Pastor E. Arnold Sitz and the Protéstants Witnessing To

PPPASTOR E.E.E. AAARNOLD SSSITZ AND THE PPPROTÉSTANTS ::: WWWITNESSING TO THE WWWAUWATOSA GGGOSPEL Pastor Peter M. Prange Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Church History Thesis (1998) Revised and Augmented (2004) Author’s Preface A church historian – any historian for that matter – cannot claim infallibility; he can only strive for accuracy. This is especially true when he goes beyond recording the simple facts of history and tries to explain the “why” and “how” of historical events and movements. These judgments quite often fall outside the realm of objective observation. Such historical judgments are usually tainted with a certain amount of subjectivism – something that this writer will readily admit is also characteristic of the very paper resting in your hands. It is especially difficult to be objective when researching and writing about the Protéstant Controversy which coursed through the veins of the Wisconsin Synod in the 1920s and beyond. First of all, one is invariably forced to choose a side and wield a weapon. That temptation is even greater when the people involved in these tumultuous events include some who shared their flesh and blood with you. It is natural to put those participants in the best possible light, to make them the protagonists, the ones wearing the white hats. One must also steer clear of judging motives. To make historical judgments – even to tender opinions – about motives of people long dead is both precarious and presumptuous. Ironically, a prominent accusation brought by both sides in the Protéstant Controversy was that of judging hearts. To judge hearts is always impossible, especially when seventy years separates us from the people and events of this controversy. The job of a church historian is simply to scrutinize the facts, to separate truth from myth and to make conclusions on the basis of this information alone. Yet a true historian must also go beyond the simple facts to a certain extent. Professor John Philipp Koehler wrote that the historical point of view means “that one should have for oneself a proper intellectual and practical grasp of the facts themselves before attempting to represent them from a theoretical perspective. Not to do so is dogmatism, pure and simple.”1 That is not always an easy task, especially when one can no longer sit down with the principals of the controversy and discuss these issues face to face. How many times I wished I had been born twenty or thirty years earlier that I might do this very thing! There is one last difficulty that this particular “church historian” ran up against: the simple magnitude of words – many of them German – detailing and describing this controversy. So much was and has been written about these fascinating events, people and ideas that it is simply impossible to read and research every last thing. To read all the accounts of the Protéstant chronicles, Faith-Life , would alone require many months. Add to this all of the correspondence, reports and papers, and one quickly comes to the conclusion that to gain expertise in this subject is truly a lifelong pursuit. This alone makes me hesitant to attempt writing anything definitive, but I take some comfort from the fact that a major participant in this controversy already in 1928 wrote to a friend who was investigating these matters, “Should I try to give you a detailed account of my case it would become of such proportions that I feel like John: ‘all the books of the world would not be able to contain it.’” 2 He goes on as if he were writing to me, “You have certainly undertaken some task. It is simply an impossibility to do the work assigned to you. You simply can’t delve into the details of all these affairs…” Indeed, I cannot, and I beg the reader’s pardon. But let that admission also serve as an encouragement to you, the reader, to further investigate these matters yourself. Do not look upon this work as the final word on the Protéstant Controversy or the Wauwatosa Gospel. It is by no means that. Instead it is the fruit of my investigation. It is as I see it at this time. Do not let this paper hinder you. Instead let it serve as a springboard to further exploration. Only then will you – and we along with you – begin to comprehend and appreciate the full import of the Protéstant Controversy and especially the Wauwatosa Gospel. 1 John Philipp Koehler, “Retrospective,” Faith-Life 75, no. 6 (November/December 2002): 18. 2 William Beitz, letter to Immanuel P. Frey, May 18, 1928. 