesses' Home and Hospital about thirty years ago. This institution has now grown to be the largest Norwegian charitable institution in the country and has a splendidly equipped modern hospital and an excellent Sisters' Home, which together represent a value of $500,000. It is not owned by a church, but is owned and controlled by a corporation of Norwegian Lutherans.
"The churches have directly been engaged in Inner Mission work for a number of years, and now have three city missionaries constantly at work. The institutions conducted by this branch of the service are the Bethesda Rescue Mission at Woodhull St., Brooklyn, the Day Nursery at 46th St., Brooklyn, and an extensive industrial plant also in Brooklyn. Besides the Inner Mission has purchased land on Staten Island and erected a cottage there for a summer colony for poor children. The Norwegians of New York have also built a modern Children's Home at Dyker Heights, Brooklyn. Although this is not owned by the church, but by a corporation of Norwegians, its constitution provides that the religious instruction should be based upon Luther's Small Catechism. The Home is now taking care of sixty children, and is in charge of a Deaconess from the local mother house mentioned above. A new Inner Mission Agency was started two years ago when the late C. M. Eger bequeathed a large sum of money for the establishment of the Old People's Home in connection with Our Saviour's Lutheran Church. At present it is located in his former home, 112 Pulaski Street, and will, no doubt, be of great importance for our church work in the future."
The statistics of the Scandinavian churches are presented in part in the following table. The figures of the first and second lines are taken from the United States Census of 1910. They include the children where one or both parents are of foreign descent. Those of the third line are obtained by deducting 10 per cent. from the number of Protestants, in the second line. The number of "souls," fourth line, is the aggregate number of baptized persons, old or young, connected with or related to the respective congregations.
Swedes Norwegians Danes Finns Total 1. Population 53,464 34,733 13,197 10,304 116,698 2. Protestants 56,766 33,344 11,996 10,304 112,410 3. Lutherans 51,090 30,010 10,797 9,274 101,171 4. Souls 8,365 10,433 950 2,540 22,288 5. Communicants 3,829 2,152 422 840 7,643 6. No. of Churches 13 12 3 3 31
Prior to 1871 Germans were a negligible quantity in the political history of Europe. Divided into a multitude of tribes, with divergent interests, for centuries they had no political standing and were the football of the nations around them. From Louis XIV to the Corsican invader, except during the reign of Frederick the Great, their history was one of political incohesion and economic poverty.
Even in New York they were looked upon as aliens in the city which they had helped to found and where in three centuries their sons had stood in the forefront of the battle for freedom. The names of Jacob Leisler, of the seventeenth century, Peter Zenger of the eighteenth century, Franz Lieber and Karl Schurz of the nineteenth century are indelibly inscribed among the champions of freedom in America. Yet fifty years ago "Dutch" in New York had almost the same evaluation that "Sheeny" and "Dago" have today.
In 1871 the divergent fragments of the German people, after many futile experiments in their history, at last attained national unity. The Germans of New York celebrated the event with a procession which made a deep impression upon the city. From that day forward they were no longer held below par in popular estimation. This became manifest in the success of their efforts in the field of social and religious work. Thirty German churches were added to the roll before the close of the century.
The completion of the Elevated Lines in 1879 and the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 changed the course of history for our Lutheran congregations. For decades the ever-increasing hosts of immigrants had been interned in unwholesome tenements on a narrow island. Now ways of escape were found. Wide thoroughfares led in every direction. The churches in Brooklyn and Bronx grew rapidly in numbers and in strength.
It was hard for those of us who still held the fort on Manhattan Island to see the congregations we had gathered with painstaking effort scattering in every direction, especially to lose the children and the grandchildren of our faithful families. But when we saw them in the comfortable homes and open spaces of the suburbs, who could wish them to return to the hopeless atmosphere of the tenements? From this time forward the churches of the surrounding boroughs grew rapidly, largely at the expense, however, of the churches of Manhattan.
From 1881 to the close of the century Bronx added nine churches, Richmond five, Brooklyn and Queens thirty-two to the roll. Manhattan, it is true, also added eleven churches, but they were all above Forty-second Street, most of them far uptown.
The tenth of November, 1883, was a red letter day in our calendar. It was the quadricentennial of Luther's birthday. The preparations for the celebration met with a hearty response in the city. The large dailies gave much space to the occasion. Dr. Seiss delivered a memorable address in Steinway Hall. Under the auspices of the Evangelical Alliance a distinguished company gathered in the Academy of Music and heard William Taylor and Phillips Brooks deliver orations of majestic eloquence.
The celebration gave a marked impulse to our church work. Our congregations increased in numbers and in influence. Its chief value was in its efeet [sic] upon the young people. Hitherto they hardly comprehended the significance of their church. Its services were conducted in a language which they understood with difficulty. As they grew up and established new homes in the suburbs where there were few churches of their faith, they easily drifted out of their communion. A great change came over them at this time. They began to take an active interest in church questions and in church extension. As they followed the inevitable trend to the suburbs they connected themselves with churches of their faith or organized new ones and became active workers in them. The remarkable increase of congregations in the entire Metropolitan District was to a large extent owing to the impulse derived from the quadricentennial of 1883.
When Lutherans of various churches and synods were thus brought together there was one thing that puzzled them. They could not understand why there should be so many kinds of Lutherans and why they should have so little to do with one another. This feeling soon found expression in the organization of societies of men interested in the larger mission of the Church.
In 1883 the Martin Luther Society was organized by such laymen as Arnold J. D. Wedemeyer, Jacob F. Miller, John H. Tietjen, Jacob A. Geissenhainer, George P. Ockerhausen, Charles A. Schieren, John H. Boschen and others, originally for the purpose of preparing a suitable celebration of the Luther Quadricentennial. In this effort they were successful. In addition to their local work in the interest of the celebration they secured the erection of a bronze statue of Luther in Washington.
But the chief reason for the organization of the Society was indicated in a letter sent to the pastors and church councils of the Lutheran churches of New York and vicinity which read in part as follows:
"In view of the efforts made all around us to bring about a closer and more harmonious relation between the various Protestant denominations, the Martin Luther Society of the City of New York respectfully begs you to consider whether the time has not come to make an effort to bring about, if not a union, at least a better understanding and more fraternal intercourse between the Lutherans themselves. We all deplore the divisions that separate us; we believe that the reasons for these divisions are more imaginary than real, and we are persuaded that a free and frank interchange of opinions will materially help to remove whatever obstacles may be in the way.
"We surely recognize the fact that our Lutheran Church does not command that influence or maintain that position in this city and vicinity which its history, purity of doctrine and conservative policy entitles it to; and we may be sure that just so long as our divisions continue, loss of membership and prestige, increasing weakness, and final disaster, will be our lot.
"Brethren, in unity is strength. Earnestly desiring to do what we can to bring it about, we ask the pastors of our Church and their church officers to take this important matter into consideration, and to take steps to participate in a meeting in this behalf which the Martin Luther Society proposes to hold on Tuesday evening, January 22d, 1889, in the hall of the Academy of Medicine, No. 12 West 31st Street, in this city."
