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.
From "The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918, [tr.
note: no close quote for title in original] we quote as follows:
"In the typical week day school, the number of hours of instruction
given to each child varies from 6 1/2 hours in the lowest grade to 9
1/2 hours in the seventh or highest grade. . . . The total teaching
staff consists of 615 teachers, of whom about 23 per cent. are women.
The salary of teachers ranges from $300 to $1,200 per year. The average
salary is $780 annually for 22 hours' work during the week."
The Jews ask for no concession of time from the public school. They seem
to have physical and intellectual vigor enabling them to utilize, for
the study of religion, hours which Christian children require for rest
and recreation.
Lutherans hold that it is the function of the church to provide
instruction in religion for its children. What are the Lutherans of New
York doing to maintain this thesis? Over 40,000 children of enrolled
Lutheran families obtain no instruction in religion except that which is
given in the Sunday School and in the belated and abbreviated hours of
catechetical instruction.
A movement is now going on in this city and throughout the United States
aiming at a restoration of religious education to the functions of the
church. For the sake of our children ought we not heartily to cooperate
with a movement which so truly represents the principles for which we
stand? It will require a considerable addition to the teaching force of
our churches. It will mean an expensive reconstruction of our
schoolrooms. It will cost money. But it will be worth while.
The Problem of Lapsed Lutherans
There are four hundred thousand lapsed Lutherans in New York, nearly
three times as many as enrolled members of the churches.
A lapsed Lutheran is one who was once a member, but for some reason has
slipped the cable that connected him with the church. He still claims to
be a Lutheran but he is not enrolled as a member of a particular
congregation.
Most lapsed Lutherans are of foreign origin. From figures compiled by
Dr. Laidlaw (see "Federation," Vol. 6, No. 4), we obtain the number of
Protestants of foreign origin, enumerated according to the country of
birth of parents, one parent or both. The number of Lutherans we obtain
by subtracting from the "Protestants" the estimated number of
non-Lutherans. Thus:
Protestants Lutherans
Norway .......... 33,344 - 10% = 30,010
Sweden .......... 56,766 - 10% = 51,090
Denmark ......... 11,996 - 10% = 10,797
Finland ......... 10,304 - 10% = 9,274
Germany .........486,252 - 20% = 389,002
Austria-Hungary . 27,680 - 80% = 5,535
Russia* ......... 15,000 - 20% = 12,000
507,708
*Many of the Lutherans who have come to us of late years from
Russia, Austro-Hungary and other countries of South Eastern Europe, are
the descendants of German Lutherans who in the eighteenth century
accepted the invitation of Katharine the Second and Marie Theresia to
settle in their dominions. Others are members of various races from the
Baltic Provlnces.
That is, the estimated number of Lutherans of foreign origin, counting
only the chief countries from which they emigrate to America, is
507,708.
But we also have Lutherans here who are not of foreign origin. Lutherans
have lived in New York from the beginning of its history. Its first
houses were built by Heinrich Christiansen, who certainly had a Lutheran
name. The Lutherans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is
true, left no descendants to be enrolled in our church books. These are
to be found in goodly numbers in the Protestant Episcopal and other
churches where they occupy the seats of the mighty. It is too late to
get them back.
But in the nineteenth century we collected new congregations. There are
many Lutherans whose grandparents at least were born in New York.
Besides, there has been a large influx from the Hudson and Mohawk
valleys, from Pennsylvania, Ohio, the South and the West. A moderate
estimate of these immigrants from the country and of those who under the
grandfather clause claim to be unhyphenated Americans, members or
non-members of our churches, is 40,000.
Add to these the Lutherans of foreign origin and we have in round
numbers a Lutheran population of more than 547,000 souls.
Turning now to the statistical tables in the Appendix we find that the
number of souls reported in our churches is 140,957. Subtract these from
the total Lutheran population and we have a deficit of over 400,000
souls, lapsed Lutherans, the subject of the present chapter. _Quod erat
demonstrandum_. While this is a large number, it is a moderate estimate.
An addition of 20 per cent. would not be excessive.
How shall we account for this deficit?
