 |
| Walther anticipated the smartphone and the Starbucks coffee mug. |
From The Story of My Life by Matthias Loy. Chapter 8
Negotiations along this line were successful, and in 1872 the Synodical Conference was organized on a sound Lutheran basis and with principles that assured a consistent Lutheran practice. This was not only the largest of all the synodical bodies bearing the Lutheran name, but also the most thoroughly Lutheran in word and work. The Ohio Synod heartily joined in its formation, and I rejoiced in the attainment of a purpose which, in my sight, contained the promise of unspeakable blessings.
For years I was not disappointed in my expectations. We worked together with unanimity of purpose, and being one in our faith and our aim there was little collision in devising means for its attainment, and in the execution of our plans. Sometimes vestiges of feelings engendered by past conflicts cropped out, but the discussions were frank, and there was no need to withhold the expression of honest conviction. Yet all the while there was something which had a depressing effect on a large portion of the membership. The Missouri Synod dominated the Conference. It was numerically the strongest of the synods united in it, and it was the strongest in intellectual power and theological learning. Aside from the one master mind which dominated the Missouri Synod, this would not have been the case. Other synods had men of ability that rendered them the equals of the Missourians, with the exception of Dr. Walther, who towered above them all. As he was a man sincerely devoted to the Lord and to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I was glad that we had him among us, and was thankful that God had given us so powerful an advocate of a cause so dear to my heart.
But the good thing had its drawbacks. The Missourians were conscious of their superiority, and some were manifestly proud of it. Among them were not lacking weak brethren who manifested this in ways bordering on insolence, as though they would say, We are the people, but who are you? That was not the spirit of Dr. Walther and of the chief men among them. But even Dr. Walther was not wholly free from contributing to the depression. I do not think that he was of an arrogant and domineering disposition, but his experience was such that his demeanor not unseldom assumed that appearance. He was accustomed to have his doctrinal statements accepted as indisputably correct and his judgment assented to as decisive and final. He could brook no public contradiction when he had spoken. He had become a dictator by habit, without claiming to be this or to have any authority for it. This had the effect of inducing men to be silent when they should have spoken, preferring not to express their dissent when this might be followed by unpleasant situations. Once an important subject of discussion was left in such a form that I was uneasy, and some others were evidently not satisfied. We secured the appointment of a committee, composed of one delegate from each of the synods represented, to draw up a paper which should clearly state what we desired and obviate the ambiguity to which objection was raised. The committee met and performed its task with perfect unanimity. When we reported, Dr. Walther, who was acting as moderator, took the paper, glanced over it, and laid it aside with the remark that it did not express what he contended for and did not furnish what was wanted. Nobody said anything, and the paper was not submitted to the Conference.
On another occasion I was constrained to oppose a position which he took in support of a thesis that he presented. In my judgment the thesis was all right, but the argument used to establish it seemed to me to involve a principle which I regarded as erroneous and which might prove dangerous in theory and practice. I could not maintain peace of mind without stating my objections. Modestly I ventured to speak against his position, most sincerely prefacing my remarks with the statement, that one thinks twice or thrice before openly expressing dissent from a man like my friend, Dr. Walther, but that with all his gifts he is not infallible, and we owe it to our God and our Church to speak in defense of the truth as we see it, even though it be against a man whom we all delight to honor. My introduction produced such a sensation that my speech hardly received the desired attention.
To my astonishment Dr. Walther was seriously offended at my remarking, as an excuse for what might seem presumption on my part, the fact that he was not infallible. He took it as an insinuation that he nursed the delusion of his own infallibility. He declined to take any further part in the discussion of the topic, and finally withdrew the part of his paper which had been the object of my attack, while the thesis itself was adopted. But for several sessions a pall hung over our deliberations, which was removed only after mutual friends arranged for a private meeting between us, that explanations might be made and misunderstandings removed.
With such difficulties to contend with, our work went on less joyously than our unity of faith and purpose would have warranted, though it went on prosperously notwithstanding these drawbacks. Some of our people were certainly less eager to take part in the discussions and transactions of the Conference, and less zealous in carrying out its plans, than they would have been in other circumstances. They did not feel as fully at home there as they did at the conventions of our own synod, where no one was afraid to say what he thought and felt.
 |
| "Everyone has to agree with me, but just for the sake of good order." PS - "Get those Jackson books outta here!" |