The annual banquet of the Martin Luther Society was an important function. Distinguished speakers lifted high the banner of Lutheranism, and good fellowship began to be cultivated among the representatives of churches and synods hitherto unacquainted with each other. Nearly all of its members have passed on and the Society is only a memory among a few survivors of those who shared its genial hospitality and recall the kindly fellowship of its meetings. The Martin Luther Society blazed the trail for the wider path on which we are walking today, and it deserves to be held in honored remembrance.
A few years later, in 1888, the younger men caught the inspiration and established The Luther League. The organization soon extended to other parts of the State and subsequently to the entire country. It has splendidly attained its objective, that of rallying and training the young people in the support and service of the church. Its official organ, The Luther League Review, is published in this city under the editorship of the Hon. Edward F. Eilert. Eleven hundred members are enrolled in the local Leagues of New York City.
The first practical attempt of the ministers to get together was in the organization of "Koinonia." This took place in the home of the writer in 1896. The society meets once a month for the purpose of discussing the papers which each member in his turn is required to read. Representing as it does Lutherans of all kinds, species and varieties, it serves as a clearing house for the theological output of the members. It has been helpful in removing some of the misunderstandings that are liable to arise among men of positive convictions.
On the third Sunday in Advent, 1898, Sister Emma Steen, of Richmond, Indiana, the first Lutheran deaconess to engage in parish work in New York, was installed in Christ Church. She had received her preparation for this ministry in the motherhouse at Kaiserswerth on the Rhine, and was one of the first six sisters to enter the motherhouse of the General Synod in Baltimore. After four years of faithful service she was succeeded by Sister Regena Bowe who has now for fifteen years by her devoted work illustrated the value of the female diaconate in the work of our churches in New York. Deaconeses are now laboring in seven of our churches. They are needed in a hundred congregations.
The revival of this office is due to the genius and zeal of Pastor Fliedner who established the first motherhouse at Kaiserswerth on the Rhine in 1833. In America there are eight motherhouses with an enrollment of 378 sisters.* *In 1885 the author was appointed chairman of a committee of the General Synod to report on the practicability of establishing the office of deaconess in the parish work of our American churches. In pursuit of information he visited the principal Deaconess Houses of Europe. His reports were published in the Minutes of the Synod from 1887 to 1897 and contributed to the introduction of the office into the Synod's scheme of church work.
The years under review, the closing period of the nineteenth century, were years of stress and storm in our synodical relations. But the questions that divided us did not stop the practical work of the synods. Under the stimulus of a generous rivalry some things were accomplished and foundations were laid for still larger work in the new century.
In the Twentieth Century 1900-1918
Our churches entered the twentieth century with hope and cheer. With an enrollment of 94 congregations in the greater city and an advance patrol of many more in the Metropolitan District, it had become an army of respectable size among the forces striving for the Christian uplift of our city.
What a contrast between this picture and that of our church at the beginning of the nineteenth century! Then two moribund congregations were feebly holding the fort. One of these soon surrendered, "on account of the present embarrassment of finances." Now a compact army had already been assembled, while new races and languages were beginning to reinforce our ranks. Even the English contingent, which had so long maintained an unequal fight, was securely entrenched in four boroughs with seventeen congregations on its roll.
At this writing, in May, 1918, we number in Greater New York 160 churches with an enrollment of sixty thousand communicant members. At the close of the nineteenth century, in 1898, we had 90 churches with 43,691 communicants. The rate of increase in twenty years was 35 per cent., not very large but sufficiently so to awaken favorable comment from Dr. Laidlaw, an expert observer of church conditions in this city. In 1904, in an article in "Federation," on "Oldest New York," he wrote as follows:
"There are now over fifty Christian bodies in this city, and "Oldest New York's" history shows the fatuity of expecting that the heterogeneous population of the present city will all worship in the same way within the lifetime of its youngest religious worker. Man's thoughts have not been God's thoughts, nor man's ways God's ways, in the mingling of races and religions on this island. The Lutheranism that so sorely struggled for a foothold in the early days is now the second Protestant communion in numbers, and its recent increment throughout Greater New York, contributed to by German, Scandinavian, Finnish and many English Lutheran churches, has exceeded that of any other Protestant body."
The causes which contributed to our progress in the latter part of the nineteenth century were still effective. The consolidation of Greater New York, bringing together into one metropolis the scattered boroughs, marked the advent of a Greater Lutheran Church in New York. The bridges and the subways, the telephone and the Catskill Aqueduct, public works of unprecedented magnitude, were among the material foundations of the new growth of our churches.
We were beginning to reap in the second and third generations the fruits of the vast immigration of the nineteenth century.
A new era began for the use of the English language. There had been a demand for English services as early as 1750, but in the eighteenth and the greater part of the nineteenth centuries it had not been met. Fifty years ago, with its two churches, and even twenty-five years ago with four churches, English was a forlorn hope. The advance began in the last decade of the 19th century when twelve English churches were organized. In 1900 there were seventeeen English churches on the roll. Since then 32 have been added, five in Bronx, fifteen in Brooklyn, eleven in Queens, one in Richmond. Besides these forty-nine churches in which the English language is used exclusively, almost all of the so-called foreign churches use English to a greater or less extent as the needs of the people may require.
But there was a deeper reason for the growth of our church. Ever since the Luther Centennial of 1883 the young people of our churches had begun to understand not only the denominational significance of their church but also something of its inner characteristics and life. In various groups, in Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn, they got together and organized English congregations in which an intelligent Lutheran consciousness prevailed.
The Home Mission and Church Exension Boards of the General Synod recognized the importance of the moment in the metropolis of America and gave their effective aid. In Brooklyn and Queens the work received large support from Charles A. Schieren and the Missionary Society with which he co-operated. Sixteen churches were established through the aid of this Society. Schieren was a native of Germany but he early saw the importance of reaching the people in the language which they could best understand. As a citizen he was public spirited and progressive. From 1894 to 1895 he was mayor of Brooklyn.
The pastors of these incipient congregations were men of vision who had been attracted to the work in New York by its difficulty and its opportunity. They came from different seminaries and synodical associations and they had to minister to congregations in which all varieties of the older churches were represented. But they soon learned to cooperate with one another in measures looking to the larger interests of the entire field. Team work became possible. A stimulus was given to the work such as had never before been felt in the Lutheran churches of New York.
A Ministers' Association, to which all Lutheran pastors of the Metropolitan District, are eligible, was organized in 1904. Its monthly meetings brought about a mutual understanding and fostered a fraternal spirit that have been of great value in the promotion of the general work of the church.
The synod of New York and New England, composed of the English churches of the New York Ministerium was organized in 1902. It found its special mission in planting and rearing English missions in the new sections of the greater city. It has added nine English churches to the roll.
The Synod of New York, a merger of the New York and New Jersey, the Hartwick and the Franckean synods also devoted itself to the special task of caring for the English speaking young people. Under its auspices thirteen new churches have been organized. To the indefatigable labors of its Superintendent of Missions, Dr. Carl Zinssmeister, much credit is due for the success of the work.
