114. Refusing Fellowship to Non-Lutherans.--The purpose of the General
Synod was an external union of all bodies bearing the Lutheran name,
irrespective of their differences as to doctrine and practise, and to
cultivate intimate fraternal relations with other Evangelical
denominations. The Tennessee Synod, on the contrary, was not only
opposed to any kind of union with non-Lutheran churches, but also sought
to bring about a separation of the true Lutherans from the spurious
Lutherans, and to unite the former in defense of true Lutheranism
against Reformed and other corruptions then prevailing in the Lutheran
synods. Unity in the spirit, unity in doctrine, unity in faith and
confession, was viewed by Tennessee as the _sine qua non_, the
absolutely necessary condition, of all church-fellowship, church union,
and cooperation. This appears from their attitude toward the North
Carolina and other synods, as described above. While Stork, Shober, and
others advocated a union not only with the General Synod, but with all
religious bodies in America, the Henkels and their adherents declared at
the "Quarreling Synod," 1820: "The general union of the numerous
religious parties, though a very desirable matter, is not to be hoped
for, as we can clearly see that such a thing is impossible at this time.
How should it be possible? Some teach: Christ died on the cross for all
men to redeem all. Others teach: This is not true; He died only for the
small number of those who, according to the holy will and the wise
counsel of God, are elected from eternity and are compelled to be saved;
the rest of mankind, also according to His wise counsel, God, from
eternity, has ordained and elected unto damnation, and they must be
lost. Again, some teach: Baptism is necessary to salvation, because
Christ and His apostles teach thus. Others hold: This is not true;
Baptism is a mere outward sign indicating obedience toward the command
of the Lord and nothing more; Baptism is not at all necessary unto
regeneration, as regeneration is wrought by the Holy Spirit without any
means whatever. Some say: It is right to baptize children. Others
maintain: Infant Baptism is an institution of the Pope. Others: It is of
the devil. Some reject every kind of baptism. Such and similar are the
people who constitute the present so-called Christendom: opinions,
opposing one another, and that always will be opposed to each other! All
these are supposed to be united in one church, and to become one
congregation and one flock, all under the care of one shepherd. That
would be like stabling together sheep, goats, lambs, cows, oxen, horses,
bears, wolves, wildcats, foxes, and swine, and putting them under the
care of one shepherd, saying, 'Here you have a united flock which now
you may feed and pasture in peace; you have many heads under one hat,
take your place among them.' That some were much displeased by this
objection to the general union is not to be wondered at, for some of
that stripe were present. There were also some of almost all religious
parties in attendance." (B. 1820, 26.) It is apparent from these
statements that a general union of all denominations, irrespective of
their doctrinal differences, was certainly not relished by Tennessee in
1820. Twenty years later Synod still occupied the same position. In
1841, after discussing an appeal which had gone out to unite all the
different religious parties in one big body, Tennessee "resolved that
whereas the Church of Christ is a gathering of all true believers, and
is not now, nor ever has been, divided; and whereas it is impossible
that all the different, contradictory teachings should agree with the
Word of God; and whereas it is also impossible to bring about a
Christian union of all the different denominations without the unity of
opinions; and whereas the teachers do greatly differ in their views on
religion and the form of church-government: a union of all the various
denominations in one large body is both impossible and improper; and
even if brought about, instead of furthering the kingdom of our
Redeemer, it would harm the welfare thereof and jeopardize the religious
liberty of our happy land." (B. 1841, 11.)
115. Refusing Fellowship to False Lutherans.--That the attitude of
Tennessee also over against those whom they regarded as false Lutherans
was of a most determined and consistent nature, and free from all
unionism, has been shown above. Nor did they regard this a mere matter
of policy, but of conscience. With respect to their public testimony
against the errorists of the North Carolina Synod the men of Tennessee
declared: "Should any one raise the accusation that it was unbecoming
for us as teachers of the Gospel to publish and reveal this matter here
[in the Report of 1820], to him we give the answer: The prophets in the
Old Testament did also contend against every erroneous doctrine, and the
Apostles Paul, Peter, and John marked all such as taught false doctrine,
and warned the Christians against them. If, however, it can be proven
from Holy Writ that we proclaim erroneous or false doctrine, we will
suffer ourselves to be corrected. We cannot, however, for the sake of
keeping the peace, let everything pass and approve of everything they
preach, for we know that it does not agree with the Holy Scriptures. It
is certainly our desire to be able to live and continue to work in peace
and union with all members of the entire Synod. We cannot, however,
unite with them at present [because they were not agreed doctrinally].
We consider it our supreme duty and obligation to defend the doctrines
of our Church against all false teachings; and though they proceed from
such as call themselves Lutheran preachers, we cannot on that account
spare them nor keep silence in this matter, even if we could thereby win
their favor and the favor of all great men on earth." (1820, 31.) With
special reference to Shober, Stork, and their compeers Tennessee
declared: "Should we help them to cover such bold things as you have
here read [errors concerning Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc.], because they
belong to our organization and bear the name Lutheran? Can we do this
with a good conscience?" (1820, 31.) True, at the "Quarreling Synod,"
1820, the Henkels were charged with having served all religious parties
with the Word and Sacrament. They admitted that this was true, and
expressed their confidence that it had not been without blessing, at
least, for some. But they added: "This, however, must also be taken into
consideration, that they [the Henkels] had always taught such people
what our Church teaches, and that they had never preached anything else
in deference to them, or to please them. Now, if any one was agreed with
our doctrine, and hence felt free to hear our doctrine and to commune
with us, we could not hinder him. We do not regard the name of such
people, but what they believe." (1820, 25.) However, one will admit that
the practise of Tennessee at this early date does not appear to have
been fully consistent. The Report of 1820, for example, records: "With
the Evangelical Reformed David Henkel had no quarrel that we know of,
for many of them, who are members in good standing, receive Communion
from him." (18.) The following remark of the same Report uncovers a
similar inconsistency: "Should any one who has been baptized according
to Christ's command, and who has been confirmed in another church,
desire to commune with us and to be in fellowship with our Church, it
shall be permitted him, and he may be looked upon as a member of the
Church without being baptized or confirmed for the second time." (5;
1831, 8.) These shortcomings, how ever, do not dispute the fact that the
Tennessee Synod, in a manner most energetic and persistent, endeavored
to steer clear of, and opposed every kind of, unionism with the sects,
as well as with unfaithful Lutherans. In 1886, however, Tennessee,
untrue to its noble traditions, participated in the unionistic
organization of the United Synod in the South, and in 1918 she joined
the Lutheran Merger, which brought her into complete fellowship with all
the unionistic synods that constituted the General Synod, opposition to
which having been the primary cause of her separate organization in 1820.