Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Master of Divinity Thesis Concordia Seminary Scholarship 5-1-1970 The crS iptural and Confessional Stance of American Lutheranism 1742-1867 Arthur Gillespie Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.csl.edu/mdiv Part of the Christianity Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Gillespie, Arthur, "The crS iptural and Confessional Stance of American Lutheranism 1742-1867" (1970). Master of Divinity Thesis. 82. http://scholar.csl.edu/mdiv/82 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Divinity Thesis by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I THE SCRIPTURAL AND CONFESSIONAL STANCE OF AMERICAN LUTHERANISM 1742-1867 A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in fulfillment of the Research Elective, H.499 by Arthur Lynn Gillespie May 1970 Approved by: Advisor TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE MUHLENBERG ERA 4 III. THE PENNSYLVANIA MINISTERIUM 8 IV. THE GENERAL SYNOD 1820-1862 14 V. "AMERICAN LUTHERANISM" AND "CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANISM" IN TENSION 21 VI. DEFINITE PLATFORM: "AMERICAN LUTHERANISM" MAKES ITS MOVE 26 VII. THE INFLUENCE OF S. S. SCHMUCKER 32 VIII. THE GENERAL SYNOD 1862-1867 35 IX. THE GENERAL SYNOD IN THE SOUTH 40 X. THE FORMATION OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL 42 XI. CONCLUSION 46 FOOTNOTES 49 APPENDIX A Constitution, 1781 58 APPENDIX B Ministerium Withdrawal from General Synod, 1823 . 60 APPENDIX C Pennsylvania Ministerium's Rejoining, 1853 62 APPENDIX D The Proposed Plan, 1819 63 APPENDIX E Ohio Synod, 1821 66 APPENDIX F Constitution, 1820 69 APPENDIX G Tennessee Synod, 1820 73 APPENDIX H Definite Synodical Platform, 1855 75 APPENDIX I Doctrinal Basis Stated 78 APPENDIX I Constitution, 1863 80 Page APPENDIX K Pennsylvania Mlnisterium Withdrawal from General Synod and Suggestion of Another Union, 1866 82 APPENDIX L Krauth's Theses on Faith and Polity, 1866 83 APPENDIX M Constitution, 1867 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 iii CHAPTER I What kind of things did our American Lutheran forefathers say about the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions? This was the initial ques- tion behind the research in this paper. How did they express what they believed about the documents? There are quite a few words that surround our expressions of fidelity to the Bible and the Confessions. We are con- tinually in dialogue about what we are really saying when we use them. Are they adequate for our intentions? Should we retire some of them? By means of this paper we hope to discover what was said and what was meant by the formulations of early American Lutheranism. In a recent course on the canon of the New Testament we discussed some of the doctrinal vocabulary surrounding fidelity to the Bible. We talked about "inspiration" and "norm," "infallible" and "inerrant." Our research centered on the early church with some reference also to the Reformation period. Following up on these beginnings, I decided to launch into a study of the doctrinal formulations of the Lutheran Church in America as they expressed allegiance to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. In determining the approach and scope of this paper, I chose to work with official documents and with the major Lutheran organizations in America. I centered my study on the General Synod, the first major inter- synodical organization of the Lutheran Church in America. Although a history of the General Synod would be an extensive undertaking, what I was looking for was more of an overall development in doctrinal stance. This necessitated looking into the Pennsylvania Ministerium and the work 2 of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. It also meant a consideration of the two organizations that came forth out of the membership of the General Synod, the General Synod in the South and the General Council. Furthermore, a . study of the scriptural and confessional stance of the General Synod must include the work of S. S. Schmucker. These were the limits of this study upon which I decided. On the one hand they were too broad. I could have spent an entire paper on the battle over the Definite Platform in church periodicals of that day. On the other hand, to have more narrow limits would have blunted the movement I was observing. 