The Synod of Missouri, although largely a German body, rivals the other synods in its fostering care of the English work. At least thirteen English congregations in this city have been organized by "Missouri" since the beginning of this century.
The relation of the various boroughs to the growth of the church may be seen from the following figures in which the number of communicants in 1918 is compared with that of 1898.
Boroughs 1898 1918 Increase Manhattan 21,611 15,928 5,683* Bronx 2,048 5,932 3,884 Brooklyn 17,405 28,270 10,865 Queens 1,671 7,139 5,468 Richmond 956 1,948 992 43,691 59,217 15,526 *Decrease
The starred figures for Manhattan call attention to the change of population that has taken place in New York, particularly as it affects Manhattan. While the total increase of population in New York from 1910 to 1915 was 667,928 there was a decrease in Manhattan of 193,795.
This decrease in numbers, and still more the substitution of Catholic and Jewish peoples to an unprecedented extent for those of Protestant antecedents, produced a marked change in the membership of Protestant churches. The decline in Protestant membership in Manhattan from 1900 to 1910, according to Dr. Laidlaw, amounted to 74,012.
It is not surprising therefore that the Lutheran churches were called upon to bear their share of the loss. As we have seen, it amounted in two decades to 5,623 [sic]. Most of this deficit, 4,042, is chargeable to the churches south of Fourteenth Street, where Protestants of all denominations fail to hold their own. The balance, 1,837, came from other churches south of Forty-second Street.
Three churches were added during the past twenty years, Our Saviour (English) in 1898, Holy Trinity (Slovak) in 1904 and a mission of the Missouri Synod in 1916 in the Spuyten Duyvil neighborhood, the most northern point thus far occupied by us on Manhattan.
For three churches gained there is an offset of four churches lost: Bethlehem in East Sixty-fifth Street, Christ Church in West Fiftieth Street, Immanuel in East Eighty-third Street and the Danish church in Yorkville. The Danish church removed to Bronx while the others effected mergers with sister congregations.
The present indications are that we have come to a standstill on Manhattan Island and that it is no longer a question of how many churches we shall build, but how many we shall lose.
Our assets at present may be described as follows: We have thirty congregations, twenty-six of them owning their houses of worship. The net value of their property, deducting debts, is $3,160,000. The average value of each church is $100,000. Besides the thirty organized congregations there are seven missions in which services are maintained in the following languages: Finnish, Lettish, Esthonian, Polish, Italian and Yiddish.
The number of communicants is 15,978. The number of pupils in the Sunday Schools is 7,245. The number of children in eight parochial schools is 669. The number attending instruction in religion on weekdays, including catechumens, is 1,580.
But although our churches in Manhattan are declining in numbers while those of the other boroughs are growing, Manhattan still holds the key to the city. For generations it will be the community in which the most serious problems of church and society will have to be studied and solved. Manhattan has strategical value not merely for Greater New York but for every city in the land where similar problems must be solved. If our churches run away from such a field, we shall never gain a victory else where. If we win here, we shall be entitled to a place in the legion of honor.
Four higher schools connected with the churches of New York have endeared themselves to the hearts of their friends and are giving promise of growing usefulness.
Concordia College originated in St. Matthew's Academy, in 1881. After years of struggle and sacrifice it was moved to Bronxville in 1908, where it occupies a valuable property. It has 110 students.
Wagner College was called into being in 1883 in Rochester. It belongs to the New York Ministerium. Numerous pastors in this city are alumni of Wagner College. In 1916 it was decided to move the college to New York. A splendid property of 38 acres was purchased on Grymes Hill near Stapleton, Staten Island, and in the Fall of 1918 it will take up its work within the precincts of Greater New York.
Upsala College began as an academy in Brooklyn in 1893. It belongs to the Swedish Augustana Synod. It was moved to Kenilworth, N. J., in 1898, and became a college in 1904. Within ten years it has contributed more than forty pastors, missionaries and teachers to the work of the church.
Hartwick Seminary is on the headwaters of the Susquehanna in Otsego County. It is a product of the eighteenth century and not of the twentieth. But since Johann Christopher Kunze, pastor of the Old Swamp Church, was one of its founders, and since it still contributes pastors to the work of the churches in New York, in spite of its distance from the city it must not be overlooked in our mention of the schools of New York.
Under the auspices of the Inner Mission Society Pastor Buermeyer has developed a much-needed work among our brothers and sisters who in their old age or by reason of sickness, loneliness or poverty are not reached by the ordinary ministrations of the congregation. It is known its the City Mission and it will doubtless receive the continued support of all who read carefully the 25th chapter of St. Matthew.
The Hospice for Young Men is another form of Inner Mission work in which a good beginning has been made.
The Lutheran Society was organized in 1914. "Its object is to promote the general interests of the Lutheran Church by encouraging a friendly intercourse among its members." At this writing, in 1918, it numbers over four hundred members. By bringing together in friendly intercourse active churchmen of otherwise widely separately congregations and synods it has contributed materially to a better understanding of the aims and the tasks of our entire communion.
Under its auspices the quadricentennial anniversary of the Reformation was celebrated in this city in a manner worthy of the occasion. The executive secretary of the committee, Pastor O. H. Pannkoke, reports as follows on the general results of the celebration:
"Two facts are of considerable interest, such as to class them as worthy of recording as a permanent accomplishment. In the first place we have had the cooperation in this undertaking of every Lutheran synod represented in New York, and I believe we have succeeded in carrying through the undertaking without violating the confidence placed in us by any section of the Lutheran Church.
"In the second place, our Committee has injected into the general Reformation influence the question of the wider influence of the Reformation. Practically every section of the country has taken up the discussion of the religious influence of the Reformation, also of the influence of the Reformation on every side of life."
On the roll of Former Pastors, in the Appendix, are recorded the names of men who laid the foundations of the present congregations. Their labors and their sacrifices entitle them to a place in a book of remembrance. Some names are missing. We tried hard to obtain them. For these lacunae we offer our apologies to the historians of the next centennial. In 1918 we were still struggling with the problem of statistics.
Nowhere are ministers forgotten so soon as here in New York. The congregations themselves are rapidly engulphed in the ceaseless tides of humanity that sweep over the island. Now and then some beloved pastor is remembered by some faithful friends, but in a few years the very names of the men who built the churches are forgotten. Like the knights of old: "Their swords are rust, Their steeds are dust. Their souls are with the saints we trust."
Before ending the story of which a faint outline has here been given, we recall with affection and reverence some of the men whose outstanding personality has not yet faded from our memory. Their labors prepared the ground for the harvests which a younger generation is now permitted to reap.
Stohlmann was the connecting link with the earlier periods. He was an able preacher, a warm hearted pastor and a conscientious man.
Geissenhainer, the pastor of St. Paul's, which he organized in 1841 after having been an assistant of his father in St. Matthew's since 1826, was another connecting link with the past.
Held of St. John's was a pupil of Claus Harms. His eloquent sermons attracted great congregations to Christopher Street.
After fourteen fruitful years in St. James' Church, Wedekind was called to Christopher Street in November, 1878, to succeed Pastor Held. Here he labored for twelve years, edifying the church and inspiring St. John's to bcome one of our most efficient congregations. Under his direction at least four young men of the congregation were led into the ministry. He died April 8, 1897.
