Document Actions
Rehabilitating Martin Stephan
by
Paul Sauer
—
May 15, 2010
Few people celebrate when their own history gets rewritten. That Jefferson may have fathered children with his slaves causes discomfort to the pristine historical narratives of our youth. That Joseph Smith may not have been an upstanding man for most of his life causes the Mormon church to rush to polemical defense. That Luther did and said things that at the very least don’t translate well into 20th century life has caused no less discomfort to Lutherans. It is certainly an uphill battle then, that descendants of Martin Stephan face in seeking not only to rehabilitate a man who would become the Missouri Synod’s deposed bishop, but to call into question the saintly narrative that has become the life story of Missouri’s founding pastor and first president, C. F. W. Walther...
Few people celebrate when their own history gets rewritten. That Jefferson may have fathered children with his slaves causes discomfort to the pristine historical narratives of our youth. That Joseph Smith may not have been an upstanding man for most of his life causes the Mormon church to rush to polemical defense. That Luther did and said things that at the very least don’t translate well into 20th century life has caused no less discomfort to Lutherans.
It is certainly an uphill battle then, that descendants of Martin Stephan face in seeking not only to rehabilitate a man who would become the Missouri Synod’s deposed bishop, but to call into question the saintly narrative that has become the life story of Missouri’s founding pastor and first president, C. F. W. Walther. Philip Stephan’s In Pursuit of Religious Freedom and Naomi Stephan’s martinstephanforum.com have become the leading voices in calling for Missouri to reexamine her creation narrative with a critical eye.
Of particular concern to Stephan’s descendants is the duplicitous manner in which Walther treated Stephan. That Stephan’s troubles began with the willful violation of the confessional by Loeber and Walther has had ramifications for today’s Missouri Synod.[1] Philip Stephan writes:
“This breach of the confessional was compounded by C. F. W. Walther when he withheld the charges from his mentor, Martin Stephan, on his May 15 trip to Perry County. Walther not only concealed this information from Stephan, he told others in the congregation. Seizing the moment, Walther grasped the opportunity to take leadership of the congregation. He and the other pastors did not come out untarnished in this entire matter.”[2]
Walther’s continued duplicity toward the Stephan family is documented in a letter from Martin Stephan’s son Martin Stephan Jr, who would later serve in the Missouri-Synod as a pastor:
Under those circumstances it was risky for me to return to the old Stephanists, to nevertheless prepare myself for the ministry (at the instigation of others) in St. Louis. I was risking their hate being carried over from father to son. Although Walther said it was a good sign that I had gone to them, I have experienced many times, unfortunately, that he knows how to say one thing while thinking another. What indeed proved to be the case was that he loathed me, and in what way and for what reasons can be demonstrated by a few anecdotes.
My father’s [Bishop Martin Stephan] followers had given him a farm in Perry County, Missouri. While I was studying in St. Louis, Walther persuaded me that I, as the heir, should relinquish all claims to this property in favor of a purchaser of his. I agreed to do so, without considering how unjust or presumptuous this request was. As far as I can remember I later learned what Walther had in mind with this ruse; to line the pockets of Barthel Senior’s heirs – one of whom was Agent General Barthel – either with the proceeds from the property or the property itself, I no longer remember exactly. Where did Walther have the right to do this, and wasn’t the way he behaved towards me an obvious act of revenge?
He passed the ill will and hate he felt toward my father arbitrarily and tyrannically on to me in the same way that the goodwill he felt towards the heirs of the old immigration company’s cashier was transferred from the father to the children. In legal terms it was a fraudulent swindle, and in terms of the seventh and ninth commandments it was clearly a sin to talk me out of my rightful inheritance – rightful following logically from the fact that no deed of purchase could be drawn up without other claims being relinquished. Right from the beginning the proceeds of this swindle helped form the base of the Missouri synod’s material and pecuniary resources.[3]
There is much that is good about the Missouri-Synod and much that can be learned from her history. Whether those days were a “Great Era of Unity and Growth” depend much on the perspective of the one who writes the history. For the Stephan family, those days were anything but great. Honest historical assessment would seem to call for at least some measure of repentance among modern day Missourians for the way in which her first Bishop was treated. That many of Stephan’s personal items, including the disputed “Trinity Chalice” continue to be held by Concordia Historical Institute is an injustice that can be easily corrected. As the Synod prepares to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Walther’s birth in 2011, it would seem to be an ideal time to correct a historical wrong.
[1] See Stephan Wiest’s “Why we are Scarred to Confess: The Use and Abuse of Private Confession among Our Saxon Fathers” Available from the Concordia Catechetical Academy. http://www.peacesussex.org/PDFs/CCACATON.PDF (CSTS 00-5)
[2] Philip Stephan, In Pursuit of Religious Freedom (Lanham: MD, Lexington Books: 2008) p. 197 Chapters from this book, which shed new light on the deposing of Martin Stephan, will be printed in the Summer 2010 issue of Lutheran Forum.
[3] http://martinstephanforum.com/pages/StephanFamilyArchives.htm
It is not just about Stephan
Posted by
Paul Sauer
at
May 17, 2010 22:10
I agree that one must be cautious about “alternative histories.” Phillip Stephan’s book concedes that Martin Stephan was far from a saint when it came to his family and marriage relationships. But what his history does bring to light is the assertion that for all of his faults Martin Stephan was treated duplicitously by Walther and others. Regardless of Stephan’s guilt or innocence (even conceding his guilt) the actions of Walther and others were certainly far from noble. Violation of the seal of the confessional, theft of property, incitement of mob action, double dealing in matters of business, lack of fairness in the way Stephan’s deposing was conducted, etc. all paint a picture of men who acted as if the ends justified the means.
Missouri’s history from the beginning, unfortunately, seems to be one where the sins and shortcomings of others provide rational for engaging in behavior that is equally immoral and irresponsible under the guise of serving the greater good. Dismissing that critique and the documentation which supports it, as the mere ramblings of ‘Stephan flat earth society’ folks does no favors to the historical record and worse allows our own creation story to continue the justification of such behavior down to our own day. The way to stop sin is through repentance. Not through repentance for other people’s sins (i.e. Stephan’s) but for our own (i.e. Walther’s and our other founders). To focus solely on Stephan is to miss the point.
Missouri’s history from the beginning, unfortunately, seems to be one where the sins and shortcomings of others provide rational for engaging in behavior that is equally immoral and irresponsible under the guise of serving the greater good. Dismissing that critique and the documentation which supports it, as the mere ramblings of ‘Stephan flat earth society’ folks does no favors to the historical record and worse allows our own creation story to continue the justification of such behavior down to our own day. The way to stop sin is through repentance. Not through repentance for other people’s sins (i.e. Stephan’s) but for our own (i.e. Walther’s and our other founders). To focus solely on Stephan is to miss the point.
