Saint and heretic: Wilhelm Loehe in German historiography since 1872.

Loehe is brought home to his church

Wilhelm Loehe died January 2, 1872. Within a decade of his death, in 1881, this statement was inserted into the third edition of the Realencyklopadie (RE), the most prominent German theological reference work: "Wilhelm Loehe is a man of the Church of Bavaria, and that has been fortunate for both this church and Loehe."

Such fortune, however, did not come about without detours. Moreover, one wonders how Loehe can be called there "the great apologist of the people's church [Landeskirchentum]" (RE 8:582.27). (1) Are there not overwhelming references that invalidate such an assertion?

The main objection, but not the only one, is Loehe's seriously intended endeavor to pursue the way of a free church, leaving the chains of patronization and restriction by the state church. This was still a pretty big sour point in 1881. In the decade after his death those who followed Loehe were still told that Loehe had been an opponent of the territorial church and, moreover, an opponent of "everything which is called people's or state church" (578.14). To put it bluntly, he opposed "the territorial church concept altogether" (578.4). How can he be at the same time the "great apologist of the territorial church"? We could ask how, according to the constitution of the church or theologically speaking, Loehe could turn from a "heretic" or at least "schismatic" to a saint. Let us take a closer look.

Paradoxically, his deep insights into the faults of the church were contrasted without interruption with his glowing view of the splendor of the church (578.6-8). This could only be to the disadvantage of the real and visible church. For that church Loehe had great hopes in the year of the 1848 revolution. This revolution raised the possibility that the ties with the worldly authority could be torn asunder. These ties had become ever more intimate since the Reformation but traced their parentage to Emperor Constantine (578.14-16). Not even ten years after Loehe's death, one already had the fitting heresy labels at hand: his views are permeated by Donatism, they show an individualistic disease, and are not without "romanticizing" traits (578.42-43).

Is this the picture of a "great defender of the territorial church"? Hardly! But the line of accusations is not yet complete. The most serious one states that in Loehe one finds "a kind of excommunication of all those who hold views different from his own" (579.54).

Here we are confronted with the central issue for Loehe: the sharing of the Lord's Supper with non-Lutherans, which again was an ecclesiological issue. Repeatedly, Loehe wanted to clarify this issue as late as 1861 (582.37-38). But he did not do it by continuously reiterating his already known standpoint. It is admitted that he had the ability to change, to adapt, and to pursue new avenues of thinking. How can we understand that such fundamental criticism against the existing church can, with some legitimization, be introduced as "the great apologetic of the territorial church"?

There does seem to be an explanation. In 1881 one endeavored to integrate Loehe into the history of the Church of Bavaria. His accomplishments were held too much in esteem, his reputation was too significant, to admit that all of this originated only in contrast to and in conflict with the church or even in spite of the church. No, one was also interested in a piece of hagiography, all critical description notwithstanding. This already had become true for Neuendettelsau, the place in which Loehe lived and worked.

Especially in this lonely and secluded place, Loehe was to bring to
blossom his creative powers in an astounding way. This humble village
has become a celebrity in the kingdom of God. Through Loehe's efforts it
has been transformed into a great Christian colony, into a city on the
mountain. From there, the sanctifying rays of merciful love have touched
two continents. (577.46-51)

And what is the "saintly" character in Loehe's life? Simply that he had not separated himself from the church. He had not left the office of a pastor in his church "denying himself in a way which honors him" (582/583). In his "whole personality" Loehe was "a celebrity in God's kingdom" (583.20).

But the golden background of this painting of a saint intended for Loehe is not allowed to become too golden. In this 1881 characterization of Loehe, we hear nothing of God's grace or similar items but of the benevolence of the church and the chances the church granted Loehe. The Church of Bavaria has always given protection to Pastor Loehe when he was in conflict (583.6-8), etc. But why do we hear only very briefly that four times Loehe's application was rejected when he was yearning for a pastorate in the city (577.42-44)? Why do we hear immediately of "a higher providential guidance"? With this kind of interpretation we are assured that Loehe has his place in the church with his hagiographic traits and with his evident and undeniable achievements in the upbuilding of congregations, diaconal work, mission, liturgy, and practical ecclesial publications.