Under a quiet exterior Krotel concealed a forceful personality. He was a born leader and took a large part in the development of the General Council. As editor of the Lutherischer Herold for three years and of The Lutheran for many years his writings had a wide influence. From 1868 to 1895 he was pastor of Holy Trinity Church. In 1896, in the 71st year of his age, he accepted a call to the newly organized Church of the Advent, which he served until his death on May 17th, 1907. Under the pen name of Insulanus he delighted the readers of The Lutheran for forty years with his reflections on men and things in New York. Among his published works are a Life of Melanchthon, Meditations on the Beatitudes and Explanations of Luther's Catechism.
Julius Ehrhardt was an unassuming, lovable and scholarly Suabian. He laid the foundations of St. Paul's in Harlem, when the little wooden church stood among the truck gardens. He died in 1899.
Moldenke was a descendant of Salzburg exiles who settled in East Prussia in 1731. He came to us from Wisconsin, organized Zion Church which was subsequently merged with St. Peter's after he had accepted a call to succeed Hennicke in that church. He was an able preacher and a scholarly writer. Under his leadership St. Peter's became a strong congregation. In 1872 he contributed a series of articles on Die Lutheraner des Ostens to Der Pilger of Reading. A reprint of these articles in book form would be a valuable contribution to the story of the Lutherans of New York and a fitting memorial of a minister of mark and influence.
Johann Heinrich Sieker was born in Schweinfurth, Bavaria, October 23d, 1839. He received his theological education at Gettysburg. His early ministry was in connection with the Wisconsin Synod. In 1876, when Ruperti resigned at St. Matthew's, Sieker was called from St. Paul, Minnesota, to become his successor. For 28 years he was the pastor of St. Matthew's and a leading minister of the Missouri Synod. In synodical matters he was an uncompromising defender of the faith as he understood it. He left the record of a singularly devoted and successful ministry. At least thirty young men were led into the ministry under his influence. Roesner's "Ehrendenkmal," a sketch of his life and character, ought to be read by every Lutheran minister in this city. He died in 1904.
John Jacob Young was a native of the Rhenish Palatinate, born at Langenkandel, September 13th, 1846. He came to America in his boyhood. He served in the Union army during the Civil War. When the war was over he studied for the ministry at Gettysburg. He served a number of congregations in Maryland and Indiana till 1893, when he was called to the pastorate of St. John's in Christopher Street. Here for 21 years he faithfully followed his calling as a shepherd of souls.
Charles Armand Miller came to us from the South. He was born in Sheperdstown, West Virginia, March 7, 1864. He was educated at Roanoke College and after his ordination he was for a time pastor of the College Church. He succeeded Dr. Krotel in Holy Trinity Church in 1896 and gave twelve years of devoted and successful service to this congregation. His subsequent fields of labor were in Charleston, South Carolina, and in Philadelphia. He was a scholarly writer, an able preacher, a sympathetic pastor and a loyal friend. Among his published writings were The Perfect Prayer, The Sacramental Feast, The Way to the Cross and a volume of poems entitled Ad Astra.
He died in the prime of his life, September 9th, 1917. Who that knew him will ever forget the genial spirit of Charles Armand Miller?
It would be a congenial task to give a fuller account of these men and of Ruperti, Vorberg, Raegener, Hennicke, Waetter, Foehlinger, Koenig, Halfmann, Frey, Weissel, Beyer and others whose names and lives a few of the older preachers will recall. Perhaps some who read this book will accept the suggestion and write accounts of these pioneer workmen. What a Ministers' Association they would have formed if we could have gotten them together into a conference to discuss the terms of agreement. But that was impossible thirty years ago.
A singularly interesting career came to a close just as I was concluding these memorial paragraphs. Dr. Charles E. Weltner died in Brunswick, Georgia, December 22d, 1917.
He was born in Wilhelmshoehe, January 28th, 1860, where his father commanded a company of soldiers in the royal castle. In his early youth he was sent to New York to meet a relative whom he never found. One Sunday morning, homeless and friendless, he accosted me after service at the door of the church. I offered him employment in my office and for several years he was an efficient helper in the educational and mission work of my parish. Although he was already suffering from defective eyesight, which not long afterward resulted in total blindness, he expressed an ardent desire to enter the ministry. Under the circumstances this seemed to be impossible, but his earnest pleas overcame every objection. In 1884 he entered Hartwick Seminary where he was graduated with honor in 1888. Unable himself to read the text books, his friends read them for him. Especially helpful to him in his studies were Professor Hiller and his wife, the daughter of the sainted Dr. George B. Miller.
Upon the completion of his course in 1888 he was ordained to the Gospel ministry and for the next four years rendered faithful service as the assistant of his pastor in Christ Church. Few that heard him would have suspected his blindness. His remarkable memory enabled him in conducting the Service to use the Bible and the Liturgy as though he could see. In the library he could go to the shelves and place his hands upon the books that he needed. His reader then supplied him with the material needed for study.
In 1893 he took temporary charge of St. John's Church in Christopher Street.
In the Fall of 1893 he accepted a call to St. Matthew's Church in Augusta, Georgia. His retirement in 1896 to take charge of a mission among the cotton mill operatives of Columbia, S. C., was deeply regretted not only by his congregation but by the entire city.
Thus far his ministry, however useful it had been, was only a preparation for the remarkable work he was called upon to do in South Carolina and adjoining states. The mountain whites who had been drawn into the cotton mill work of the South were illiterate and but ill prepared for their new conditions.
With the help of his devoted wife, a night school was established. Additional schools became necessary. The Columbia Board of Education became interested and supplied the teachers while the mill company provided for the equipment. Mrs. Weltner helped the girls by creating an interest in good housekeeping and in beautifying the homes and their surroundings.
The movement extended to other parts of the state and into adjoining states, and Dr. Weltner was called upon to explain and direct it. The blind man had seen a vision. The homeless youth of New York's East Side became the prophet of a new era who turned many to righteousness. His eyes now see the King in His beauty.
THEIR PROBLEMS
The Problem of Synods
A synod is an assembly of delegates organized for the purpose of administering the affairs of the churches they represent.
Fourteen synods are represented in Greater New York. Some are based on differences of doctrine. A volume published in 1893, entitled "Distinctive Doctrines and Usages" (See Bibliography), treats of these differences. Others are due to differences of language and race.
In some countries a hyperchurchly trend of the national or state church is responsible for dissenting movements which, left to themselves, finally take the form of separatistic churches. Although these movements temporarily persist in America there is no permanent need for them in our atmosphere of freedom. Our church has room for many men of many minds so long as the essentials of belief are held and respected.
Finns are represented in three synods, Scandinavians in four. These nations therefore account for one-half of our fourteen synods. The history of the Missouri Synod is one of struggle, sacrifice and remarkable growth. For seventy-five years other Lutherans have sought fellowship with them, but they decline to hold fellowship with churches that are not in full accord with their doctrinal position.