BOC1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 18, 2010 13:00
Again, I would respectfully challenge your assumption that the "history" you are reading it, in fact, true, objective, complete and accurate. I would prefer to regard the accounts, reports, records and history that we have on the issues surrounding Stephan, written by eye-witnesses, to be much more reliable than the ex post facto explanations of those now attempting to portray Stephan as treated wrongly, unfairly and, as you say, with "duplicity."
Let's take but one small example. It calls for a great deal of credulity (that's a word, right?) to accept the assertion that Stephan personally owned a jewel encrusted chalice and it was "stolen" from him by Walther and company.
You continue to assert the "seal of the confessional" was broken. I challenge that assertion. The documentation I've read indicates that the women involved in the adulterous behavior by Stephan spoke of this behavior privately to others, and it was not simply a matter of a sacramental confession/absolution being divulged.
I know how important, even necessary it is, for the ALPB to posture itself as a source of "objective" history of The LCMS, but I think we all know better than that.
Simply put, I find this effort now to attack Walther and other LCMS fathers as being the perpetrators of evil against Stephan to be more than a little disingenuous, and predicated a lot of speculation, conjecture, rumor and reporting of half-truths.
Am I really to believe that a descendant of Stephan is capable of providing objective historical analysis with full, complete unbiased documentation for all his assertions?
Perhaps, to demonstrate good faith in its call for "repentance," the ALPB could own up to its complicity in the underhanded, deceptive tactics used by Tietjen and his inner circle in trying to foist on The LCMS the myths that what was going on in the classrooms at Concordia Seminary during the Seminex era was simply a matter of "fundamentalism" taking hold in the Synod. Perhaps the ALPB would be willing to repent of its covering up the truth of what happened then, in its complicity in advancing falsehoods, half-truths and simply lies about what was actually being taught? I would find that gesture to be a demonstration of the ALPB's willingness to do more than take potshots at The LCMS.
Let's take but one small example. It calls for a great deal of credulity (that's a word, right?) to accept the assertion that Stephan personally owned a jewel encrusted chalice and it was "stolen" from him by Walther and company.
You continue to assert the "seal of the confessional" was broken. I challenge that assertion. The documentation I've read indicates that the women involved in the adulterous behavior by Stephan spoke of this behavior privately to others, and it was not simply a matter of a sacramental confession/absolution being divulged.
I know how important, even necessary it is, for the ALPB to posture itself as a source of "objective" history of The LCMS, but I think we all know better than that.
Simply put, I find this effort now to attack Walther and other LCMS fathers as being the perpetrators of evil against Stephan to be more than a little disingenuous, and predicated a lot of speculation, conjecture, rumor and reporting of half-truths.
Am I really to believe that a descendant of Stephan is capable of providing objective historical analysis with full, complete unbiased documentation for all his assertions?
Perhaps, to demonstrate good faith in its call for "repentance," the ALPB could own up to its complicity in the underhanded, deceptive tactics used by Tietjen and his inner circle in trying to foist on The LCMS the myths that what was going on in the classrooms at Concordia Seminary during the Seminex era was simply a matter of "fundamentalism" taking hold in the Synod. Perhaps the ALPB would be willing to repent of its covering up the truth of what happened then, in its complicity in advancing falsehoods, half-truths and simply lies about what was actually being taught? I would find that gesture to be a demonstration of the ALPB's willingness to do more than take potshots at The LCMS.
An Advocate
Posted by
Peter
at
May 18, 2010 22:05
Pr McCain,
How would you serve as an Advocate for the Stephan family? What can you do to heal the hurt that is clearly still felt by that family and the other
"Stephan flat earth society types"? Do you think telling them that you are right and they are wrong will do it?
I must admit that I am surprised that calls to repentance are viewed in the LCMS as 'taking potshots' at the church organization. I suppose that's another difference between the LCMS and CORE.
How would you serve as an Advocate for the Stephan family? What can you do to heal the hurt that is clearly still felt by that family and the other
"Stephan flat earth society types"? Do you think telling them that you are right and they are wrong will do it?
I must admit that I am surprised that calls to repentance are viewed in the LCMS as 'taking potshots' at the church organization. I suppose that's another difference between the LCMS and CORE.
the process matters
Posted by
Paul Sauer
at
May 19, 2010 09:58
Simply attacking Stephan and his descendants does not address the historical facts. Stephan’s descendants were not the first to detail Walther’s participation in the violation of the seal of the confessional –Forester does the same: “Loeber is supposed to have been greatly surprised and probably was deeply shocked by what he heard. He promptly told the story to C. F. W. Walther . . . Thus for approximately a week the clergymen were the only persons in the group aware of what had taken place.“ (Zion on the Mississippi - 393).
Beyond the breaking of the seal of the confessional, though, Walther was also involved in the kidnapping of children (even Forester concedes this – but puts ‘an ends justifies the means’ spin on it), Walther was involved in deposing Stephan via a non-authoritative ad hoc committee of pastors instead of via the duly authorized judicial council as mandated by the regulations of the emigration society (the upcoming issue of Lutheran Forum will have a reprint of these critical events from In Pursuit of Religious Freedom), Walther was involved in dispossessing Stephan of personal property (both the acreage privately owned by him, and the chalice that you reference – there were actually two chalices, one given Stephan on the occasion of his 25th anniversary of ordination by a Polish count, and another one given to Stephan (or the society depending on the historian) on the 300th anniversary of the Augustana). All of these assertions are not the mere speculations of Stephan’s descendants these are documented from historical sources both from inter-Missouri sources at CHI, Stephan’s personal papers, the personal papers of his attorney, and records and writings from contemporaries in Germany). That Stephan may have been entirely guilty of immoral living does not excuse these actions of Walther, Loeber and others. There is much that Walther did in his ministry that was commendable. I believe that his contribution to revival in America of interest in the Lutheran Confessions, has been greatly underestimated (overshadowed by his writings on the church and law/gospel). Sadly his historical legacy in Missouri also seems to be to set a pattern for dealing with controversy in a way where the right thing is done but done in a loveless and dysfunctional way.
Which brings us to Seminex. Subsequent history has shown that the ALPB’s editors were wrong in defending some of the Seminex theologians. Current ALPB board member Gregory Fryer has written an excellent paper highlighting the disproportional role that AELC pastors played in leading the revisionist charge in the ELCA, on the basis of that flawed theology. But honest historical assessment would also show that the concerns raised by the ALPB editors about importing a “fundamentalist protestant” hermeneutic to combat those errors was also a grievous error – setting the Missouri Synod on protestant trajectory of which I know you, among others, have been critical. And therein lies the point of it all. Simply attacking an evil (or even simply a wrong) is no justification to use whatever means necessary. Far too often in the Missouri Synod we use our own cock-sure certainty and our opponent’s errors as an excuse to root out evil at all costs, and in the process we lose our own identity. Genuine truth and uncharitable arrogance are inimical to one another. History is seldom as clean as historians try and make it. Repentance is always appropriate whether from the ALPB, from the Missouri Synod, or those who follow in the legacies left through each institution.
