Ever since the founding of the Missouri Synod, Romanizing Protestants such as Wilhelm Löhe have constantly made this accusation: the polity of the Missouri Synod is a thoroughly American one! The pastors are in fetters! etc. And this accusation has been accepted as true by those who would be leading teachers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, such as President Matthew Harrison, who in an appendix to his mistranslation of Die Stimme unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt, included a writing of Löhe’s as alleged proof that Walther deviated from Luther in the doctrine of the Church.
However, and this is certainly surprising, even certain laymen who have been vocal in opposition to the sacerdotalism present in the LC—MS (see here and here) have accepted this slander (and similar ones) of the enemies of the Missouri Synod as true. Therefore, so that at least some may not be misled by these vipers, I am attaching to this passages in which the leaders of the Missouri Synod have refuted this most wicked accusation:
How Walther and the Missouri Synod came to the doctrine of the Church, as it is set forth, for instance, in Walther’s book, “Die Stimme unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt”, is a matter concerning which quite false views are current still today in Germany. It is said that Walther fashioned the doctrine according to democratic American conditions. But the exact opposite is the case. In the first place, the immigrants were still very little acquainted with “American church conditions, at the time when the question of Church and Ministry was already decided among them. And when at a later time they came into closer contact with these “American” conditions, then it was not these which exercised a decisive influence upon them, but it was they who exerted a deciding influence upon the conditions. Says Walther: “We set ourselves with all our might against the abuses prevailing in American church circles. In many circles we succeeded in doing away with the hiring of pastors and the absolute power of the congregation”. (We again call attention to the fact that we are citing Walther according to manuscript notes wherever we do not make specific reference to a printed writing.) To be sure, the conditions into which God placed the little flock of immigrants were the occasion which led to their recognizing the doctrine of the Church which they now championed as the true doctrine. But this doctrine itself is not derived from the circumstances, but in time of intense temptation and great tribulation was achieved through the study of the Word of God, the Confessions, and especially the writings of Luther. Walther himself writes in the Foreword to “Kirche und Amt” (Church and Ministry): “Willingly as we grant that the conditions under which we live here in America were of decisive influence in leading us to the vital recognition of the doctrine of Church and Ministry laid down in this book, so that we hold it fast as a precious treasure and now confidently confess it before the whole world: we must nevertheless decidedly reject the charge that we have bent and fashioned the holy pure doctrine of our church in the interest of the conditions and circumstances surrounding us. Since we are here living not under inherited ecclesiastical conditions, but are rather in a position which requires that we lay the foundation for such, and in which also we are able to lay it unhindered by anything already existing, these circumstances have therefore the rather impelled us with great earnestness to search for the principles upon which according to God’s Word and the Confessions of our church the polity of a truly Lutheran fellowship must rest, and according to which such polity must be formulated. The less the question arose: what can we retain without sin? and the more we were occupied with the question: what should it be in accordance with God’s Word and the principles expressed and demonstrated in our church’s Confession? — so much the more urgent for us was the need of coming into the clear and arriving at a firm assurance of faith concerning the principles of the doctrine of the Church, Ministry, Power of the Keys, Church Ordinances, and the like. We have not fashioned the doctrine of our church according to our conditions, but have ordered these according to the doctrine of our church. To anyone who doubts this we confidently issue the summons: Come and see! And he who with astonishment finds principles presented by us as principles and doctrines of the Lutheran Church which he has hitherto abominated as fanaticism — him we can confidently direct to the references which we have adduced in proof, and leave him the choice of either granting us the praise of Lutheran orthodoxy or denying it to the entire cloud of faithful witnesses from Luther down to a Baier and a Hollaz.” (Kirche und Amt, 3rd Edition, Foreword, VIII; 4th Edition, Foreword VIII, IX.) Over against the assertion that the doctrine of Church and Ministry expressed in our Confessions is “still undeveloped and unclear” Walther says in the same Foreword: “We are of the firm conviction that the reason Lutherans are now divided over the important doctrines of Church and Ministry and all which is directly connected therewith is that they have disregarded and turned aside from the doctrine laid down in the public Confessions of our church and developed in the private writings of her orthodox teachers. We are of the firm conviction that our church has not left the doctrines of Church and Ministry unexamined, so that they now still await development; much less has she in any manner obscured these doctrines or assigned them an unfitting place in the entire structure of doctrine, so that they must now still be readjusted. We are of the firm conviction that the great decisive conflict of the Reformation which our church fought in the Sixteenth Century against the papacy revolved about these very doctrines of the Church and Ministry which have now again come into question among us, and that the pure clear doctrine on this subject is a precious spoil which our church won in that conflict.” (Kirche u. Amt, V, VI)
Franz Pieper, “Dr. C.F.W. Walther as Theologian”
When our Synod came into being, it committed itself before friend and foe not only to all the Symbols of the old Evangelical Lutheran Church, openly and without reservation, and adopted as its motto “God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine pure shall to eternity endure,” and thus joyfully began its work — but it also undertook really to act in accordance with those Symbols and its motto, in doctrine and defense, in structure and practice. But immediately loud and intensive objections arose from the most diverse quarters and in the most diverse ways.