This view of Loehe between heretic and saint has been painted by a person of the church, Adolf von Stahlin (1823-1892). Very early he endeavored to claim Loehe also for the church in his historical evaluation. Stahlin was a brother of two Neuendettelsau deaconesses, one of them the long-tenured head deaconess, Therese Stahlin. Stahlin wrote this portrait of Loehe as Oberkonsistorialrat (chair of a division of church headquarters in Munich). In 1883 Stahlin was promoted to Oberkonsistorialprasident (the equivalent to bishop, a title which was taboo for Lutherans under the Roman Catholic kings of Bavaria). In this position he was the successor of Friedrich von Roth (1780-1852) and a predecessor of Hermann Bezzel. His prominence assured that Stahlin's view had a lasting effect.

This was not the first attempt to portray Loehe and his work and to determine where it belongs. Already in 1873 Johannes Deinzer started a work on Loehe, eventually comprising 1,300 pages, which still today is essential for any Loehe research. It was not completed until 1892. Deinzer does not portray Loehe as a saint. "The composer of this biography did not intentionally want to idealize," writes Deinzer. (2) Personal notes in Deinzer's three-volume work defend Loehe repeatedly, such as in the suspension affair of 1860, when Loehe refused to perform a wedding (2:490-512), or with regard to Loehe's adherence to his strongly Lutheran convictions with regard to the Lord's Supper, and in other developments and changes throughout the years (2:523). Deinzer is inclined to excuse Loehe's stubbornness and not to emphasize unnecessarily his abrasive attitude in the issue of the separation from the Church of Bavaria. Deinzer knows very well the problem of painting Loehe as a figure fitting somewhere between saint and heretic. Some even accused Deinzer of employing not enough "necessary criticism," although he refutes this charge in a few instances with reference to a few "shadows" in Loehe's life and work (3.335-38). Several times he objects to Adolf Stahlin's description of Loehe (3.332-33). He does not follow the "ecclesial view" of Loehe that ultimately wants to see something like a misunderstanding in all of Loehe's conflicts with his church.

Distance and closeness to Wilhelm Loehe

The basic lines in depicting Loehe and his work appear to be drawn: both a halo and the hat of a heretic. Both items do not seem to fit this pastor of a Frankonian village, a pastor who had such a far-reaching effect. But one item is evident: Loehe does not fit either of these descriptions exactly. In a historical and theological direction, there is also a remarkable attempt toward a fruitful appropriation of Loehe and his work in a 1908 portrait of Loehe by Bezzel.

In 1908 Bezzel had been for seventeen years Loehe's second successor as Rektor of the deaconess motherhouse. Now the occasion had arrived to celebrate Loehe's centennial birthday. This undertaking was not without danger. Bezzel escaped from becoming the tool of an uncritical, non-energetic, and very soon also embarrassing cult of remembrance at a jubilee. But how did he manage that? On first sight, it was his decided fulfillment of his pastoral responsibility to be a teacher. Of the different duties of a pastor--only as a pastor did Bezzel want to serve as Rektor in Neuendettelsau--teaching was especially important for him. (3)

Assuming this responsibility, Bezzel published at least ten items on Loehe and gave a number of lectures about him--the exact number cannot be ascertained precisely. All of this was done in 1907-08. Bezzel escaped naive hagiography and the cult around Loehe through his hard-nosed historical and theological inquiry, using not only the common and readily accessible sources but also many sources that were difficult to obtain and were not yet published. Bezzel moved with ease in the field of research in church history. But as Loehe's successor, Bezzel also had to point out for his own time the evident significance of Loehe. The most critical, most sensitive, and most demanding group to whom this undertaking was directed was not the readers of the approximately ten journals but a group of young women who were to be consecrated in their service as deaconesses on February 21, 1908. We still have the text of the lectures that Bezzel presented to these women in a dozen class units on the topic "Wilhelm Loehe and His Time." The text is not yet published. Bezzel researched, thought, wrote, and acted in the presence of eyewitnesses of Loehe. His view had to stand up to these witnesses without distorting historical veracity. Loehe was, so to speak, still present in relatives, descendants, family friends, and older deaconesses, especially Therese Stahlin, as well as in older members of the congregation. Of course, there also were people who were opposed to Loehe and perhaps were still so in Bezzel's time.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In the more than ten contributions of Bezzel (4) the question emerges: What really are the most fascinating and inspiring ideas in Bezzel, even at points where one would not necessarily agree with him? We find the answer in an unexpected place--the so-called consecration lectures, "Loehe and His Time" of 1908. Bezzel says at the end of the eighth lesson, "The friends who sought out Loehe, were respectful enough to honor his greatness, but not great enough, to restrain his greatness."