Beyond the breaking of the seal of the confessional, though, Walther was also involved in the kidnapping of children (even Forester concedes this – but puts ‘an ends justifies the means’ spin on it), Walther was involved in deposing Stephan via a non-authoritative ad hoc committee of pastors instead of via the duly authorized judicial council as mandated by the regulations of the emigration society (the upcoming issue of Lutheran Forum will have a reprint of these critical events from In Pursuit of Religious Freedom), Walther was involved in dispossessing Stephan of personal property (both the acreage privately owned by him, and the chalice that you reference – there were actually two chalices, one given Stephan on the occasion of his 25th anniversary of ordination by a Polish count, and another one given to Stephan (or the society depending on the historian) on the 300th anniversary of the Augustana). All of these assertions are not the mere speculations of Stephan’s descendants these are documented from historical sources both from inter-Missouri sources at CHI, Stephan’s personal papers, the personal papers of his attorney, and records and writings from contemporaries in Germany). That Stephan may have been entirely guilty of immoral living does not excuse these actions of Walther, Loeber and others. There is much that Walther did in his ministry that was commendable. I believe that his contribution to revival in America of interest in the Lutheran Confessions, has been greatly underestimated (overshadowed by his writings on the church and law/gospel). Sadly his historical legacy in Missouri also seems to be to set a pattern for dealing with controversy in a way where the right thing is done but done in a loveless and dysfunctional way.
Which brings us to Seminex. Subsequent history has shown that the ALPB’s editors were wrong in defending some of the Seminex theologians. Current ALPB board member Gregory Fryer has written an excellent paper highlighting the disproportional role that AELC pastors played in leading the revisionist charge in the ELCA, on the basis of that flawed theology. But honest historical assessment would also show that the concerns raised by the ALPB editors about importing a “fundamentalist protestant” hermeneutic to combat those errors was also a grievous error – setting the Missouri Synod on protestant trajectory of which I know you, among others, have been critical. And therein lies the point of it all. Simply attacking an evil (or even simply a wrong) is no justification to use whatever means necessary. Far too often in the Missouri Synod we use our own cock-sure certainty and our opponent’s errors as an excuse to root out evil at all costs, and in the process we lose our own identity. Genuine truth and uncharitable arrogance are inimical to one another. History is seldom as clean as historians try and make it. Repentance is always appropriate whether from the ALPB, from the Missouri Synod, or those who follow in the legacies left through each institution.
Martin Stephan
Posted by
Carol Stephan
at
May 30, 2010 10:04
Rev. Paul T. McCain
If as you say the confessional was not breached because it was known that Stephan had a relationship with Ms Guenther, then what was the rush?
The rush was that the community was imploding. A good scapegoat was needed and the people needed to be whipped up into anger so that they would forget their complaints at least temporarily. Walther was shrewd; he saw the opportunity in the confession for just such a scapegoat. There was no time for admonition, much less for a trial and possible reconciliation – that would take too long and not have the desired effect. And so he rushed to Perry County, riled up the people into a mob and “sent Stephan packing”. The end justified the means – often the way Missouri has acted since then because that precedent had been set.
That is the way it goes with precedent. So when Martin Jr. returned after tending to his mother’s need until her death, he was a threat to that precedent. If he was a good preacher and good pastor, people might question the treatment of his father and Walther, being shrewd, made sure he was constantly hounded by questions. And once the precedent for denigrating the descendants, to make sure the mob action was never questioned, it continued for over a hundred years.
To me it is rather ironic that a church that prides itself on “God and Country” had in its beginnings a lawless act for which it has never repented. Because even if Stephan was guilty of adultery – and the actions of the community assured that this guilt or innocence could never be certain – the treatment of him was illegal and most certainly not Christian.
Your statements about Phillip and Naomi Stephan continue the denigration of the descendants – the end justifies the means. But what should we expect – that is a long-standing precedent!
Carol Stephan – I am not a descendant.
If as you say the confessional was not breached because it was known that Stephan had a relationship with Ms Guenther, then what was the rush?
The rush was that the community was imploding. A good scapegoat was needed and the people needed to be whipped up into anger so that they would forget their complaints at least temporarily. Walther was shrewd; he saw the opportunity in the confession for just such a scapegoat. There was no time for admonition, much less for a trial and possible reconciliation – that would take too long and not have the desired effect. And so he rushed to Perry County, riled up the people into a mob and “sent Stephan packing”. The end justified the means – often the way Missouri has acted since then because that precedent had been set.
That is the way it goes with precedent. So when Martin Jr. returned after tending to his mother’s need until her death, he was a threat to that precedent. If he was a good preacher and good pastor, people might question the treatment of his father and Walther, being shrewd, made sure he was constantly hounded by questions. And once the precedent for denigrating the descendants, to make sure the mob action was never questioned, it continued for over a hundred years.
To me it is rather ironic that a church that prides itself on “God and Country” had in its beginnings a lawless act for which it has never repented. Because even if Stephan was guilty of adultery – and the actions of the community assured that this guilt or innocence could never be certain – the treatment of him was illegal and most certainly not Christian.
Your statements about Phillip and Naomi Stephan continue the denigration of the descendants – the end justifies the means. But what should we expect – that is a long-standing precedent!
Carol Stephan – I am not a descendant.
POST DELETED
Posted by
Paul Sauer
at
June 02, 2010 14:39
Unless otherwise indicated, private correspondence is to be considered private, and should not be posted to this Forum.
Thank you.
Thank you.
boc1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
June 02, 2010 15:52
Pastor Sauer, the correspondence was NOT private, by any means, but an open letter sent around to a lot of people. I do not appreciate your censoring this PUBLIC letter that I and many other pastors received from Ms. Stephan on May 30. I also do not appreciate the fact that you deleted my entire response to Carol Stephan, Pastor Sauer. It does not speak well for the ALPB that now the only way it can avoid legitimate criticism of its promotion of dubious sources is by censoring comments on this thread.
your deleted post
Posted by
Paul Sauer
at
June 02, 2010 21:31
This is not a case of censorship, it is a case of appropriate net etiquite. If she wanted her letter posted to this forum she could have posted it herself. As your deleted post indicated she is clearly aware of this forum, yet she chose not to post her response here, or to contact either of the Lutheran Forum Editors to post on her behalf. In any event, you are free to repost what I deleted minus her letter. Unfortunately, our software does not give us the ability to go in and edit comments or I would have simply removed the offending portion of your post.