Of the Americans a large number are the children of our New York
churches, the product of our superficial catechetical system. No study
of the subject is complete that does not take account of this serious
defect. No cure will be effective until we have learned to take better
care of our children.
Native Americans from the country, members of Lutheran churches in their
former homes, have no excuse if they do not find a Lutheran church when
they come to New York. In years gone by English churches were scarce,
but now they are to be found in every part of the city. In part at
least, the home pastors are responsible. When their people remove to New
York they ought to be supplied with letters, and the New York pastors
should be notified. In fifty years I have not received twenty-five
letters from my country brethren asking me to look after their wandering
sheep.
For the foreign Lutherans who have failed to comnect with the church,
three reasons may be given: 1. Ignorance. Not ignorance in general, but
ignorance in regard to church conditions in America. They come from
National churches where their relation to the church does not require
much personal initiative. They belong to the church by virtue of their
baptism and confirmation. Their contributions to its maintenance are
included in the general tax levy.
Arrived in New York where Church and State are separate, a long time may
pass before any one cares for the soul of the immigrant. Our pastors are
busy with their routine work and seldom look after the new comers,
unless the new comers look after them. The latter soon become reconciled
to a situation which accords with the inclinations of the natural man.
Ignorance of American church conditions accounts for the slipping away
of many of our foreign brethren from the fellowship of the church.
2. Indifference. Many foreigners who come here are merely indifferent to
the claims of religion. Others are distinctly hostile toward the church.
Most of the Socialistic movements of continental Europe, because of the
close association of Church and State, fail to discriminate between
their respective ideas. Thy condemn the former for the sins of the
latter.
3. Infidelity. A materialistic philosophy has undermined the Christian
conception of life and the world, and multitudes of those who were
nominally connected with the church have long since repudiated the
teachings of Christianity.
It is a tremendous problem that confronts us, the evangelization of four
hundred thousand Lutherans. If for no other reason, because of its
magnitude and because of its appeal to our denominational
responsibility, it is a problem worth solving. But it is a challenge to
our Christianity and it should stimulate us to an intense study of its
possible solution.
Ministers can contribute much toward its solution. It is true our hands
are full and more than full with the ordinary care of our flocks. But
our office constantly brings us into association with this large outer
fringe of our congregations at times when their hearts are responsive to
anything that we may have to say. We meet them at weddings and at
funerals. We baptize their children and we bury their dead. Once in a
while some of them even come to church. In spite of all their wanderings
and intellectual idiosyncrasies they still claim to be Christians. And
whatever their own attitude toward Christianity may be, there are few
who do not desire to have their children brought up in the Christian
faith. We have before us an open door.
The churches can do more than they are doing now to win these lapsed
Lutherans. Some people are kept out of church through no fault of their
own. For example, the rented pew system, still in vogue in some
congregations, is an effective means of barring out visitors. Few care
to force themselves into the precincts of a private club even if it
bears the name of a church.
A pecuniary method of effecting friendly relations is not without its
merits. In this city of frequent removals there are many families who
have lost all connection with the congregation to which they claim to
belong. An opportunity to contribute to the church of their new
neighborhood might be for them a secondary means of grace. They become
as it were proselytes of the gate. Having taken the first step, many may
again enter into full communion with the church.
A Lutheran church, however, does not forget the warning of the prophet:
"They have healed the hurt of my daughter slightly." The evangelization
of this great army of lapsed Lutherans is not to be accomplished by such
a simple expedient as taking up a collection. What most of them need is
a return to the faith. Somebody must guide them.
For this no societies or new ecclesiastical machinery will be required.
The force to do this work is already enlisted in the communicant
membership of our one hundred and fifty organized congregations. We have
approximately 60,000 communicants. These are our under-shepherds whose
business it is to aid the pastor in searching for "the lost sheep of the
house of Israel." Shall we not have a concerted effort on the part of
all the churches?
We may certainly win back again into our communion many of whom the Good
Shepherd was speaking when He said: "them also I must bring and they
shall hear my voice, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd."
To accomplish such a task, however, an orderly system must be adopted.