1742 marks the arrival of Nhhlenberg to America and 1867 marks the organization of the General Council. Much movement takes place within these 125 years to give us a good picture of the stance of the Lutheran Church in America on Scripture and the Confessions. The content of this paper runs along developmental lines. Chronology gives place to development. As a result of this, we leave the Pennsylvania Ministerium in 1853 and begin with the General Synod in 1820. We conclude our discussion of the General Synod in 1867 and move back to 1863 to dis- cuss the General Synod in the South. It is also necessary in our discus- sion of the Southern Synod to move out of our time span in order to clarify their stance. We finally return to 1866-1867 and to the General Council. We have minimized the discussion of important churchmen of this period for practical reasons. It was also seen fit to minimize any in- volvement with the new Lutheran immigration from Germany and Scandanavia except to mention its influence upon the scriptural and confessional stance in the General Synod. I consider the Appendices to be very helpful. These are a collection of documents, most of which have been reproduced from Richard C. Wolf's 3 Documents of Lutheran Unity in America. One is a reprint from S. S. Schmucker's book of essays, The American Lutheran Church, Historically, Doctrinally, and Practically Delineated, in Several Occasional Discourses. In bringing together all of the research I have gathered, it was very difficult to determine what to become involved in rather deeply and what to mention only briefly. Where there was a discussion of a situation at what I considered to be a crucial point as we look at the development of a doctrinal stance, I went into the matter in depth. This was done in presenting the crucial convention of the General Synod at York in 1864. The results of this study point to a very consistent stance toward Scripture and a stance toward the Lutheran Confessions which is consis- tently one of turmoil. Basically, the issue is the extent of authority which should be admitted to the Confession.) Looking at the paper from another standpoint would suggest the question of what it means to be 2 Lutheran. CHAPTER II The colonial Lutherans displayed a remarkable unity in their scrip- tural and confessional stance. Repeatedly the following kinds of terms Appear in documents: "Lutheran," "associates in the Augsburg Confession," "of the Evangelical Lutheran faith," and "congregations which adhere to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession." Their doctrinal basis was the "Holy Bible" and "our Augshurg Confession." These early Lutherans consciously distinguished themselves from the Zinzendorfers, Hernhutters, and 1 Moravians. It was not that they never associated with other churches. This they did. However, they did so because they admired the loyalty of each group to his own respective confession. In addition, they hoped to emphasize the truths held in common.2 The pastors of the Muhlenberg era laid the foundation of the Lutheran Church in America upon the doctrine of the Scriptures as set forth in the Symbolical Books. They were not symbolical in contradis- tinction to being biblical. They were eminently biblical, and dis- covered the very doctrines of the Bible aptly expressed in the confes- sional form of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the other Symbolical Books. It was not held that doctrines expressed in this manner would lead the church to dry orthodoxy and mere formalism.3 Some groups of Lutherans received the entire body of Symbols. Other groups, such as the Swedes, preferred the symbols recognized by the church of their homeland. In no instance was there a protest against any of the Symbolical Books or any part of their contents.4 Dr. W. J. Mann expressed similar convictions in his "Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fathers of the Church in this Country." 5 Those fathers were very far from giving the Lutheran Church as they organized it on this new field of labor, a form and character in any essential point different from what the Lutheran Church was in the Old World, and especially in Germany. They retained not only the old doctrinal stand- ards, but also the old traditional elements and forms of worship. Those fathers were admitted to the ministry on condition of their own declaration that they were in harmony with the Confessio Augustana Invariata, and with all the other Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church. They demanded of those whom they admitted to the sacred office, the same condition. They allowed no organization or constitutions of congregations, without demanding the acknowledgment of all the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church as the doctrinal basis. Their Lutheranism did not differ from the Lutheran Orthodoxy of the preceding period in the matter of doctrine, but to an extent in the manne of applying it. It was orthodoxy practically vitalized. A decisive battle for the confessional basis of the Lutheran Church was waged in Philadelphia in 1742. The central figures were Zinzendorf and Muhlenberg. Zinzendorf sought to infuse Lutheranism with a Moravian influence. Muhlenberg stood for the historic connection with, and the sound Lutheran tradition of, a scriptural and confessional base.