Each of these divisions has some historical reason for its existence which cannot be ignored or lightly pushed aside. For various reasons each synod emphasizes some phase of church life which in its opinion warrants a separate organization. Perhaps some of the progress of the last half century may be credited to a wholesome rivalry between these various schools of Lutheranism.
On the other hand these synodical divisions among churches holding the same substance of doctrine, even when they do not provoke downright hostility, are an effective bar to the fraternal alliance so greatly needed in our polyglot communion. Our neighbors, too, of other Denominations, when they try to understand our meticulous divisions, are not unnaturally disposed to look upon us as a conglomerate of sectarian religionists rather than as a Church or even as a distinct Denomination. In lists of denominational activities our churches figure as G. C. Lutherans, G. S. Lutherans, Missouri Lutherans, etc., while all of us are frequently called upon to explain whether we belong to the Evangelical branch of the Lutherans or not.
Absorbed as we are in the local interests of our individual congregations and in the questions that divide us among ourselves, we seldom have an opportunity to give expression to outstanding principles of our church in such a way as to impress the public mind with a sense of their importance.
The question therefore continually recurs, why should these divisions be perpetuated among brethren who are agreed on the essentials of Lutheran teaching even though they may not have completely assimilated each other's minute definitions of theological dogmas. Laymen, more interested in practical results, find it hard to understand why there should be so many different kinds of Lutherans. Even ministers, accustomed as they are to sharp distinctions, sometimes deplore these divisions and wonder when they can be healed. They long for the time when the adherents of the Augsburg Confession may unite in one great body, "beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners."
Alluring as such a prospect may seem, it is not of highest importance in a communion which from the beginning emphasized the right of private judgment and acquired for the world the right to think for itself in matters of conscience and religion. The Church of the Reformation derives its strength from unity rather than from union. Theoretically at least, it is a communion, a fellowship of believers. Its earliest designation was not "The Lutheran Church," but "Churches of the Augsburg Confession."
It is consonant therefore with our historic principles to respect the gifts and calling of the existing divisions in our churches without insisting upon an artificial union which could contribute little to the true unity of the church. There are "many members, yet but one body.... There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." In our mutual relations therefore it behooves us to recognize the rights of the individual.
This, however, need not prevent our working and praying for union. If it be possible, as much as lieth in us (unless this involves synergistic heresy), let us cultivate tolerance and live peaceably with all men, especially with all Lutherans.
We have in this city a great field in which there is work for us all. In friendly co-operation, rather than in hostile competition, we may escape some of the perils of our past history and perform with credit the tasks with which at present we seem to be struggling in vain.
The Metropolitan District includes the urban communities within ten miles of the boundary line of Greater New York. This territory of a hundred and fifty square miles now holds a population of over seven millions of people. Our churches in Greater New York minister to a baptized membership of 141,642 souls. If we include in our estimates of parochial responsibility, not merely enrolled members, but the entire Lutheran population of the District, Russians, Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians, Hungarians, Letts, Esthonians, Lithuanians, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and Danes, to say nothing of the multitudes of American birth from the Hudson and Mohawk valleys, from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and the West, the number of people claiming to be Lutherans amounts to more than five hundred thousand souls.
To minister as we should to such a constituency, we need co-operation in place of competition. The work of cultivating effectively such a field can never be done by churches so hopelessly divided as ours.
Other churches, Protestant and Catholic, with a centralized ecclesiastical organization, are able to work together as one body and make plans for their work covering the entire Metropolitan District. We, with our strong individualism, cannot vie with them. In our polity we are extreme congregationalists and must pay for our freedom.
But there is much that our churches have in common. Our flocks are not alienated from each other as much as are the shepherds. The formation of local groups throughout the greater city, co-operating in common causes, or at least refraining from a polemical policy, would pave the way for a better understanding of our mutual needs and opportunities for service.
Three things, at least, might be done without compromising the faith or violating the spirit of our church life:
1. We might meet for the purpose of forming each other's acquaintance and for the discussion of practical questions. Perhaps none of us is quite so heretical as the synodical divergence would lead a layman to suppose.
2. We might meet for the discussion of vital questions of religion and morals. It is one thing to read about these things in books. It is quite another thing to listen to a spoken presentation warm with the sympathy of a living experience.
3. We might recognize each other's spheres of influence and federate our forces in meeting the needs of our vast community.
In the meantime we are slowly learning that the aspirations and convictions that unite us are greater than the things that separate us. The clearer comprehension of the principles we hold and of the work we have to do, and the sense of our responsibility as one of the larger communions of the metropolis, compel us more and more to emphasize not the unessential details of our theological system but rather the larger truths and principles for which we stand and which we hold in common.
A hundred years ago, on the tercentenary of the Reformation, after a period of political humiliation and economic distress in the Fatherland, the Ninety-five Theses of Claus Harms sounded a call for a Lutheran awakening throughout the world. The result of that revival is felt in the churches to this day.
The quadricentenary of the Reformation was celebrated amid the convulsions of a World War. Is it too much to hope that after this war also the ground may be prepared for a spiritual sowing and reaping when the unnecessary dissensions of sectarian controversy will give place to fraternal co-operation in the service of a common Lord and in the promotion of a common faith?* *Since the foregoing paragraphs were written an unexpected change in the outlook has taken place. Steps were taken a year ago toward bringing together three of the general bodies of the Church in America. Should this hope be realized, it will bring into closer union a majority of the churches of Greater New York. On May 7th, 1918, at a meeting of nearly one hundred Lutheran pastors, members of nearly all of the synods represented on this territory, there was organized a "Conference of the Lutheran pastors of the Metropolitan District for the discussion of all questions of doctrine and practice to the end of effecting unity." This, too, is a harbinger of an approaching era of reconstruction and peace.
The Problem of Language
It was a Lutheran demand in the sixteenth century to preach the Gospel in the vernacular. It would be un-Lutheran in the twentieth century to conduct public worship in a language which the people do not understand.
This lesson is written so plainly in the history of our churches in America that "he may run that readeth." The Swedish churches on the Delaware, planted by Gustavus Adolphus for the very purpose of propagating the faith in America, were all of them lost to the Lutheran church because the persistent use of the Swedish language, and the inability of the pastors to preach in English, proved an insuperable obstacle to the bringing up of the children in the Lutheran communion. When the New York Ministerium at its meeting in Rhinebeck, September 1st, 1797, resolved that it would "never acknowledge a newly-erected Lutheran Church merely English in places where the members may partake of the services of the Episcopal Church, it halted for a century the growth of the Lutheran Church in New York. [Tr. note: no close quotation marks in original.]
The same experience greets us in London. There the Lutheran Church was established in 1669, only five years later than in New York. For more than two centuries it had the recognition of royalty. As late as the Victorian era Prince Albert, the Queen and the royal family, in their personal relations, were connected with the Lutheran Church. To this day Queen Alexandra is a communicant in the Lutheran church. There exist therefore no social barriers to its growth. Yet not a single English Lutheran church is to be found in London.