Because we declared the church in which the doctrine of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is really in vogue to be the true visible Church of God on earth, and all other ecclesiastical associations to be false churches and sects, we were accused of harboring an overtly papistic view of the Church. Because we expressed the conviction that the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are pure and without any error in the faith, and that every servant of our church is solemnly pledged to teach in accordance with them for the duration of his service, we were accused of placing human writings alongside, nay, over the Word of God and of introducing an intolerable tyranny of conscience. Because we acknowledged Luther as God’s chosen vessel for a genuine reformation of the Church and affirmed that the pure doctrine of our church and the correct understanding of its Confessions are to be drawn, next to the Word of God, especially from his writings, we were accused of deifying Luther and ascribing to him the infallibility of a pope. But because we also protested loudly and solemnly against those erring Lutherans who called the visible Evangelical Lutheran Church the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no help and salvation, and because for that reason we frankly conceded that the Church of the believers and those being saved lies concealed also outside the visible Evangelical Lutheran Church, even among the sects and even under the rule of the Roman Antichrist, we were accused from the other side of being unionists at the bottom. However, because we not only opposed every error in the faith conflicting with the Word of God as endangering souls but also renounced every kind of syncretism and every external ecclesiastical union without inner unity of faith and confession, and even withdrew from all associations of those of various beliefs formed for a joint extension of the kingdom of God, we were accused by others of pharisaic intolerance, contentiousness and heresy hunting, narrow-mindedness and lack of love and zeal for the work of the Lord. Because we followed Luther and the Church of the Reformation in ascribing to the office of the ministry no other and no further power than that of the Word, and to believing Christians the full dignity of the spiritual priesthood, we were accused of delivering and surrendering the dignity and power of the holy ministry to the caprice of the rude masses and the holy Christian faith to the decision of majority votes. But because we were concerned at the same time to lay the foundation of an evangelical church order and discipline, rejected the temporary hiring of preaches and insisted on a proper call, retained the practice of announcing for communion, and introduced the use of the binding key against stiff-necked impenitents and those erring in the faith, we were accused from the other side of papistic usurpation of power, priest rule, and fanaticism. Because we followed Luther and the old Lutheran Church in refusing to bind our conscience to any human church order, freely chose an order in line with our new circumstances in this country, and in general insisted on our freedom in all matters neither commanded nor forbidden by God, that is, in all so-called indifferent things, we were accused by one group of opposition to all discipline and order, of libertarian fraud and an itch for novelty. But because we refused at the same time to label as sinful the retention of certain old and edifying customs and ceremonies, which confess our faith against error, we were accused by another group of being on the road to Rome. Because we affirmed the original equality and autonomy of every church and parish and recognized no church’s sovereignty over another, and no synod’s over an individual congregation, we were accused of a separatistic lust for independence. But because we ourselves established a synod with boards of control and circuit counselors, we were accused of harboring hierarchical plans against the freedom of congregations.…
But no matter how vehemently attempts were made from all sides to force us off the position we had taken, we would not permit anything to make us waver but moved confidently forward on our chosen path with eyes fixed firmly on the model of the Church of the Reformation and impervious to all attacks from the right or the left.…
Here we established nothing new or original but inquired about the former paths and walked on the good old way; we sat as pupils at the feet of Luther and other orthodox and devout teachers already triumphing in heaven, and we followed in their footsteps; we took the Church of the Reformation as our model and its pure Confessions as our banner, our guiding star, and our protecting wall. If you will, we have made the attempt to determine whether the doctrine of the sixteenth century could be used for the salvation of souls also in our nineteenth century, whether the tree of our old Lutheran Church, which for centuries produced such glorious fruits for the welfare of millions, might still demonstrate its pristine vitality and fruitfulness — and behold! our hope was not put to shame.…
What do we now want to do and what must we do, my brothers? Shall we strike out on a new path from today on? Has the time perhaps arrived in which we have come of age and have become the peers of the church in our time that searches for what is new, so that we must now think of removing the stigma of being without creative power?
God forbid! Our situation would indeed be tragic if we had based and continued to base our faith on Luther and on the church bearing his name. But we have never done this, and by God’s grace have no intention of doing it, until finally we shall see what we believe.