Martin Stephan/CFW Walther
Posted by
Norman Teigen
at
May 18, 2010 14:07
I confess ignorance about the issues and circumstances which you and Pastor McCain have discussed. All written history is subject to reevaluation and reinterpretation and you have done just.
As a member of a synod (the ELS) which owes much to the Waltherian tradition, i was greatly surprised recently to learn of Walther's views on slavery. I don't think that a 19th century pastor can be held too accountable for his views on old historical problems but these attitudes can be honestly studied and examined as a part of the historical record.
We Norwegians attached to Walther's confessionalism, as expressed in The Proper Distinction have ignored, I think, Walther's social attitudes towards slavery.
One can rightly honor Walther for his service but it is wrong to make a saint of him. The entire history, not just the one selected by Missouri Synod historical advocates, is fair game for the perceptive reader.
You have done well for us all by publishing these details.
As a member of a synod (the ELS) which owes much to the Waltherian tradition, i was greatly surprised recently to learn of Walther's views on slavery. I don't think that a 19th century pastor can be held too accountable for his views on old historical problems but these attitudes can be honestly studied and examined as a part of the historical record.
We Norwegians attached to Walther's confessionalism, as expressed in The Proper Distinction have ignored, I think, Walther's social attitudes towards slavery.
One can rightly honor Walther for his service but it is wrong to make a saint of him. The entire history, not just the one selected by Missouri Synod historical advocates, is fair game for the perceptive reader.
You have done well for us all by publishing these details.
BOC1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 18, 2010 14:16
Norman, nobody that I know of wants to make Walther a "saint" but blithely attempting to put forward facetious "legends" of Stephan's alleged "mistreatment" at his hands and others is equally wrong.
With all due respect, the opening sentence in your post: "I confess ignorance about the issues and circumstances which you and Pastor McCain have discussed" might be an indication that your commenting on these subjects may not be helpful.
With all due respect, the opening sentence in your post: "I confess ignorance about the issues and circumstances which you and Pastor McCain have discussed" might be an indication that your commenting on these subjects may not be helpful.
Onward
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
May 18, 2010 18:57
While this subject and its variables make for interesting soap-opera-type reading, I can't see that it very much matters or is applicable to the pressing issues the church faces now and in the future.
thanks for sharing
Posted by
David###
at
May 18, 2010 18:59
I'm glad you took the time to let the writers and editors here know that you don't find this article meaningful enough to be on the website, yet meaningful enough to comment on.
does onward give life?
Posted by
Peter
at
May 19, 2010 07:02
Kurt,
This issue clearly matters to some, and how it is handled reflects exactly on the church today. Instead of negativity and denigrating the issue as 'soap-opera type reading', what words of life do you have for them? Or, to say it another way, what proclamation of Gospel do you have for them?
This issue clearly matters to some, and how it is handled reflects exactly on the church today. Instead of negativity and denigrating the issue as 'soap-opera type reading', what words of life do you have for them? Or, to say it another way, what proclamation of Gospel do you have for them?
Handling the past
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
May 19, 2010 09:00
The comment referencing "how it is handled" suggests that the issue can be handled and brought to some kind of decent finality or agreement. And even if that could happen, which is very unlikely, how would it apply to the real-world Gospel issues the church needs to be facing now? Those issues include the need for justice in a world that is going in the wrong direction because of too much callousness and not enough empathy, with some of the trend caused by the institutional church itself.
the Gospel is NOT justice
Posted by
Peter
at
May 19, 2010 20:44
What I meant by how the issue is handled, is not that it must be settled once and for all here, but how all sides involved engage the issue and respect the various sides. The relationships made/broken here, while not earth-shattering, do have an effect further down the road, and can be prophetic for more controversial issues. The Gospel matters as much here as it does in the life of any other person.
Justice, however is NOT a Gospel-issue. Justice is that we all pay for the consequences of our sins as part of God's legal action. The legal realm here is also firmly that of the state, and not the church. The Gospel can and does touch the lives of those in any and all legal configurations, even those that oppress and destroy, regardless of whether those legal configurations change or not. The Gospel may give us the courage to properly fulfill our civic obligations, but as soon as we try to make it into a new legal order, we've lost the Gospel. I think trust in the Gospel will lead to social change, but that is as much a downstream effect of trusting Christ as the world going in the wrong direction is a downstream effect of our sin.
Justice, however is NOT a Gospel-issue. Justice is that we all pay for the consequences of our sins as part of God's legal action. The legal realm here is also firmly that of the state, and not the church. The Gospel can and does touch the lives of those in any and all legal configurations, even those that oppress and destroy, regardless of whether those legal configurations change or not. The Gospel may give us the courage to properly fulfill our civic obligations, but as soon as we try to make it into a new legal order, we've lost the Gospel. I think trust in the Gospel will lead to social change, but that is as much a downstream effect of trusting Christ as the world going in the wrong direction is a downstream effect of our sin.
Pastor McCain's comment to me
Posted by
Norman Teigen
at
May 18, 2010 19:24
I accept what you say and will make no further comments.
complicated...
Posted by
David###
at
May 18, 2010 18:57
Thanks for an interesting article! The truth is always more complicated than what gets passed down. I am glad Lutheran Forum ran this piece: I had no idea there were critical reexaminations about Martin Stephan going on. Sure, anyone can recognize the possible motivations behind his own heirs providing this other take on what happened, but that doesn't make it invalid. I'll be intrigued to see the excerpts in the summer issue.
without love...
Posted by
Theophilus
at
May 18, 2010 23:37
"With all due respect, the opening sentence in your post: "I confess ignorance about the issues and circumstances which you and Pastor McCain have discussed" might be an indication that your commenting on these subjects may not be helpful." -Paul McCain to Norman Teigen.
"I'd caution you against buying into the 'Stephan flat earth society' types who are attempting to put forward a mythical Stephan." -Paul McCain.
Are YOU, Pastor McCain really being 'helpful' with your comments? "With all due respect..." Where are you showing respect? Is such language "putting the best construction" on the situation? What did Pastor Martin Luther write about bearing false witness? Or does the position you hold mean that this does not apply to you?
You assume these people are "attacking" the legacy of C.F.W. Walther. Regardless of what assertions may or may not have been the case, C.F.W. Walther was and is a saint, not because of his own righteousness, but that alien righteousness which was imputed to him by Christ Jesus.
