109. Church Governed by Word of God Alone.--The Tennessee Synod did
not only realize the importance of the Symbols for the Lutheran Church,
but had correctly apprehended also their spirit and doctrinal content.
This appears from her uncompromising attitude toward the Romanistic,
Reformed, Methodistic, and unionistic tendencies prevailing in the
Lutheran synods and congregations at the time of her organization. As to
polity, the cast of the first American Lutheran synods and congregations
was of the hierarchical type. The congregations were subordinate to
their pastors, the pastors and congregations to their respective synods,
as a rule called ministeriums, because, essentially, they were bodies
composed of ministers. David Henkel had experienced the tyranny to which
such an order would naturally lead and lend itself. The Tennessee Synod
must be credited with being the first, in a large measure, to recognize,
confess, and defend the inalienable rights of all Christians and
Christian congregations. The Henkels must be regarded as champions also
of the basic truth of all normal church-government, _viz._, that no one
is to govern the Christian Church, save Christ and His Word alone, not
the pastor, nor the ministerium, nor the synod, nor any sort of
majority. (1820, 23; 1828, 12.) In 1820, when the leaders of the North
Carolina Synod, in matters of right and wrong, demanded subjection to
the majority of votes, the Henkels maintained: "We thought the doctrine
of the Augsburg Confession, of which we were assured that it can be
proved by the doctrine of the Bible, ought to be of greater authority
to us than the voice of a majority of men who are opposed to the
doctrine and order of our Church." (1820, 23.) Nothing short of clear
proof and conviction from the Word of God and the Augsburg Confession
would satisfy the Henkels. In 1822 Tennessee declared: "Our Synod can
neither be governed by a majority nor a minority, now nor ever
hereafter, with respect to doctrine and discipline. . . . Neither the
majority nor the minority shall determine what our doctrine and
discipline are to be, because they are already determined in the
above-named rule. . . . But with respect to local and temporary
regulations, such as the place and time of meeting, and such like
things, which do not interfere with matters of faith and discipline, the
Synod suit themselves to the conveniences of the most of their members."
(R. 1822, 9.) In a "Note" appended to the above declaration, David
Henkel defines the position of Tennessee as follows: "Herein is the
difference between the government of the pure Evangelical Lutheran
Church and the government of the General Synod. The established rule of
the pure Christian Church is the Holy Scriptures and her supreme Head,
Jesus Christ. Christ, by His Word, governs the Church in the doctrines
of faith and discipline; there needeth no majority of votes to
determine. In such matters as do not immediately interfere with the
doctrines of faith and government of the Church, as, for instance, to
appoint the time and place for the meeting of a synod, or the erection
of a synod, and such like things, herein our Church doth not seek to
exercise any authority, but granteth liberty to each congregation and to
each of her ministers to act and do as they judge it most convenient for
themselves. No one is despised for not joining with us in our Synod; no
one is oppressed who is not in conformity with us in matters which are
not essential to the doctrine of faith. Nothing can separate our union
or break our peace with any, only when they deviate from the pure
doctrine of the Gospel, and when they compose traditions of their own
and impose them on others. A majority is not to have authority over any
one, because they have no power to impose traditions of men on others
with regard to religion. The government of the General Synod is
altogether otherwise. . . . It is plainly to be seen in her constitution
that her aim is to impose a number of human traditions on the Church,
as, for instance, that no synod shall be erected in any State, unless
there are six ordained ministers living therein, and not even then
unless they are authorized by the General Synod. The General Synod is to
be governed by a majority; if it were not so, she would admit that every
congregation and every minister should act agreeably to their own
advantage in matters not interfering with the doctrines of faith, and
not seek such universal power, by which they may compel men to act
according to the will of a majority. The Church of God on earth was
never constantly governed right by a majority. In the times of the
prophets the Church was oppressed by a majority. . . . How was it in the
time of Christ? How did the majority act against the Savior? Who was
right? The great council of Jerusalem and thousands of their adherents,
or Jesus of Nazareth, and the few of His disciples who were despised by
the world? How was it in the days of Luther? What was he against
millions of the Papist Church? And yet every Protestant will confess
that Luther's cause was just, and is thankful to God that the light of
the Gospel was set up by Luther. But supposing that Luther had yielded
to be governed by a majority as the advocates for a General Synod
insist, or wish that the Church should be governed by a majority, might
we not have remained in the ignorance of blind popery to the present
day? The government of the world is supported by a majority, and thus,
many imagine to themselves, it ought so to be in the Church; but they
are greatly mistaken! Jesus saith, 'My kingdom is not of this world,'
and consequently not His manner of government. . . . Jesus Himself hath
already prescribed all things respecting the doctrine and discipline of
His Church, therefore we need no General Synod to give us prescriptions!