This assertion is a key. Here somebody confronts Loehe. But how was Bezzel great enough to restrain Loehe's greatness? Very simply, in that he declared that one could not copy him, and therefore one could also not declare him as worthy of being copied. "One should not demand new editions of Loehe. The chorus of the unavoidable, the imitators, is not yet the cloud of witnesses," says Bezzel. (5)

Bezzel, so to speak, releases Loehe for an appropriate evaluation, and that means also for an assessment of his historical and theological significance. For Bezzel, Loehe could become a "figure of church history," and thereby Loehe could be interpreted in his historical context. One need not try to find answers to questions that emerged half a century after Loehe's own activity. Bezzel was very sober at this point. In Bezzel we notice an inextricable synthesis of (1) defending Loehe, (2) renouncing the outdated, (3) naming the problematic, and (4) marking that which, according to Bezzel, remained valid.

We only want to adduce that which, according to Bezzel, remained valid in Loehe. It is not his long line of exemplary traits and actions in many different fields of activity. No, for Bezzel there is only this one point in which, according to him, everything comes together in Loehe. In 1908 Bezzel sees the development of the church converging on the issue: Do we give credit to the Word of God and the one to whom it points and to whom it witnesses? Or will the transsignification, the transvaluation, and ultimately the emptying of every authority of the Word of God gain the upper hand? In this situation, according to Bezzel, Loehe becomes of immeasurable significance as the one who "lived from the Word of God and who lived in it, who depicted it, grasped it faithfully, and experienced it in love" (AELKZ 1908, 739). This is a fundamental assertion.

According to Bezzel's own view, the "Word of God" always preceded the sacrament. (6) Bezzel clairvoyantly sensed a development in his church that demanded from him very soon a discerning pastoral word against liberal theology. (7) Can one not see here in Bezzel a very independent, but in this respect also a real "disciple" of Loehe? He was one who knew where he did not have to check Loehe's greatness, where he also was not allowed to do so, because it was not Loehe's greatness in which he trusted at this point.

Bezzel was thoroughly thankful that his territorial church had found an affirmative relationship to Loehe and his work. As far as I can see, he talks about this only in a nonpublic way, meaning in his lectures to the deaconesses. "The territorial church ... is beginning to bear Neuendettelsau and to get along with it." We can say that by now Loehe had become fully accepted at the Oberkonsistorium (church headquarters), which calls him "the faithful person of God," the "sublime witness in its prophetic anointment and power," "hero of faith," and "example" (!) (8) Does this enunciate a hagiography of Loehe, or is it a whitewashing of the village pastor of Neuendettelsau from every suspicion that he distanced himself from the church? Bezzel confessed that for him Loehe's remaining in the territorial church provided evidence that one can still have hope for this church.

The course of Loehe research

German Loehe research has taken place largely outside the academic realm, and the interpretations of Loehe vary extremely. The great synthesis still appears in the far distance; a valid and comprehensive view of Loehe is still missing. For young theologians and doctoral students there is probably a certain hesitancy to engage in Loehe research. Not everybody has as much courage, perseverance, energy, and clear perception of the issues as does Christian Weber. We can only congratulate him for his work on Loehe. (9)

There are several reasons for the hesitancy to engage with Loehe. Much is demanded because of Loehe's versatility. In which of the classical theological disciplines does he actually belong? They all demand their own right! Should one not be a generalist to present a somewhat adequate and impartial description and evaluation of Loehe? Indeed, this was the case for a long time. Bezzel used approximately fifteen Loehe publications of such generalists that extend into the first decade of the twentieth century.