Is there truth to the allegations against Walther? Perhaps not. Perhaps some? Are we able to know completely? But to merely assume that Martin Stephan's decendants can have nothing worthy of pursuing, and to compare their historical records to flat earth revisionism is clear insult which no Missouri Synod pastor should be stating publicly or privately. Was Martin Stephan's behavior deplorable? Had Ferdinand Walther ever committed a sin, and if so, was it deplorable? Is your insulting of those who seek to consider revisiting an historical era in hopes of learning what truly did happen and how fair early historians were likewise deplorable? All these sins are deplorable, and are likewise sins against God Himself. But payment has been made for each of these sins by Jesus, the Son of God: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9).
Let us all be slow to 'speak', even over the Internet! It is noble to stand up for truth, and even accurate historical records, but without love we are nothing.
"I'd caution you against buying into the 'Stephan flat earth society' types who are attempting to put forward a mythical Stephan." -Paul McCain.
Are YOU, Pastor McCain really being 'helpful' with your comments? "With all due respect..." Where are you showing respect? Is such language "putting the best construction" on the situation? What did Pastor Martin Luther write about bearing false witness? Or does the position you hold mean that this does not apply to you?
You assume these people are "attacking" the legacy of C.F.W. Walther. Regardless of what assertions may or may not have been the case, C.F.W. Walther was and is a saint, not because of his own righteousness, but that alien righteousness which was imputed to him by Christ Jesus.
Is there truth to the allegations against Walther? Perhaps not. Perhaps some? Are we able to know completely? But to merely assume that Martin Stephan's decendants can have nothing worthy of pursuing, and to compare their historical records to flat earth revisionism is clear insult which no Missouri Synod pastor should be stating publicly or privately. Was Martin Stephan's behavior deplorable? Had Ferdinand Walther ever committed a sin, and if so, was it deplorable? Is your insulting of those who seek to consider revisiting an historical era in hopes of learning what truly did happen and how fair early historians were likewise deplorable? All these sins are deplorable, and are likewise sins against God Himself. But payment has been made for each of these sins by Jesus, the Son of God: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9).
Let us all be slow to 'speak', even over the Internet! It is noble to stand up for truth, and even accurate historical records, but without love we are nothing.
BOC1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 20, 2010 12:30
I have now had a chance to read through major portions of the book, from which, apparently LUTHERAN FORUM will be publishing excerpts. It is a book that was self-published by a retired psychologist, a descendant of Walther. It's only endorsement comes from a United Church of Christ minister, with a blurb on the back cover.
The web site listed in the article is run by another Walther descendant ,a radical feminist lesbian composer and amateur theologian of some sort of another. Why do I mention this? Every assertion must be weighed and evaluated on its own merits, but it is also important to recognize the worldview bring brought to anyone's particular presentation of an issue.
Based on my reading of this self-published book, and review of the web site forum, and other web sites associated with Dr. Stephan, see, for example: lifemissionassociates.com There we read that Dr. Stephan is: "a passionate advocate of inclusive texts, and texts written with a Lesbian- and gay-friendly perspective." We also learn that the artist:
"uses a wide range of themes, from celebration of the Vagina (Ave Pudendum) to a new choral Cantata written with the help of a grant from the Thanks Be to Grandmother Foundation, Mater in Memoriam, for SSAA and Chamber Ensemble, or for SSAA and Piano. This piece is noteworthy as it treats the mother-daughter relationship from a Lesbian perspective, while maintaining a universal appeal for non gay audiences."
In other words, I doubt we can expect to find any sympathy for the orthodox, confessing Lutheranism that Stephan and Walther both wanted to promote from sources like this. Which makes me wonder how objective their analysis and scholarship actually is?
I would simply say that the kind of "evidence" marshaled in the book is very much biased, tilted toward trying to prove what has already been assumed as fact, and makes use of what are frankly, quite dubious sources, a lot of hear-say evidence, that is all every bit as unreliable as any hagiography of Walther that ALPB rightly eschews.
I'm surprised ALPB would actually provide a platform for this kind of truly second-rate "scholarship," contained in the book and the frankly quite bizarre musings from the web site, and the web site owner.
Honestly, as I look through the pages of a certain Missouri-based weekly newspaper, I am accustomed to seeing this kind of axe-grinding conspiracy-theorizing that one finds routinely in that publication. I am surprised to see ALPB indulging in what is little more than the same. I would have thought ALPB might have considered having the purported "scholarship" being offered to be peer reviewed carefully by reputable and knowledgeable experts in the history of the Saxon immigration.
Disappointing, is an understatement.
The web site listed in the article is run by another Walther descendant ,a radical feminist lesbian composer and amateur theologian of some sort of another. Why do I mention this? Every assertion must be weighed and evaluated on its own merits, but it is also important to recognize the worldview bring brought to anyone's particular presentation of an issue.
Based on my reading of this self-published book, and review of the web site forum, and other web sites associated with Dr. Stephan, see, for example: lifemissionassociates.com There we read that Dr. Stephan is: "a passionate advocate of inclusive texts, and texts written with a Lesbian- and gay-friendly perspective." We also learn that the artist:
"uses a wide range of themes, from celebration of the Vagina (Ave Pudendum) to a new choral Cantata written with the help of a grant from the Thanks Be to Grandmother Foundation, Mater in Memoriam, for SSAA and Chamber Ensemble, or for SSAA and Piano. This piece is noteworthy as it treats the mother-daughter relationship from a Lesbian perspective, while maintaining a universal appeal for non gay audiences."
In other words, I doubt we can expect to find any sympathy for the orthodox, confessing Lutheranism that Stephan and Walther both wanted to promote from sources like this. Which makes me wonder how objective their analysis and scholarship actually is?
I would simply say that the kind of "evidence" marshaled in the book is very much biased, tilted toward trying to prove what has already been assumed as fact, and makes use of what are frankly, quite dubious sources, a lot of hear-say evidence, that is all every bit as unreliable as any hagiography of Walther that ALPB rightly eschews.
I'm surprised ALPB would actually provide a platform for this kind of truly second-rate "scholarship," contained in the book and the frankly quite bizarre musings from the web site, and the web site owner.
Honestly, as I look through the pages of a certain Missouri-based weekly newspaper, I am accustomed to seeing this kind of axe-grinding conspiracy-theorizing that one finds routinely in that publication. I am surprised to see ALPB indulging in what is little more than the same. I would have thought ALPB might have considered having the purported "scholarship" being offered to be peer reviewed carefully by reputable and knowledgeable experts in the history of the Saxon immigration.
Disappointing, is an understatement.
Any comment on the actual issues?
Posted by
Paul Sauer
at
May 20, 2010 13:45
So you have attacked the author… You have attacked the book's endorser… You have attacked the mode of publication… you have attacked the person who set up the website… you have attacked the ALPB… Do you have any thoughts on the actual sources that were cited, and the actual historical issues that are raised?