As touching matters not essential, as appointing the time and place of a
convention or the like, whereof no prescription is given, no one is
justifiable to give any prescription or direction, much less to compel
any one thereto, whereas all are to enjoy Christian liberty. See Rom.
14; Col. 2. But those of the General Synod undertake to erect universal
directions in these matters, or else they would not name their Synod
Universal. Whosoever submits himself to be governed by a majority must
be such as trust to a majority. The Scripture saith: 'Cursed is the man
who putteth his trust in man.' Jer. 17." (R. 1822, 11 f.) These views
were embodied also in the constitution of 1828. In the explanatory
"Remarks" to the Fourth Article we read: "As the aforesaid duties [to
supply laborers, detect false teachers, examine and ordain ministerial
candidates, etc.] devolve on all churches and ministers, they
undoubtedly have the privilege to perform them jointly, _i.e._ they may
constitute a synod. But no Christian synod can have legislative powers,
consequently have no right to make rules for churches. All necessary
and salutary rules pertaining to the government of the Church are
prescribed in the Scriptures; therefore every body of men who make rules
for the Church are in opposition to Christ. To make rules for the Church
is one thing, but to execute these rules already made, and to employ the
proper means for the promulgation of the Gospel, is another. The latter,
but by no means the former, is the business of this body. That there
ought to be no appeals from the decisions of congregations is evident
from Matt. 18, 15-20." (B. 1828, 20; R. 1853, 25.) Of course, appeals
from the congregation to the synod as a higher authority, to which the
congregation is subordinated, were meant. The Introduction to the
constitution says: "The rules and principles of church-government are
contained in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore no body of Christians have
authority to dispense with, or alter or transact, anything contrary to
them. Human traditions or rules impressed upon the Church as necessary
for Christian fellowship, which have no foundation in the Scriptures,
are rejected by our Savior. Matt. 15, 9. 13. 14." Although, in executing
the rules of the Church, different times, persons, and local
circumstances intervene, as, for instance, in one age and country one
language is prevalent, but not in another age, and perhaps not in the
same country . . ., nevertheless, Christ being omniscient, and His
all-wise Spirit having inspired His apostles, they have provided the
Church with salutary rules, which are applicable to all persons in all
places, times, and circumstances. Nothing relative to doctrines and
church-discipline ought to be transacted according to mere will of the
majority or minority, but in strict conformity to the Scriptures. Local
and temporary regulations, such as the time and place of the meeting of
the synod, the ratio of representatives from congregations, etc., may be
varied for the sake of convenience, hence are subject to be altered,
amended, or abolished by the majority; yet they ought not to attempt to
make their decisions in such cases absolutely obligatory upon the whole
community, because such regulations are only subservient to the
execution of the rules which are founded upon the Scriptures." (19.)
110. Antihierarchical Principles Practised.--The organization of, and
connection with, a synod was regarded by Tennessee as a matter not of
divine obligation, but of Christian wisdom and liberty. No congregation
was condemned or refused fellowship merely because it refused to unite
organically with their synod. In the "Remarks" to the Fourth Article of
her constitution Tennessee explains: "When ministers and lay-delegates
are assembled, they may have a more accurate knowledge of the exigencies
of the whole connection they represent, hence are the better enabled to
impart their counsel. By their simultaneous efforts, vacant churches may
be supplied with ministerial labors, and others formed and organized.