With one exception the dozen Lutheran churches of other tongues recognize no responsibility to propagate the faith of the Augsburg Confession in the language of the city in which they live. The exception is that of the German "Missouri" congregation. Here English as well as German is used in the services. Here alone it would seem that "religion is the chief concern."
The language problem confronted us early in our local history. In the first hundred years three languages, Dutch, German and English, contended for the mastery. In their pastoral work some ministers used all three.
Dutch was the first to surrender. The children of Dutch families adopted the language of their English conquerors, and when immigration from Holland ceased, the use of Dutch in worship became obsolete. The last use of Dutch at a Lutheran service was at the communion on the First Sunday in Advent in 1771. It had maintained itself for 114 years.
After the use of Dutch in worship had ceased, German and English came into collision. It was a fight to a finish. When it was over there was little left for which to contend. When Pastor Kunze died, in 1807, the congregation had declined almost to the point of extinction. Many of the English-speaking families had left us and we thus lost some of our leading members, people whose ancestors had for five generations belonged to our communion. The Germans remained, but during the lull in the tide of immigration the use of German declined to such an extent as to imperil the existence even of the German congregation. When Kunze's successor arrived he had difficulty in finding members of the church who could speak German. Even in the German congregation English had become the language of every-day life.
German thrives in German soil. Elsewhere it is an exotic not easily cultivated. From their earliest history Germans have had the Wanderlust and have sought for new homes as it pleased them. But wherever they go they amalgamate with their surroundings.
The Franks settled in Gaul, but, excepting its German name, the language retains but few indications of the German ancestry of a large part of the French people.
The Goths settled in Spain. Physical traits, blue eyes and blonde complexion, persist in some districts, but their descendants speak Spanish.
The Longobards crossed the Alps and settled in Italy where their children speak Italian, although Lombardy is just across the mountains, not far from the early home of their immigrant ancestors.
A notable exception to this tendency of the Germans to amalgamate with other nations was when the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain. The island had been deserted by the Romans, and the Germans refused for centuries to ally themselves with the British inhabitants. They retained their own language and customs with but a slight admixture of alien elements.* To this day after twelve centuries they prefer to call themselves Anglo-Saxons rather than British. (Nomen a potiori fit.) *"Philologically, English, considered with reference to its original form, Anglo-Saxon, and to the grammatical features which it retains of Anglo-Saxon origin, is the most conspicuous member of the Low German group of the Teutonic family, the other Low German languages being Old Saxon, Old Friesic, Old Low German, and other extinct forms, and the modern Dutch, Flemish, Friesic, and Low German (Platt Deutsch). These, with High German, constitute the 'West Germanic' branch, as Gothic and the Scandinavian tongues constitute the 'East Germanic' branch, of the Teutonic family. (Century Dictionary under the word 'English.')"
In the ninth and eleventh centuries the island was invaded by other Germanic tribes, directly by way of the North Sea or indirectly by the Channel from Normandy, and so the language was developed still further along English, that is Germanic lines. (According to the Century Dictionary the historical pronunciation of the word is eng'-glish and not ing'glish).
Low Germans, (Nether Saxons or Platt Deutsch) who have settled in New York in such large numbers, enjoy a distinct advantage over other nationalities. In the vernacular of America they discover simply another dialect of their native tongue. Hence they acquire the new dialect with little difficulty. The simpler words and expressions of the common people are almost the same as those which they used on the shores of the North Sea and the Baltic. For example: Wo is min Vader? Where is my father? He is in the Hus. He is in the house. English and German sailors from opposite shores of the North Sea, using the simpler words of their respective languages, have no trouble in making themselves understood when they meet.
The High Germans learn English more slowly, but they, too, find many points of contact, not only in the words but also in the grammatical construction of the language.
In the United States the descendants of Germans number seventeen millions. They have made no inconsiderable contributions to the sum total of American civilization. For philological reasons, as we have seen, no people are more ready than the Germans to adopt English for every-day use. None amalgamate more easily with the political and social life of the country of their choice. In normal times we do not think of them as foreigners.
English has the right of way. Its composite character makes it the language for every-day use. Thirty-five languages are spoken in this city, but the assimilative power of English absorbs them all. The Public School is the effective agent in the process. This is the melting pot for all diversities of speech. Children dislike to be looked upon as different from their companions, and so it rarely happens that the language of the parents is spoken by the second generation of immigrant families. Their elders, even when their "speech bewrayeth" them, make strenuous efforts to use the language of their neighbors.
Seeing, then, that Anglicization is inevitable, why should we not cut the Gordian knot, and conduct our ministry wholly in the English language? This would greatly simplify our tasks, besides removing from us the stigma of foreignism.
We are often advised to do so, especially by our monoglot brethren. There are those who go so far as to say that the use of any language other than the English impairs the Americanism of the user.
Some of the languages at present used in our church services may be of negligible importance. The Slovak, Magyar and Finnish for example, as well as the Lettish, Esthonian and Lithuanian of the Baltic Provinces, will never have more than a restricted use in this city. The Scandinavians and those whose vernacular is the Low German easily substitute English for their mother tongue. Scandinavian is kindred to English, while Low German is the very group of which, philologically speaking, English is the most conspicuous member. Upon these tongues it will not be necessary to do summary execution.
It is a different matter, however, when we come to High German, or, properly speaking, New High German, the language of German literature since the sixteenth century, of which Luther, through his version of the Bible, may be called the creator. He at least gave it universal currency. This is a language which we could not lose if we would, and would not if we could.
Scholars are compelled to learn it because it is the indispensable medium for scientific and philosophical study. Formerly Latin was this medium, today it is German.
Lovers of literature learn it because it is the language of Goethe and Schiller, the particular stars of a galaxy that for the modern world at least outshines the productions of the ancient classics. Lutherans enshrine it in their inmost souls because it is the receptacle of treasures of meditation and devotion with which their forms of worship have been enriched for four hundred years. To ignore Angelus Silesius, Paul Gerhardt, Albert Knapp, Philip Spitta and their glorious compeers, would be to silence a choir that sang the praises of the Lord "in notes almost divine."
We need the literature in which the ideas of our church have for centuries been expressed. Language is the medium of ideas. The thirty denominations that constitute the bulk of Protestantism in this country derive the spirit of their church life for the most part from non-Lutheran sources through the medium of English literature. This is as it should be. But when Lutherans no longer understand the language of their fathers or the literature in which the ideas of their confession have found their fullest expression, they lose an indispensable condition of intellectual and spiritual growth. They can never understand as they should the spirit of the church to which they belong. They are doomed sooner or later to share the fate of the Lutherans of New York of the eighteenth century.
When we have forgotten our German we shall be out of touch with the Lutherans who come to us from the Fatherland. For the time being the World War has put an end to German immigration, but this will not last forever. Some time certainly immigration will be resumed, and as in former periods will be an unfailing source of supply for the Lutheran churches of New York.