BOC1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 20, 2010 15:11
Pr. Sauer, at the risk of repeating myself: My opinion of the "sources" cited is that they are more along the lines of rumor, gossip, hear-say and other heavily biased accounts of the events, obviously aiming at painting the actions of Walther and company in the worst possible light, and Stephan as the persecuted victim. That is what I meant when I stated that the "evidence" presented in the book is "very much biased, tilted toward trying to prove what has already been assumed as fact, and making use of frankly, quite dubious sources, a lot of hear-say evidence" the sources and evidence strike me as unreliable as any hagiography of Walther that ALPB rightly eschews.
While you perceive my reporting of the background and positions of the persons writing a book and hosting a web site to be an "attack" I would simply restate that I believe that it is important to, consider the sources, of the information ALPB is apparently so interested in promoting and pushing.
It strikes me as more than a little disconcerting that the ALPB would be promoting the work of a person who composes this kind of choral piece: http://www.naomimusic.com/pages/order/yeltonRhodes.php
I believe it is worth evaluating a person's interests, passions and worldview as one evaluates their credentials to speak knowledgeably, objectively and fairly on the matter of Martin Stephan.
While you perceive my reporting of the background and positions of the persons writing a book and hosting a web site to be an "attack" I would simply restate that I believe that it is important to, consider the sources, of the information ALPB is apparently so interested in promoting and pushing.
It strikes me as more than a little disconcerting that the ALPB would be promoting the work of a person who composes this kind of choral piece: http://www.naomimusic.com/pages/order/yeltonRhodes.php
I believe it is worth evaluating a person's interests, passions and worldview as one evaluates their credentials to speak knowledgeably, objectively and fairly on the matter of Martin Stephan.
Is ALPB serious here?
Posted by
Rik
at
May 20, 2010 18:21
"It is a book that was self-published by a retired psychologist..."
Let me get this straight: Was the book self-published by a retired psychologist, or was it self published by an author in need of a psychologist? McCain's right: character does matter.
ALPB can certaionly do better than resorting to 'material' such as this!
Paul Sauer: Why do you refer to Pr. McCain's revelations about Philip Stephan and those related to this book as "attacks?" Come on, do you really believe this author is believable? One would hope someone challenging the historic character of Martin Stephan would be someone with character himself, and a worldview consistant with Christianity.
Let me get this straight: Was the book self-published by a retired psychologist, or was it self published by an author in need of a psychologist? McCain's right: character does matter.
ALPB can certaionly do better than resorting to 'material' such as this!
Paul Sauer: Why do you refer to Pr. McCain's revelations about Philip Stephan and those related to this book as "attacks?" Come on, do you really believe this author is believable? One would hope someone challenging the historic character of Martin Stephan would be someone with character himself, and a worldview consistant with Christianity.
I'm with McCain!
Posted by
Dr. Jack Kilcrease
at
May 20, 2010 14:10
I think all of Pr. McCain's criticisms are totally valid. Being married to a historian and having majored in history in college myself, I have grave doubts that a psychologist with no training in historical methods and a new age activist-musician are really the people to pick apart Missouri's beginnings- especially in light of the fact that they are massively biased in favor of their ancestor.
and yet...
Posted by
Peter
at
May 21, 2010 06:33
What's that comparison between a small, seemingly unqualified child confessing the Gospel and the seemingly qualified popes, princes, powers, and dominions? Just because you don't like a person's credentials does not mean what they say is automatically false. Instead of 'I don't like these data, so I'm dismissing them', how about showing how the data themselves are not correct?
What?
Posted by
Dr. Jack Kilcrease
at
May 21, 2010 07:05
Now, come on Peter- someone's credentials do say something. Yes, you are correct that people who are professionally trained in an area can often be right over against experts. Nevertheless, one's one's ability at a particular craft do lend themselves to the results- as do someone's biases. Furthermore, you're playing the game that Sauer did earlier. McCain and I are disputing the data as well- though the question of the source is an extremely valid one as well (as any historian will tell you!). For example, it can be demonstrated from other historical documents that Stephan's adultery was well known and that the breaking of the confessional (whether in fact this did happen) was not the cause of the community becoming aware of it. We could go on.
Lastly, the "child with Gospel" isn't a good example either, since his ability to confess the Gospel isn't dependent on a skill he learns , but rather on the monergistic action of the Holy Spirit. Historical science is a skill, having to do with our aptitude, free will, and reason. It is concerned with things below us, not above us.
Lastly, the "child with Gospel" isn't a good example either, since his ability to confess the Gospel isn't dependent on a skill he learns , but rather on the monergistic action of the Holy Spirit. Historical science is a skill, having to do with our aptitude, free will, and reason. It is concerned with things below us, not above us.
...
Posted by
Scott Geminn
at
May 21, 2010 11:58
What comes to mind here is Tietjen's "Memoirs in Exile". Not really the most credible source on the 74 issue and that comes out just by reading it.
Tietjen's memoir
Posted by
David###
at
May 22, 2010 10:52
"Memoirs in Exile" is a fascinating read and an excellent source for history. It is, blatantly, his memoirs. It is Tietjen's perspective and memories of what happened. No good historian or discerning reader would read such a work uncritically, but it remains a highly valuable source.
It is important, as theologians of the cross, to take things as they are, warts and all. There is no need to defend the histories presented by Stephan or Tietjen as completely unbiased--that would be bad reading. There is also no reason to completely dismiss them because they lack dispassionate distance from the events they recall or revisit--it is precisely because they are wrapped up in the interpretation of these past events that their voices are interesting.
It is important, as theologians of the cross, to take things as they are, warts and all. There is no need to defend the histories presented by Stephan or Tietjen as completely unbiased--that would be bad reading. There is also no reason to completely dismiss them because they lack dispassionate distance from the events they recall or revisit--it is precisely because they are wrapped up in the interpretation of these past events that their voices are interesting.
objective or subjective truth?
Posted by
Peter
at
May 21, 2010 23:41
Credentials don't say everything, and sometimes they don't say anything at all. In this case, no one is hiding who the author is, any more than anyone is hiding that "the establishment" has something to gain by the status quo. I think Pr Sauer made both very clear in the opening of the OP.
But regardless of who is bringing the issue up, the issue itself is still worth considering. So far the contesting of the data has been 'we don't believe anything anyone related to Stephan says' aside from the insistence that it was not violation of the confessional that revealed the adultery either because it was the women/others. That still doesn't address even the exerpts published here also alleging that even after knowing, Walther acted duplicitously, or the issue of personal property/estates. At the risk of putting words into Pr Sauer's mouth, I'd say most of the discussion that is of interest to him is under the 'we could go on'.