Indeed, the same end may also be obtained by individual ministers and
churches; nevertheless, as it frequently becomes necessary for such to
receive cooperation from their brethren, this end may be obtained with
more facility by the meeting of a Synod." (1853, 25.) According to
Tennessee, then, the organization of, and connection with, a synod is a
matter of Christian liberty, wisdom, and expediency. But, while not
opposed to synods as such, Tennessee most strenuously objected to any
kind of human autocracy within the synods and congregations. When, in a
letter, several members of the North Carolina Synod designated Paul
Henkel "the head" of the Tennessee Synod, the latter declared, and could
do so truthfully, that their Synod "confesses no man as its head save
the one and only God-man, Jesus Christ." (B. 1824, 10.) The fact is that,
in the beginning, Tennessee was even without standing officers. The
chairmen were elected and changed at pleasure even during the sessions
of the same convention. (B. 1820, 7.) Largely, her opposition to the
General Synod also was rooted in her determined hostility to every form
of Romanism. (R. 1820, 55; 1821, 17.) "If you will consider," they said
to the North Carolina Synod, which had joined the General Synod, "what
pertains to true Christianity, you certainly cannot reasonably desire
that a government, shall be forced upon the Church, of which no trace
can be found in the Bible." (B. 1824, Anhang 2.) Indeed, in their
aversion to any and every form of synodical dominion over the
congregations Tennessee frequently went so far as to create the
impression that they viewed with suspicion and as questionable, if
indeed not as directly objectionable and sinful, every form of
organization of synods into a _general_ body. On this point, also in
her criticism of the General Synod, Tennessee frequently ran riot. But,
though occasionally losing her balance and making a wrong application of
her antihierarchical doctrine, the principle as such was sound to the
core and truly Lutheran. When the North Carolina Synod, without further
investigation, annulled a ban of excommunication which David Henkel's
congregation had imposed, Tennessee repudiated the action as an
infringement on the rights of the congregation. "For," said they, "it
cannot be proven anywhere that a synod has authority to break the
decision made by the church council and the congregation. In such
matters a congregation has greater power than any synod." (B. 1820, 20.)
In agreement herewith the Fourth Article of the constitution submitted
in 1827 provided: "But this Synod shall have no power to receive appeals
from the decision of congregations, with respect to the excommunication
or receiving of members. For every congregation in this respect is
independent of the Synod." The German version adds: "Hence Synod cannot
change or annul a decision of any congregation pertaining to the
exclusion or the acceptance of a member." (R. 1827, 22; B., 21.) The
form in which this article was finally adopted (1828) reads: "But this
Synod shall have no power to receive appeals from the decisions of, nor
to make rules nor regulations for, congregations." (B. 1828, 19; R.
1853, 25.) Neither did the Tennessee Synod arrogate to itself the right
to appoint pastors to the congregations or to remove them. The Report of
1824 records concerning Adam Miller: "This young man displays strong
inclination for preaching; but since he has produced _no regular call
from a congregation_, he could not be ordained." (14.) The Tennessee
Synod claimed no power whatever over the individual congregations. The
minutes of 1825 record: "It is reported that this Synod, in 1821,
ordered all the congregations not to suffer any minister who is
connected with the General Synod to preach in their meeting-houses. Be
it therefore known to all whom it may concern that there was no such a
resolution adopted; although, there was a petition handed in,
subscribed by three congregations in Tennessee, in which they stated
that they had adopted a resolution among themselves not to suffer a
minister belonging to the General Synod to preach in their
meeting-houses, and also petitioned the Synod to admonish all the
congregations to concur with their resolution. But the Synod sanctioned
their resolution only in part, in so far as not to be connected with the
General Synod; yet the Synod do not arrogate to themselves any authority
to prescribe to any congregation, whom they shall suffer to preach in
their meeting-houses. All congregations in this respect are independent
of the Synod." (R. 1825, 11; 1821, 7.) The Report of 1832 declared:
"This body arrogates to itself no power to make laws and rules for the
congregations, because it is against their rights and liberties, as well
as also against the Fourth Article of our constitution." Indeed, such
was their care not to exceed their authority that, _e.g._, Synod,
superscrupulously, refrained even from making a declaration how to
further the instruction of the young, but contented itself with merely
advising "the diverse church councils and congregations to make such
rules and arrangements how they might most fittingly and conveniently
(wie es fuer sie am schicklichsten und bequemsten sei) instruct their
young." (B. 1832, 9.) According to the Fourth Article of the
constitution it was the business of Synod "to detect and expose false
doctrines and false teachers." But the "Remarks" appended to this
article are careful to explain: "That it shall be the duty of this body
to detect erroneous doctrines and false teachers does by no means
suppose that the same does not also devolve upon individual churches and
ministers, for this body does not claim it as their prerogative. But it
is believed that this duty may be performed more advantageously by a
synod." (R. 1853, 25; B. 1828, 19.) Even the right of examining and
ordaining ministers was not denied to the congregation. The draft of the
constitution published 1827 declared: "The business of this body shall
be . . . to examine (_if requested_) candidates for the ministry who may
be called by congregations, and, if they be found qualified, to
consecrate them with the imposition of hands and prayer." (R. 1827, 22.)