In the nineteenth century the "Americanized" Lutherans did not understand the Germans who came over in such overwhelming numbers, and were unprepared to shepherd them in Lutheran folds. The work had to be done by immigrant pastors who, on their part, did not understand the American life well enough to accomplish the best results. For the sake of the Lutherans who come to us from foreign lands we cannot afford to lose touch with the historical languages of their churches.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century the use of German had sunk almost to zero. The minutes of the German Society had to be written in English because no one was sufficiently versed in German to write them in this language. There was nothing to interfere with the supremacy of English. Yet the English Lutheran church was unable to "propagate the faith of the fathers in the language of the children." Down to the beginning of the twentieth century, the English churches were dependent for their growth upon accessions from the German and Scandinavian churches. They were unable to retain even the families they had inherited from their Dutch and German ancestors. We search in vain for descendants of the New York Lutherans of the eighteenth century in any of our churches.
Not until a new contribution of immigrants from Lutheran lands had been made to America did our church begin to rise to a position of influence.
When in the second quarter of the nineteenth century the first self-sustaining English Lutheran church was established, the Ockershausens and other children of immigrants were the strong pillars of its support. From that day to the present time not a single English Lutheran church has been established and maintained in this city where the Schierens, the Mollers and scores of others, immigrants or the children of immigrants, were not the chief supporters of the work. Without their effective aid the English Lutherans of the nineteenth century would have been swallowed up by "the denominations that are around us" as were their predecessors of the eighteenth century.
Some of our Anglo-American neighbors are concerned about our political welfare. They advise us to drop the German in order that we may become "Americanized."
Many of us are the children of Germans who tilled the soil of America before there was a United States of America.
The Germans of the Mohawk Valley won at Oriskany, according to Washington, the first battle of importance in the American Revolution.* [Tr. note: original has no footnote to go with this asterisk]
The Germans of Pennsylvania, long a neutral colony on account of its large English population, obtained the right of suffrage in May, 1776, and turned the scale in favor of liberty. Through their vote Pennsylvania was brought by a narrow margin into line with Virginia and Massachusetts which would otherwise have remained separated and unable to make effective resistance against the armies of King George.
The Germans of Virginia followed their Lutheran pastor, Peter Muehlenberg, and made memorable the loyalty of American Lutherans. Steuben, the drillmaster of the Revolution, transformed the untrained and helpless troops of Washington into an effective force capable of meeting the seasoned soldiers of Cornwallis and Burgoyne.
Our German ancestors were peasants, unable to write history, but they helped to make history. Without their timely aid there would not have been a United States of America. Their children do not need to be "Americanized." Nor have later immigrants from Germany and Scandinavia, at any period of our history, shown less loyalty to American ideals.
We may concede the hegemony of English in the political and intellectual life of America, but in a great country like America there is room for others also. It is a narrow view of our civilization to make "American" synonymous with English. America is not the dumping ground of the nations. It is a land where the best ideals of all nations may be reproduced and find room for expansion and growth.
The German and Scandinavian churches of New York are not ignorant of the importance of the English language in the maintenance of their church work. (See table of Churches in the Appendix.) With scarcely an exception they make all possible use of English in their services. This they are compelled to do in order to reach their children. In this way, and by making generous contributions of their members to the English churches, they are doing their full share in the general work of church extension in the English language.
They send their sons into the ministry to an extent that has not been approached by our English churches. (See Appendix under Sons of the Church.) Nearly all of these are bi-lingual in their ministerial work and many of them serve exclusively English churches. There is a proverb about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, which we would do well to bear in mind.
Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, founded by Dr. Walther and the Germans of Missouri, numbers 344 students. Candidates for graduation must be able to minister in at least two languages. In a polyglot church such as ours this would seem to be a policy worthy of imitation.
The fifteen languages in which we minister to our people confer upon us an honorable distinction. Each one represents an individuality which cannot be ignored, some spiritual gift which is worth exercising and preserving. By keeping in touch with this many-sided life we enrich our own lives, obtain broader conceptions of the church's mission, and fit ourselves for more effective service in this most cosmopolitan city of the world. Instead of trying to exterminate these languages, let us cultivate a closer acquaintance with them and let us pray for that pentecostal spirit which will enable us to say "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
The Problem of Membership
Three classes of members are recognized in our churches: 1, Those who have been baptized. 2, Those who have been confirmed-that is, those who after the prescribed course of instruction and examination have been admitted to the communion. 3, Communicants-that is, those who are in active fellowship with the church in the use of the word and the sacrament.* *The temporal affairs of the congregation as a civic corporation are regulated by the State and the qualifications of a voting member are defined in the laws of the State. This chapter deals only with the question of membership in the church as a spiritual body. In general the State readily acquiesces in the polity of the various churches so long as it does not interfere with the civic rights of the individual.
There is a fourth class of which no note is taken in our church records. It is the class of lapsed Lutherans-that is, of those who have been admitted to full communion but who have slipped away and are no longer in active connection with the church.
Of these we shall speak in a separate chapter.
It is sometimes charged that the Lutheran communion does not hold clear views of the church. On the one hand her confessions abound in definitions of the church as a spiritual kingdom, as a fellowship of believers. On the other hand her practice frequently reminds our brother Protestants of the Catholics, and they are disposed to look upon us as Romanists, minorum gentium. "Like a will-of-the-wisp," says Delitzsch, "the idea of the church eludes us. It seems impossible to find the safe middle ground between a false externalism on the one hand and a false internalism on the other hand."
The Lutheran position can only be understood when we recall the situation that confronted the Reformers in the sixteenth century. They had first of all to interpret the teachings of Scripture over against Rome, and hence in their earlier confessions they emphasized the points on which they differed from the Pope.
According to Romish doctrine a man became a member of the church, not by an interna virtus, but solely through an external profession of faith and an external use of the sacraments. The church is as visible and perceptible an organization as is "the kingdom of France or the republic of Venice." The church is an institution rather than a communion.
For thirteen centuries, from Cyprian to Bellarmin, this doctrine held almost undisputed sway.
The Reformers demonstrated the significance of faith, and showed the untenableness of Rome's conception of the church as a mere institution. Thomasius calls this a central epoch in the history of the world. But at the same time the Reformers had to take a stand against the hyperspiritual positions of the fanatics, as well as the teachings of the Zwinglians who denied the efficacy of the means of grace. The confessions, therefore, as well as the subsequent writings of Melanchthon and the dogmaticians, and the entire history and development of the Lutheran churches must be read in the light of this two-fold antagonism.
The system which the Reformers controverted must have had features acceptable to the natural man or it would not have prevailed for so many centuries. Hence it is not surprising when Romanism creeps back into nominally Protestant churches. It behooves us, therefore, to be on our guard and to purge out the old leaven. And the opposite tendency which undervalues the visible church, must also be corrected by a Scriptural doctrine of the ordinances.
The practice of our churches is a resultant mainly of three forces:
1. Doctrine, defined in the Confessions, modified by Melanchthon's later writings and by the dogmaticians of the 17th century, considerably influenced also by Spener and the Pietists, while not a little has come to us from the Rationalistic period.
2. Tradition, from the civil and social arrangements of the national churches from which we are descended, inherited through generations of our predecessors in this country. We follow in the old ruts, and "the way we have always been doing" puts an end to controversy.