Finally, I stand by the child confessing the Gospel comparison. As soon as Truth gets invoked, it is no longer merely a matter of things below. I think Pr Sauer's suggestion of repentance also indicates this is more than "just" an historical issue. Regardless of the accuracy of the historical record, there is an issue of sinners in need of the Gospel. That cry comes especially from sinners. How do we answer that cry?
But regardless of who is bringing the issue up, the issue itself is still worth considering. So far the contesting of the data has been 'we don't believe anything anyone related to Stephan says' aside from the insistence that it was not violation of the confessional that revealed the adultery either because it was the women/others. That still doesn't address even the exerpts published here also alleging that even after knowing, Walther acted duplicitously, or the issue of personal property/estates. At the risk of putting words into Pr Sauer's mouth, I'd say most of the discussion that is of interest to him is under the 'we could go on'.
Finally, I stand by the child confessing the Gospel comparison. As soon as Truth gets invoked, it is no longer merely a matter of things below. I think Pr Sauer's suggestion of repentance also indicates this is more than "just" an historical issue. Regardless of the accuracy of the historical record, there is an issue of sinners in need of the Gospel. That cry comes especially from sinners. How do we answer that cry?
Something interesting...
Posted by
Scott Geminn
at
May 25, 2010 11:51
Stephan's grandson served as a pastor at the University Church in Bloomington, Indiana for many years. Having vicared in Bloomington @Faith Lutheran a few people told me that Stephan's grandson had a very different version of the story from what has been taught. I never got to hear or read it but I know that his grandson was greatly loved by the people whom he served.
The other thing that's interesting to me is the defense that Pastor McCain has put forward and I agree in some ways. Although, I think it reveals something more. Within the LCMS there is a great love for the culture that is fostered, a great love for our institutions and history. This is all good until it becomes a false god and romanticism takes over. In part, I think our love for the LCMS is sometimes larger than our love for God and his people. Just a thought.
The other thing that's interesting to me is the defense that Pastor McCain has put forward and I agree in some ways. Although, I think it reveals something more. Within the LCMS there is a great love for the culture that is fostered, a great love for our institutions and history. This is all good until it becomes a false god and romanticism takes over. In part, I think our love for the LCMS is sometimes larger than our love for God and his people. Just a thought.
boc1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 26, 2010 05:47
Scott, please tell me how and why you you agree with my defense, and if you are going to make such a sweeping accusation, show me also how my response indicates that I love the LCMS more than God and His people.
Here it is.
Posted by
Scott Geminn
at
May 26, 2010 12:15
Rev. McCain,
I agree in that we need to be careful of coming up with a revisionist history of Stephan, the facts are obvious concerning his character but that does not mean the said sources shouldn't be read or taken seriously on some level. For example, Tietjen's "Memoirs in Exile" are a bit hard to believe at times but one walks away knowing that there has to be some truth to what he is saying. Both sides didn't exactly behave in the most godly manner at all times. I'm sure the same can be said about Walther in the Stephan situation.
Your defensiveness is what stands out to me, that's all. Like I said, the willingness to fight tooth and nail to uphold an ideological perception of a person who was a sinful human being, who had flaws. ALPB does the same with Von Schenck. I do it too, from time to time. We are all guilty of doing this.
I agree in that we need to be careful of coming up with a revisionist history of Stephan, the facts are obvious concerning his character but that does not mean the said sources shouldn't be read or taken seriously on some level. For example, Tietjen's "Memoirs in Exile" are a bit hard to believe at times but one walks away knowing that there has to be some truth to what he is saying. Both sides didn't exactly behave in the most godly manner at all times. I'm sure the same can be said about Walther in the Stephan situation.
Your defensiveness is what stands out to me, that's all. Like I said, the willingness to fight tooth and nail to uphold an ideological perception of a person who was a sinful human being, who had flaws. ALPB does the same with Von Schenck. I do it too, from time to time. We are all guilty of doing this.
boc1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
May 26, 2010 14:29
Scott, again, I would ask you to point out specifically where you believe I am fighting to "uphold an idealogical perception of a person who was a sinful human being." I have indicated that I eschew any romanticization of Walther as much as ALPB.
I am firmly convinced that ALPB is using sources that lack objective credibility and in fact bring to the issue quite overwhelming biases that make their assertions and "evidence" about Stephan more than a little suspect.
Do you believe the author of Ave Pudendum is a person ALPB should be looking to for reliable data and information?
You still have not pointed out where you believe in my comments I am showing evidence of loving the LCMS more than God and his people. I would certainly like to be shown this, for I would not want actually to be guilty of that grievous sin.
I am firmly convinced that ALPB is using sources that lack objective credibility and in fact bring to the issue quite overwhelming biases that make their assertions and "evidence" about Stephan more than a little suspect.
Do you believe the author of Ave Pudendum is a person ALPB should be looking to for reliable data and information?
You still have not pointed out where you believe in my comments I am showing evidence of loving the LCMS more than God and his people. I would certainly like to be shown this, for I would not want actually to be guilty of that grievous sin.
...
Posted by
Scott Geminn
at
May 26, 2010 16:09
Like I said, it strikes me in your defensiveness of Walther. It's not a specific so to say, just your overall reaction. I never said that that was a sin you were guilty of, it was a suggestion, an observation. That's all. That's why I ended it with "just a thought." It wasn't meant in a malicious or nasty way. This happens all the time on the Lutheran Forum board. Something like this is blown out of proportion. It is true that love for our institutions and history sometimes precedes our love for the Church. I'd rather not go into detail concerning this point because I'm afraid I will upset others as well so I'll leave it at that. I will not comment again.
Bible Class on this very subject
Posted by
Brian Westgate
at
May 27, 2010 09:19
Recently, Pastor Joel Baseley did a Bible Class series on this very subject, of the beginnings of the Missouri Synod. He is associate pastor at Emmanuel Dearborn, and you may know him for his translation work. He recently published the second edition of "Luther's Family Devotions," and also has just finished the first year of Walther's Der Lutheraner. I think I remember him talking about the whole deal with the "breaking of the confessional" and why Walther didn't tell Stephan his purposes at first. I'll let him speak for himself though, partly because it's been well over a month since I listened to these sessions! Here's the link to the series: http://www.markvpublications.com/documents/biblestudies.html
Walther Stephan Revisitted
Posted by
Joel R. Baseley
at
May 27, 2010 11:58
I have not read the source materials referenced above. But it seems a few questions are being begged. I assume by the charge of "breaking the confessional seal" that the reference is the confession of sexual sins some women confessed to Loeber after his famous sermon. Certainly that is an important consideration. However, does making such a confession and receiving absolution preclude or somehow abrogate the right of those same women from seeking remedy from church authorities for behavior that would result in discipline? And how would one do that discipline after signing a document investing all church authority in the one being charged? And is this a private matter or does it begin to take upon itself a public character both by the public office that was used to perpetrate the crime as well as the scope of the problem impacting Stephan's public estate as husband?