The reading adopted in 1828 ran thus: "The business of this body shall
be to impart their useful advice . . . and, _upon application_, to
examine candidates for the ministry." (1853, 24.) The "Remarks" appended
this explanation: "Neither does this body claim the exclusive right of
examining and ordaining candidates for the ministry. For every
congregation has the privilege of choosing fit persons for their
ministers, and individual pastors have the authority to perform their
ordination. This is evident from the practise of the primitive
Christians, as well as from the Scriptures. But when any congregation
shall _request_ this body to examine and ordain the person of their
choice, it then devolves on this body to perform this duty. As the
aforenamed duties devolve on all churches and ministers, they
undoubtedly have the privilege to perform them jointly, _i.e._, they may
constitute a synod. But no Christian synod can have legislative powers,
consequently have no right to make rules for churches." (1853, 25.)
111. Rights of Laymen Recognized.--From the very beginning the
Tennessee Synod vindicated to the deputies of the congregations the
right not merely to listen, to witness, and to testify, when called upon
to do so by the ministers, as had been the custom in the Pennsylvania
Synod, but also, on equal terms with the pastors, to deliberate, decide,
and vote on all matters submitted to Synod. (_ Lutheraner_ 11, 166.)
Article Three of the Constitution declared: "It shall not be allowed
either for the ministers to transact any business exclusively of the lay
delegates, or for the lay delegates exclusively of the ministers;
provided there shall be both ministers and lay delegates present." (B.
1828, 16; R. 1853, 23.) The "Remarks" appended, add the following: "It
is not the privilege and duty of the clergy alone to impart their
counsel in ecclesiastical matters, and to employ means for the
promulgation of the Gospel, but also of other Christians. The first
Christian council was convened in Jerusalem, and consisted of the
apostles, the elders, and the other brethren. They decided the question
whether it was necessary to be circumcised. See Acts 15, 1-31. The
apostles were inspired, hence could have made the decision, without the
assistance of the lay brethren; but it appears they desired no such
prerogative. This precedent justifies the laity in being in council with
the clergy for the purpose of deliberating on the most important
ecclesiastical matters. Christians, in common, are called 'a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,' and
they are 'to show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of
darkness into His marvelous light.' 1 Pet. 2, 9. Now, since Christians
in common have such honorable titles, sustain such a high dignity, and
are to manifest the praises of God, it may be concluded that they have
the same rights in church-government as the clergy. St. Paul, in writing
to the Corinthians, said: 'Do ye not know that the saints shall judge
the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to
judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how
much more things that pertain to this life?' 1 Cor. 6, 2. 3. Not only
the believing ministers, but also the laity are saints. . . . Now, if
saints shall judge the world, even the angels, why should they not also
be capable and privileged to transact the most important matters
pertaining to the Church? That laymen should exercise equal rights with
clergymen in church-government, is not only Scriptural, but also
conducive to the preservation both of civil and ecclesiastical liberty.
. . . From the history of the Church it appears that whenever the clergy
governed without the laity, they enslaved the people, grasped civil
authority, and persecuted those who detected or opposed their aspiring
views. This not only has been the case under the reign of Popery, but
also some of the clergymen who called themselves Protestants have been
the most bloody persecutors." (B. 1828, 17; R. 1853, 23.) In accordance
with these principles, laymen in the Tennessee Synod were also
represented on, or even exclusively composed, most important committees.
Thus, in 1824, three laymen were elected members of the committee which
was to confer with the North Carolina Synod in an effort to remove the
doctrinal differences separating them. "They appointed farmers," Jacob
Sherer of the North Carolina Synod, in a letter, remarked contemptuously,
"to instruct us, who in public print have slandered us, and treated us
scornfully when it is known to them that the priests' lips are to
preserve the doctrine." David Henkel, then secretary of the Tennessee
Synod, however, in a "Note," recorded in the Report of 1825, justified
the action of Tennessee. Here he wrote: "I conceive it to be my duty to
observe that it is truly astonishing that farmers should not also, as
well as ministers, be capable of judging the Christian doctrine.
Whenever it shall be proved that farmers are not to read the Holy
Scriptures, then only ought they to be excluded from this important
business. It is well known that in the dark ages of Popery the layman
was not permitted to judge in religious controversies, and it seems very
alarming that Mr. Sherer has expressed a similar sentiment, inasmuch as
he considers himself much offended because the Synod appointed laymen
or, as he says, farmers to constitute the committee. That the priests'
lips are to preserve the doctrine does not prove that it is inexpedient
or wrong to appoint laymen to assist on deciding a dispute. It was
believed laymen would act more impartially, since the ministers are more
immediately concerned in this controversy. Neither can I discover that
all farmers are so contemptible a class of people (so niedertraechtige
Leute) that Mr. Sherer could possibly be offended at the appointment! If
in case the committee have published anything, which is contrary to
truth, Mr. Sherer is at liberty to make it appear." (R. 1825, 6.)