The following article comes from the very first edition of "Der Lutheraner" the predecessor magazine to the Lutheran Witness. When our church body began, people in the United States were critical of us calling ourselves Lutheran. This article seeks to defend our use of that name.
In it the first synodical president, C.F.W. Walther, explains why we are called Lutherans, not just Christians. This translation was first presented in the Husker Lutheran of University Lutheran Chapel, Lincoln, NE in 1989 and has now been entirely reviewed and revised, and is in the public domain thanks to Bob Smith at the Concordia Theological Seminary Library. We will release a part every other day for the next few days.
Today's section deals with "Is it wrong to be called Lutheran?" It addresses whether by being known as Lutherans we are following Martin Luther instead of Jesus. The answer is no! "We are not called (Lutherans) because we believe in Luther... We do not accept (Luther) as any apostle or prophet but rather we know that he was subject to error and sin like other men. He is not the head of our church. He is not our pope." Rather we are Lutherans, because we believe, like Luther, that the sole source of doctrine is the Scripture, and we will follow the Word of God boldly in this world. Key points are highlighted with Red Font.
Concerning the Name "Lutheran"
C.F.W. Walther
Translated by Mark Nispel
From: Der Lutheraner v. 1, pp. 2-4, 5-7, 9-12.
June, 1994
PART I - September 1, 1844
A. Is it wrong to use such a name?
Isn't it wrong
to use the name "Lutheran"? We did not shy from giving our periodical
the title "the Lutheran" and so we consider it our duty to give
answer to those who might ask us what this name means and why we would use it.
There have been many people at all times, as we well know, that have been
offended that the Lutheran Church should be named after Luther, or any man.
'Why', they ask, 'can't everyone see in light of this that this church could
not be the true church of Christ but instead only the work of a man, a sect?’
'Indeed,' says another, 'you Lutherans should read what St. Paul says about
such names of men. In 1 Corinthians 1 and 3 he says: "it has been reported
to me that there is discord among you. I am speaking of the fact that among you
one says: I am of Paul! and another, I am of Apollo! and a third, I am of
Christ! How can this be? Is Christ divided. Has Paul been crucified for you? Or
are you baptized in the name of Paul? -- So one says: I am of Paul! the other,
I am of Apollo! Are you then not fleshly? Who is Paul and who is Apollo? They
are servants through whom you believed." Are you listening, Lutherans? It
is cried out to us: Don't you do the same thing the holy apostle condemns here
in Corinthians when you name yourselves Lutherans? You continuously say that
one should always follow the letter of the Scripture precisely, then why do you
not do so here?
There are not a
few honest Lutherans who become quite embarrassed when this is said to them by
our opponents. But this accusation is so fictitious, that it will be shown to
be without basis as soon as we consider the matter more closely. First, it is a
mistake if it is believed that Lutherans took this name for themselves. History
reports to us instead that they were first given this name by their opponents
in order to insult them. Dr. Eck, who held that well known disputation with
Luther in Leipzig, was the first to call those who held to Luther's teaching by
that name. We see clearly what Luther thought of this in a writing which he
completed in 1522: "Admonition Against Insurrection," in which he
says among other things:
"I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope's men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8."
This judgment
of Luther is as clear as the sun. he did not want in any way that the church
should be named after him and even less did he want this to happen for his own
glory.
Let no one
imagine that in and of itself it is wrong when Christians let themselves be
named after a man. This is shown undeniably by the fact that the church of the
Old Testament was named by God himself after a man. What did He call them? -
the Israelites. Didn't Christ himself say of Nathaniel: "See, a true
Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." What was Israel? He was a man.
Therefore it is clear, it depends on the sense in which the children of God are
named after a man. In that alone can there be sin. In which sense and on what
grounds did the Corinthians name themselves of Paul, of Apollo, of Safes, of
Christ? In this fashion, as we can read, they wanted to separate themselves
from one another. Although Paul, Apollo, and Peter (or Safes) taught one and
the same thing, the Corinthians rejected the others when they chose one. They separated
themselves from one another by taking on a name and setting up factions. The
sin for which Paul rebukes the Corinthians exists not only in that they named
themselves after a man but instead that by doing this among those who had the
same orthodox doctrine they wanted to establish divisions. Therefore the
apostle himself rejects the name "of Christ" as the name of a sect
(which some of them were using) when they wanted to establish division with it.
Paul does this even though this last name is not taken from a man but from the
Son of God himself.
Now true
Lutherans have never named themselves after Luther in this forbidden sense.
With this their name they have never wanted to depart or separate from other
orthodox teachers. They declare their allegiance as Lutherans to Athenasius and
all true teachers of the Gospel in all times and lands just as much as to
Luther. Luther himself was far from wanting to be the only true teacher. He
publicly writes among other things about a friend, the Würtemburg theologian
Brentius: "I value your books so highly that my books entirely stink when
I compare them to your books and those like them. I am not mocking you here. I
am not dreaming and I am not saying something to insult you. I will not be
deceived by my judgment, for I am not praising Brentius, but the Spirit that is
in you is much friendlier, and full of love and joy than the spirit in
me." Certainly no one speaks this way if he is trying to lead a sect. But
Luther speaks this way because he wants to be nothing more than a witness of
the truth.
