|Walther pretended he suddenly found out about Stephan's adultery, but Stephan left Frau Pfarrer in Germany and traveled to America with his young mistress, Louise Guenther.|
Norman Teigen has left a new comment on your post "Walther Said - "Slavery is good!"":
The responses on the ALPB Forum on this subject have been interesting. I had written that my comments on the NY Times had been published. I was brought to task for that and apologized because they had been transmitted, not published.
One really nasty commentator this morning questioned my faith. I was quite surprised by this but felt gratified by some who supported my attempt to get into a historical question. By this afternoon the offensive post had been removed.
It's really strange, isn't it, how some people feel that their particular ideas on a certain subject are sacrosanct. Doesn't say much, does it, about the intellectual breadth of those people.
GJ - Bishop Stephan's crimes are well known. So are Walther's. But the hagiographers tell a completely different story. Their lies explain why the good ol' Synodical Conference is in the dumper today, why the biggest deceivers and plagiarists get the most money - while workers starve and students enslave themselves to student loans.
Walther and Stephan had nothing against slavery. Neither do the Concordia Seminary profs.
I suspect that C.F.W. Walther was influenced by his Moravian background. Moravian missionaries, especially in the Caribbean, owned and used slaves.
I understand that Scandinavian immigrants were given theological and ethical exhortations from Europe to not settle in places where there was slavery. It is interesting that (according to census data) when Walther settled in Perry County there was a higher percentage of slaves in relationship to the rest of the population, than in other areas close by.
Walther was in deep theological error about the institution of slavery. And the church today should both acknowledge it and repent of it.
We can admire the good things he did and wrote while acknowledging his errors and deploring his wrongs. If interested, we can also examine how he came to the erroneous positions he did so that we might be able to avoid similar mistakes.
Good point. How did C.F.W. Walther come to his erroneous position? You can get a clue from the following statement by Walther (emphasis added):
We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. It is a brother of modern socialism, Jacobinism and communism. Together with the emancipation of women it is the rehabilitation of the flesh. As proof of this blood-relationship it suffices to point not only to its history, but also to the close union between abolition-minded representatives of Christianity and the abolitionist tendencies of anti-Christians and radical revolutionaries in church, state, and home. The more their non-religiosity increases and reaches the pinnacles of theoretical atheism and indifferentism, the more fanatically they fight for the principle of slave emancipation.