3. Environment. Consciously or unconsciously we are influenced by the practice of neighboring denominations.
The object of this chapter is to ascertain the historic principles of the Lutheran Church in regard to church membership, 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 God, 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 God'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 Titus, refers to Christians as those who have believed in God; Romans 8, "God's elect;" also in Colossians 3, 1, "elect of God;" I. Peter 2, "holy nation, peculiar people;" I. Cor. 1, "Sanctified in Christ Jesus," etc., etc. They form a "spiritual house," I. Peter, 2; "God'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 institution for the promotion of the Kingdom of God.
In their controversy with Rome Lutherans held that the Church did not exist merely in participation 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 institutum. 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 institution, 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 institution. 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 constitutions. 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 constitution. The Synod of New York requires that candidates be confirmed, accept the Augsburg Confession, lead a Christian life, obey the constitution 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 constitution. 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 class 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 God. "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 nourishing 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 superstition 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 pronounce. 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 God 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 membership 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 membership 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 fellowship 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 institutional 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 institutional 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 masses 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 worship, 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 membership 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 establishing 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 institution 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 membership 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.
As a supplement and an aid the Sunday School has untold possibilities of usefulness. But all its merits and advantages cannot close our eyes to the fact that it does not and cannot meet the chief requirement of the Christian school, the systematic preparation of all the children for the duties of church membership. In this work the church cannot shirk her responsibility. Her very existence depends upon it.
Recognizing this obligation some of our churches maintain the Parochial School. Thirty churches out of one hundred and fifty are making a heroic effort to be loyal to their ideals. The total number of pupils is 1,612. In other words, out of 42,106 children in attendance at Sunday School only 4 per cent. get instruction in religion through the Parochial School. So far as numbers show it would seem to be a failure. But one cannot always judge from the outward appearance. Eight of these parochial-school churches report fifty of their sons in the ministry.* *Some of the pastors failed to send me reports on this point, but I have been credibly informed that within twelve years, ten of these churches sent sixty of their sons into the ministry.
In view of such a result who would dare to say anything in disparagement of the Parochial School? Perhaps its friends may some time see their way clear to secure greater efficiency by establishing three or four schools in place of the thirty, and thus relieve the individual congregations of a serious tax upon their resources.
Some of our churches have Saturday schools and classes in religion on other week days. The total number of pupils reported in these classes, including the members of confirmation classes, is 5,711. Add to these the 1,612 pupils of the parochial schools, some of whom have already been counted in the confirmation classes, and we have at most 7,323 children obtaining instruction in religion on week days, 17 per cent. of the number of those in attendance at Sunday School.
So far as may be learned therefore from such statistics as are available, it follows that 83 per cent. of our children receive no public instruction in religion except such as is given in the Sunday School and in the confirmation class.
Our churches do not take kindly to the so-called evangelistic methods of reaching unchurched masses, claiming that our methods, in particular the catechization of the young, are more effective. In view of the figures presented above, it is open to question whether our churches practice catechization in the historical sense of the word. It is a question whether our method of imparting instruction in the catechism for a few months preliminary to confirmation does justice to the spirit and principles of the Lutheran Church? Many of our pastors sigh under the yoke of a custom which promises so much and yields so little.
To postpone the catechization of more than 80 per cent. of the children until they are twelve or thirteen years of age, and to complete the course of preparation for communicant membership within six months, contributes but little to the upbuilding of strong and healthy Lutheran churches. An examination of our church rolls shows that such a system is a large contributor to the class of lapsed Lutherans. We get the children too late and we lose them too early.
This is "an hard saying" and may offend many. But among all the problems we are considering there is none to equal it in importance. Can we find a solution?
Wherever the churches are prepared to utilize the time in giving adequate instruction in religion, the curriculum of the public school should be modified to meet this need. Competent authorities see no objection to this, and there is a very large movement which seeks to further this idea.* *At the meeting of the Inter-Church Conference In Carnegie Hall, New York, in November, 1905, at which twentynine Protestant Churches of America were represented the author presented a paper on Week-day Religious Instruction. Its main propositlon was favorably received, and the following resolution was adopted by the Conference: "Resolved, that in the need of more systematic education in religion, we recommend for the favorable consideration of the Public School authorities of the country the proposal to allow the children to absent themselves without detriment from the public schools on Wednesday or on some other afternoon of the school week for the purpose of attending religious instruction in their own churches; and we urge upon the churches the advisability of availing themselves of the opportunity so granted to give such instruction in addition to that given on Sunday. "The further consideration of the subject was referred to the Executive Committee. By direction of this Committee a report on Week-day Instruction in Religion was presented at the First Meeting of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ In America, held in Philadelphia in 1905. After an earnest discussion, resolutions were adopted indicating the importance which the representatives of the churches of America attached to the general question. At the Second Meeting of the Federal Council, held in Chicago in December, 1912, the Special Committee of the Federal Council presented a report recognizing the difficulties confronting an adequate solution of the question and providing for a more thorough investigation and discussion of the entire subject." In his report for 1909 (Vol. I, page 5), the United States Commissioner of Education, Dr. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, refers to this subject in the following words: "Those who would maintain that the moral life has other rootings than that in religion, would, for the most part, admit that it is deeply rooted in religion, and that for many of our people its strongest motives are to be found in their religious convictions; that many, in fact, would regard it as insufficiently grounded and nourished without such religious convictions. The teaching of religious systems is no longer under serious consideration as far as our public schools are concerned. Historical and social influences have drawn a definite line in this country between the public schools and the churches, leaving the rights and responsibilities of religious instruction to the latter. It would be futile, even if it were desirable, to attempt to revise this decision of the American people. There has been, however, within the past two or three years, a widespread discussion of the proposal that arrangements be made between the educational authorities and ecclesiastical organizations, under which pupils should be excused from the schools for one half-day in the week-Wednesday afternoon has been uggested-in order that they may in that time receive religious and moral instruction in their several churches. This proposal has been set forth in detail in a volume entitled "Religious Education and the Public School," and has been under consideration by a representative committee during, the past two or three years."
An interdenominational committee, consisting of Evangelical Protestants only, was organized in 1914 for the purposing of securing week-day instruction in religion for the children of New York. A similar committee consisting of representatives of all churches, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, was organized in 1915 which is giving effective study to the same question. The Lutheran Minister's Association is represented on both these committees.
The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, representing thirty denominations and a communicant membership of eighteen millions, through its Commission on Christian Education is making a large contribution to the study of the problem.
The Protestant Episcopal Church in its General Convention and the Methodist Episcopal Church in its General Conference have made provision through appropriate committees for the study and promotion of the subject of week-day instruction in religion.
The Jewish Community (Kehillah) is doing work far exceeding anything that Christians have done in the way of religious education. It has established 181 schools of religion, for children in attendance at the public schools, in which 40,000 children are enrolled. In other forms instruction in religion is given to 25,000 children. Thus out of 275,000 Jewish children in the public schools 23.5 per cent. receive week-day instruction in religion. Energetic efforts are made to reach the remaining 210,000. The pupils have from one to four periods each week, after school hours, each period lasting from one to two hours. The total sum annually expended by the Jews for week-day instruction in religion is approximately $1,400,000. |
|