The report I've seen is that Stephan was summoned to a public meeting to handle the situation. It could be argued that it was a kangaroo court so he refused to appear. But that somewhat deflates the charge that he was not confronted, when he refused that meeting.
In issue 20 of Der Lutheraner, Walther goes into some detail about the Stephanite affair. It is apparent that there is rancor involved. In fact, Walther claims that he and some others refused to sign the second document that invested authority in Stephan (the document of submission) because he says he had lost confidence in him. But the real nub of Walther's statements about the affair in that article doesn't mention a word about any scandal except the false doctrine of the church the company had embraced under Stephan and this is the main issue. The other issue is just a side show. The point of following Stephan that threw the Saxons into despair and confusion was coming to grips with their own sin under Stephan's leadership of believing that they alone were the church following the only true leader of the church, Martin Stephan, while they misjudged true Christians in Germany that remained in the church, such as she was. It was locating the church in Stephanism that was their sin. His misconduct was merely the means to expose their Stephanolotry.
And Walther certainly would not want us to exchange that Stephanolotry for Waltherolotry. But Walther's doctrine of the church is Biblical and Stephan's was not! Neither of their lives would be perfect. God grant they, and we, confess our sins and receive God's grace!
And no, I don't feel at all compelled to repent of Walther's sins. I have enough of my own to repent of, thank you. And who would be helped by doing so? But, GREAT liberal rhetoric!
The report I've seen is that Stephan was summoned to a public meeting to handle the situation. It could be argued that it was a kangaroo court so he refused to appear. But that somewhat deflates the charge that he was not confronted, when he refused that meeting.
In issue 20 of Der Lutheraner, Walther goes into some detail about the Stephanite affair. It is apparent that there is rancor involved. In fact, Walther claims that he and some others refused to sign the second document that invested authority in Stephan (the document of submission) because he says he had lost confidence in him. But the real nub of Walther's statements about the affair in that article doesn't mention a word about any scandal except the false doctrine of the church the company had embraced under Stephan and this is the main issue. The other issue is just a side show. The point of following Stephan that threw the Saxons into despair and confusion was coming to grips with their own sin under Stephan's leadership of believing that they alone were the church following the only true leader of the church, Martin Stephan, while they misjudged true Christians in Germany that remained in the church, such as she was. It was locating the church in Stephanism that was their sin. His misconduct was merely the means to expose their Stephanolotry.
And Walther certainly would not want us to exchange that Stephanolotry for Waltherolotry. But Walther's doctrine of the church is Biblical and Stephan's was not! Neither of their lives would be perfect. God grant they, and we, confess our sins and receive God's grace!
And no, I don't feel at all compelled to repent of Walther's sins. I have enough of my own to repent of, thank you. And who would be helped by doing so? But, GREAT liberal rhetoric!
Phil Stephan
Posted by
Gene Brueggemann
at
May 27, 2010 22:39
Phil Stephan is indeed a retired psychologist. It was his second career. His first career was as pastor in the Missouri Synod. His last ministry in Synod was campus pastor of University Lutheran Church in Boulder, Colorado. His father, Paul, served the Synod with distinction as pastor. One of his pastorates was at Mt. Calvary, St. Louis. The campus pastor Stephan at the U of Ind was Phil's uncle. The Stephan family served pastorates in the Synod for many generations. It is a remarkable record. Phil's book has a bias, to be sure, but that does not undermine its importance. The more or less official Missouri histories have biases as well. The background in Saxony is sketched and documented very well and fills a void in the historical record.
Confessional Seal
Posted by
John Hannah
at
June 06, 2010 16:42
Is there historical evidence that Ms. Guenther or "those same women" sought remedy from church authorities?
Missourians repent???
Posted by
Boaz
at
June 04, 2010 00:49
I don't understand the doctrine of repentence referred to here: "Honest historical assessment would seem to call for at least some measure of repentance among modern day Missourians for the way in which her first Bishop was treated."
That doesn't sound scriptural. Do I really have to scan through history and repent everytime some goofball claims some long-dead predecessor did something wrong?
That doesn't sound scriptural. Do I really have to scan through history and repent everytime some goofball claims some long-dead predecessor did something wrong?
Walther and Stephan
Posted by
Pastor Larry Peters
at
June 19, 2010 16:12
Only a fool would not admit that in Walther we had a willing leader desiring to lead and that in Stephan we had a flawed leader who abused his leadership. That said, the Stephan history is a good read. It does not do much to rehabilitate Stephan but it does place the whole history within another context. Walther was young and impressionable and could have seen Stephan's faults early on -- he was not great at hiding them -- but Walther surely chose to see what he wanted to see until Stephan's character flaws got in the way of things and then, understandable as it was, Walther was not so much looking to protect Stephan's rights or deal fairly with him as much as he was looking to salvage the whole endeavor... he was not without blame and neither was Stephan... I do not get as upset as some are about this history and its implicit attack on Walther... neither do I get as upset as some do about the origins of Missouri... when we write the history about ourselves we always look better than we do and when our enemies write histories about us, we look worse... so... it is a great read and I am glad Phil Stephan did us the service of the book.
BOC1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
June 20, 2010 09:38
The problem, Pastor Peters, is that while the book may be a "good read" it is sloppy scholarship, putting forward a bunch of rumors and speculations, with a bundle of hearsay evidence, asserting things that simply are not true.
And Lutheran Forum's complicity in promoting shoddy scholarship and endorsing a book, and a web site, run by a person whose credibility is nill is an unfortunate choice on their part.
And Lutheran Forum's complicity in promoting shoddy scholarship and endorsing a book, and a web site, run by a person whose credibility is nill is an unfortunate choice on their part.
Stephan History
Posted by
Pastor Peters
at
June 21, 2010 21:33
BTW the person who called me up and told me it was a gotta read book was David Scaer!
boc1580@gmail.com
I have examined the voluminous amount of evidence in the Concordia Historical Institute about the theological and moral failings of Stephan, and, to say the least, it is facile to suggest that he was the "victim" of the seal of the confessional being broken. The lie that the Saxons only knew of Stephan's infidelity because what was allegedly "confessed" has been spread by certain ALPB board members for some years.
He was a corrupt bishop, unfaithful to his wife, and left his followers, literally, struggling for their lives on a frontier he promised them would be a sort of Lutheran utopia.
The best thing that ever happened was when he was sent packing across the river. Walther and other repented of their sin of abandoning their calls and congregations in Germany, and realized that they had been misled by Stephan.
I'd caution you against buying into the "Stephan flat earth society" types who are attempting to put forward a mythical Stephan.