Therefore, we
do not call ourselves Lutherans after him in the same way that we are called
Christians on account of Christ. We are not called such because we believe in
Luther. As highly as we treasure this vigorous witness, in our church we still
do not accept so much as a word in matters of faith simply because Luther said
it. Rather, we accept his words only in the instance that it can be shown
written clearly in the Word of God. We do not accept him as any apostle or prophet
but rather we know that he was subject to error and sin like other men. He is
not the head of our church. He is not our pope. Therefore whoever accepts
everything in blind faith simply because Luther said it is separated from the
true Lutheran church as far as earth is from heaven and day is from night. In
this manner then Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1530 who was at the Imperial
Council in Augsburg [confessing the Lutheran faith to the Emperor and the Roman
Catholic Church, tr.]: "It does not please me in your letter that you
write that you have me as the head of this matter and have followed it on
account of my reputation. I do not want to direct or command anything, nor will
I be called the author. And even if someone might find some kind of correct
understanding in using that word I do not want it. Isn't this matter likewise
yours and does it not fit you as well as me, therefore one may not say that it
is mine." Just as Luther refused any improper esteem in the church so our
church has not improperly honored him. Just as it says in the beginning of the
Formula of Concord, which is one of the most important public confession of the
orthodox Lutherans:
"We believe teach, and confess that the one rule and guide, according to which all doctrine and teachers should be judged is the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and new Testaments alone. Other writings of old and new teachers whatever their name should not be considered equal to the holy Scriptures, but rather all of them together one with another are subject to it and together are taken only as witnesses of how much and at which places after the time of the apostles such doctrine of the apostles and prophets were kept."
So finally we
ask ourselves, do we call ourselves Lutherans in order to show that we cling to
a new doctrine which Luther first 300 years ago brought forward? And do we
thereby show that we want to belong to a new church, which was instituted by
itself? May that never be so! We name ourselves not as the Arians are named
after Arius, or as the Dominicans after Dominicus. Luther did not preach any
new doctrine but rather the ancient doctrine of the eternal gospel. He did not
stray from the ancient true church, which is built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. He only left, yes,
actually was thrown out, of that church which had fallen and misused the name
of the 'catholic' church in order to bind the conscience with their laws of
men. To show this thoroughly is the very goal we had in mind when we started
this publication. In the first place we refer our readers to only one witness
of Luther himself, from which it is clear to see that he did not intend to
spread his own human ideas but rather was driven by the Word of God. so among
other things he says at the close of his splendid Church postil:
"Oh, that God would, that the explanation of God's Word by me and all teachers would perish and each Christian would take up the nude Scriptures. You see form this my prattle, how unlike God's Word is compared to the word of all men, how no man is able to properly attain and illumine one of God's words by all of his own words. My and all other explanations of men would be nothing, yes, only a hindrance to him who can enter it without glosses and explanations. Therefore, go in, go in dear Christian. And leave my and all other explanations be a mere step unto the real building, so that we may cling to the nude clear Word of God itself, taste it and remain there, for God lives only in Zion."
Even Luther's
most bitter enemy must agree that it was the holy Scriptures above all that he
insisted upon and spread among the people. To prove this I will bring forward
only one quote from the writings of a Roman Catholic author, a certain
Florenumdus Raemundus, who otherwise wrote entirely against the Protestants and
had taken part in the persecution of them. He said in his "History of the
Origin etc. of the Heresies of the 16th Century":
"The common people concerned themselves (in Luther's time) mostly with the bible, which was translated into the mother language. It was seen in the houses and lay upon the tables. The common worker had the Bible in his work place and the women lay it upon their knees. The entire world busied itself with the reading of the Bible. The sects which were armed with these books, whenever they came upon a priest or someone from another spiritual order, immediately began an argument with these books. One demanded that he should be shown from Scripture the mass, another purgatory, another infant baptism, another the Trinity. Finally they wanted all articles of faith to be proven with express Words, and rejected the unwritten Word of god and the apostolic precepts. For the arch heretic Luther had taught: The Scripture (and he authorized everyone to explain it) is alone the judge of all arguments in religion."
Who could have
given a more delightful picture of the awakening of a new life through the old
truth in the time of the Reformation and who could defend Luther better against
the complaint that he brought forward new doctrine than this zealous follower
of the people? Let us hear Luther himself as to whether Luther despised the
true church and wanted to create a new church. he wrote among other things in
1532 "Against Certain Mob Spirits":
"I would rather allow the wisdom and laws not only of all mob spirits but also of all emperors, kings and princes to witness against me, than hear or see one iota or tittle of the entire Christian church against me. Indeed, one should not jest with articles of the faith, which were held in unison from the beginning wherever Christianity was found. That is not like jesting with the laws of the pope or the emperor, or other human traditions of the fathers or councils."
From this one
sees that Luther in no way despised the church as is so often said, but rather
that he was an obedient son of it. As little as Luther followed the reputation
of any man, yet he did not want in any way to stand on his own feet on a false
way in dark self-centeredness as so many have done. He believed that through
all the centuries there had remained an orthodox church. He then asked above
all how that church had taught at all times. The witness of the true church and
agreement with it especially mattered to him. He considered her to be a pillar
and foundation of the truth [1 Tim. 3:15] and wanted to follow it and be a
member of the whole great army of the orthodox teachers of the church from the
time of the Apostles until his time. That one must hear and obey the church
(Mat. 18:7), was never denied by Luther. That is not the matter of contention
which of old has been argued between the Lutheran and Roman churches. But the
question is instead whether one must obey those who take the authority of the
church as their own because they have the office of the church among them but
use it to command something which is contrary to the Gospel. that is what Luther
denied. He maintained that if one should not hear the voice of Christ he would
also not hear the voice of his bride, his true church. Instead such a one would
have the false prophets, who carry the name of the church as if in sheep's
clothing under which they try to conceal the ravaging wolf. Luther departed
from these false prophets, who would not allow a true reformation, but not form
the Church.
Tomorrow: What does it mean to be called a Lutheran