1 Introduction In the annals of church history, the Protéstant Controversy of the Wisconsin Synod does not loom large. It is but a footnote in the history of the Christian Church. Neither is the term “Wauwatosa Gospel” one that is known throughout Christendom or even Lutheranism for that matter. To claim that this controversy and the ideas behind it have had a crucial impact on the church at large would be a gross overstatement. To most outsiders this controversy would probably be summed up in two words: personality conflicts. That, however, would be a gross understatement. While personalities played their part, the Protéstant Controversy was about motives, methods and especially ideas. To the participants and some observers this controversy was not just a matter of opinion or simple adiaphora; it was a matter of Bekenntnis (confession) and Verstockung (hardening of hearts), doctrine and pastoral practice. Like most controversies or conflicts both sides deserve to shoulder their part of the blame for the conflagration, but as in most controversies it’s much easier to point the finger at the other side. This paper will not necessarily deal with the question of who was right and who was wrong. Rather its purpose is to examine the content and application of what is known as the Wauwatosa Gospel in the context of the Protéstant Controversy. The Protéstants have attempted to prove that the Wisconsin Synod repudiated the Wauwatosa Gospel following the ouster of Professor John Philipp Koehler from his Seminary post in 1930. 3 This judgment has been disputed time and again by Wisconsin Synod historians. 4 But to even suggest that the Wauwatosa Gospel is a “possession” of one church body or another is ill- advised at best and goes against the very nature of the Wauwatosa Gospel itself. The Wauwatosa Gospel cannot be possessed by a group, as such. It is instead a matter of possession for each individual Christian, the possession of which is not meant to be proven . It is instead ours to simply witness . With that in mind then – that the Wauwatosa Gospel is an individual possession that is witnessed to others – the question I do wish to pose and answer is this: Has the Wauwatosa Gospel had a better witness from within the Wisconsin Synod by pastors and people such as Pastor E. Arnold Sitz, or was its witness better served and preserved from without the Synod by members of the Protéstant Conference? I plan to demonstrate that witnesses to the Wauwatosa Gospel such as Arnold Sitz have preserved the spirit of the Wauwatosa Gospel better from within the Wisconsin Synod than the Protéstants have been able to do from without. This does not mean to intimate that the Protéstants are entirely without the Wauwatosa Gospel; they certainly are not. Nor do I wish to suggest that the Wauwatosa Gospel does not have determined – if perhaps unconscious – opponents in Wisconsin Synod circles to this day. It’s only to suggest that the Protéstants would have served the Wauwatosa Gospel better by working quietly for its principles from within the Synod. In so far as both sides have engaged in loveless, legalistic conduct, so far have they also been guilty of repudiating the Wauwatosa Gospel and everything it stands for. The Protéstant Controversy hurt the Wisconsin Synod. It would have perhaps hurt even more had not the nation and the Synod soon afterward plunged into the Great Depression. Synod’s attention quickly shifted to other matters. But the discomfort of the controversy was certainly still felt. It most definitely 3 Protéstant historian Leigh Jordahl, among others, makes this claim in his preface and introductory essay to John Philipp Koehler’s The History of the Wisconsin Synod (Sauk Rapids, MN: Sentinel Publishing for the Protéstant Conference, 1981). 4 Among those who dispute Jordahl’s conviction are Professor Martin Westerhaus in his essay “The Wauwatosa Theology: The Men and Their Message,” The Wauwatosa Theology , I (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1997) and Pastor Mark Jeske in his Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Church History thesis “A Half Century of Faith- Life .” 2 was and continues to be a thorn in the flesh. As with any wound, though, it does no good to let it fester. Instead the wound must be diagnosed and treated. But how does one heal the hurts of a controversy that began more than seventy years ago? First of all, we must confess and learn from our fathers’ mistakes, as well as our own. Secondly, we must pray the Holy Spirit to engender in us a spirit of love and forgiveness founded on the gospel of his love and forgiveness. Only then will we be able to learn from these tragic events. Only then will we truly be witnesses to the Wauwatosa Gospel. Chapter One – The Wauwatosa Gospel: A Definition At no time was the theological life of the Wisconsin Synod and the Synodical Conference 5 more dynamic than during the earliest decades of the last century. By 1900 the great election controversy, 6 which had rocked the conference in the 1880s, had mostly subsided.

Load more