C. F. W. Walther, “The Missouri Synod’s Adherence to the Lutheran Confessions”
In the same way that the Jesuits present the Reformation as a rebellion and revolution, the Missouri Synod is now accused by the people on that side of being unbiblical and un-Lutheran radicalism and independentism. They say that because here in this country “the curb of the state is missing”, so the civil conditions of North America were taken into account, and the democratic desires were yielded to by the fact that the Missouri constitution transfers church government and the power of the keys to the individual congregation!… Should this stance, which holds the Old Lutheran doctrine as a sacred treasure (because it is founded in the Holy Scriptures) indeed be comfortable with democratic desires? Should Dr. Walther’s effectiveness really be destructive, revolutionary, libertarian, etc., as Pastor Grabau portrayed him in Germany and everywhere else? How does the concession of beneficial effectiveness fit with the accusation that Missouri doctrine and practice must undermine the Lutheran Church? One can see from the history of the Saxon emigration that after the unmasking of Stephan, a disintegration of the congregation and a revolution threatened, and this Donatism and rapturous fanaticism, which wanted to reject church and the preaching ministry, was… averted by Dr. Walther’s effectiveness at the right time! Walther did not act in the manner of a church politician; such a politician would have said: we want to make concessions to the dissatisfied and introduce a new church order! Walther went into the Holy Scripture, and showed from it and from the testimonies of the Confessions that it is not the external bond of a constitution by which the true church is held together, that the true church as the assembly of all believers is not bound, like an external government, to this or to that country, also not to this or to that minister, also not to an organized synod, yes, not even to the name Lutheran; but that Christ’s church is recognized and visibly appears where the doctrine of Christ is in progress and in use. Where the Word and the holy sacraments are not found at all, there is certainly no Church; but while these means of grace are still present, there are certainly children of God, even if only a few! It is the spiritual treasures which, according to Christ’s will, gather, maintain and spread the church of God; it is the spiritual fellowship of the Word and the Sacrament which distinguishes the Church from every secular community and constitution. Dr. Walther recognized that the spiritual power of the Word is strong enough to rebuild the Church in this very country, independent of the state, according to the genuine evangelical principles of the Reformation.…
In the few hours without fever, he immersed himself in the study of Luther and recognized that the thing that made Luther so strong in his struggles, whereby he not only resisted the Pope but also stood firm against Zwingli, Calvin and the enthusiasts, was Luther’s faith in the Bible and Luther’s abhorrence of all hierarchism in the church. Luther did not ask about the council decisions and opinions of the Roman teachers, who are today again praised as authorities, nor did he wait until a council would have spoken, which the emperor and the humanists of his time were recommending; Luther also did not ask whether a doctrine was offensive to reason and the heart, as Zwingli did, and deviated from the Word of the Scriptures; Luther well knew that the Holy Scripture is the only source, rule and guideline of faith, therefore God’s Word alone should provide him with articles of faith, as he testified in the Smalcald Articles. When Ulrich von Hutten offered him bodily help against the spiritual tyrants, he replied: “The world is overcome by the Word, the church is preserved by the Word, the church will also be rebuilt by the Word!” The Saxon preachers saw themselves without human assistance, when it seemed that with Stephan’s downfall all trust had also fallen away! All human support and authority had sunk away, and Walther began to cast light on the decayed conditions with the same light which Luther had once resorted, with the light of Holy Scripture! Therefore, “back to Luther, for whoever goes back to Luther will be led into the Holy Scriptures! His teaching is nothing but the everlasting Gospel!” This is what Walther proclaims in summary, again in the name of the newly constituted Missouri Synod in 1849, in the Foreword to the fifth volume of Der Lutheraner.…
This congregation of the faithful, which is undivided by its very nature, is the bride and the honor of Christ’s house; without distinguishing between so-called laymen and clergymen, the congregation as such is the holy Church of Jesus hidden in the visible crowd of the called, the true owner and bearer of all heavenly goods, rights, offices and powers that Christ gave to His Church. Because Christ dwells and reigns invisibly in the hearts of His believers, only Christocracy practiced by the Word and the Holy Spirit takes place here. R. Hoffmann misunderstands the whole situation, because he thinks that the dark side of the Missouri Synod is the democratic constitution, according to which one has “transferred” church government and the Office of the Keys to each individual congregation. But here nothing is to be transferred by people in the first place, but only to confess what the true Christians as spiritual priests and kings already originally have from Christ. It is therefore not merely a constitutional issue that is at stake! The difference between the neo-Lutheran Romanists and the real Old Lutherans lies in the answer to the question: with whom is the original spiritual power, the power of the keys, which includes all church government? Is this power given by Christ to his Church on earth, or does it originally belong to a pope, a special higher church government, or similar privileged status?… The Saxon pastors have also experienced that it brings more blessings to be called for the sake of the congregation, as Luther writes, than by Stephan. The official priestly pride, which creeps into the heart of the preacher by virtue of hierarchical principles, is much more dangerous and much more to be feared than the so-called “spiritual priesthood”, a frightening image, with the best help of which our genuinely evangelical doctrine of the Holy Church and ministry is often rejected without examination. A spiritual priesthood is a contradiction in itself, because spiritual priests do not want to rule but serve the Lord and His Church; they legitimize themselves as spiritual priests only by the fact that their actions are founded in the Word of God; they surrender themselves, together with their pastor who has to administer the public service, to the Word of God and let themselves be shown the way they have to go as Christians. The Church, as our confession also teaches, is the little sheep that hear the voice of their shepherd! Where only the Word of the Supreme Shepherd of Jesus is heard and accepted, where the flock of the Lord knows the voice and hears the voice of no stranger in the voice of the shepherd, then for this reason, but only for this reason, it will gladly and willingly obey the servant of Christ, through whom the mouth of the Lord and Supreme Shepherd speaks to it. Where all are kings, that is, in matters of faith directly under Christ, there can certainly be no talk of one individual lordship over the others; where all are brethren, there is only one master, Christ!
Christian Hochstetter, “The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884”
Altlutheraner 