Quite naturally the Loehe literature of this "early time" had sometimes panegyric traits. Occasionally one can summarize them in the category of "pious tracts." Such a popular depiction of Loehe as is printed as a Festschrift of the Bavarian Protestant Association of Pastors was published in 25,000 copies and bore the motto "He has died--yet he still lives." (10) One has to ask very pointedly: What should be transmitted to the congregations with such a Loehe tractate? What were the goals and the contents of such a remembrance? What were the theological and religious concerns? Here sympathetic church historians have an open field in front of them. Yet we cannot quickly pass over such trivial-sounding Loehe literature.

But it also is not bad that the time has progressed even for church historians who are concerned with Loehe research. Until 1945 Hans Kressel with his work Wilhelm Lohe als Prediger (Wilhelm Loehe as a Preacher, Gutersloh 1929) erected a measuring stick for the future: back to the sources! The topic of this book had been suggested from the angle of practical theology by Christian Burckstummer of the Erlangen faculty. It is based on difficult foundational work with the sources. Scientific Loehe research reached a new level with this publication. The comment by Martin Wittenberg appears to be correct: "Seen altogether, Kressel can be regarded as the initiator of modern scientific Loehe research." (11) This was notwithstanding that Kressel had a deep appreciation for Loehe. This appreciation included the commemoration of 75 years of the deaconess motherhouse and also 75 years of the founding of the Iowa Synod. Careful historical research in Loehe's sermons eventuated in a very optimistic announcement of a new time without "degenerated and secularized sermons": "We greet Loehe ... and follow him ... as a teacher of our days" (p. 364). Much there still goes in the direction of hagiography--certainly. In an unbroken tradition Loehe was being obligated to speak to the twentieth century. And this asked too much of him.

With the passing of time, there arose a more realistic view of Loehe. A discerning eye sees whether Loehe's works are "legitimating, affirmative, or presenting an identity," whether the Loehe picture was painted with too little criticism of his ideology. There remains then only the verdict from the liberal side, "conservativism," and from the ecclesial-theological side, "restoration." (12) In this way, one can sort and classify a multitude of important publications concerning Loehe without escaping always from the occasional charge of being prejudiced oneself. But it is helpful to use such rubrics as preliminary, and I emphasize preliminary, in the vast terrain of the approximately 350-400 titles of Loehe publications that were written just between 1945 and 1990. (13) Otherwise one gets lost in the labyrinth of works that are not always divided into the classical disciplines used by Loehe: sermons, catechesis, counseling, liturgy, mission, diaconal work, and congregational governance.

Since then there are also important narrower areas that have been worked on as a contribution to a possible comprehensive picture--for instance, the contested issue of Loehe's attitude toward the Awakening and toward confessionalism. (14) When finally social-historical and historical-feminist problems are introduced into researching Loehe's diaconal thinking and work, there is no possible way to come up with the painting of a saint.

In a review of research concerning the most recent Loehe literature, one can read that concerning the issue of the building up of the church, Christian Weber ultimately arrives at a "positivistic, assenting judgment ... by making Loehe's sentiment his own." (15) But how can we know for sure what Loehe thought? We owe much to The Society for Home and Foreign Mission in the Intention of the Lutheran Church (Gesellschaft fur Innere und Aussere Mission im Sinne der lutherischen Kirche), the old German Loehe Society of 1849, who on January 21, 1946, gave Pastor Klaus Ganzert the charge to edit Loehe's works. From 1951 to 1986 twelve volumes were published, seven by Ganzert and five by Curt Schadewitz. This edition is unique with regard to theological authors of nineteenth-century Lutheranism. It is indispensable for Loehe research. But still today there are publications even in textbooks that do not know and do not mention this work. The amount of original source material presented in this work is gigantic. The intimacy of both editors with Loehe's writings, including his letters and diaries, is astounding and shows up well in the introduction to the texts. Of course, one should not pass over the problems of this edition in silence. Nevertheless one does not overstate it to say that this undertaking from 1951 to 1966 and again from 1985 to 1986 gave a decisive impetus to Loehe research in the second half of the twentieth century and will have a long-lasting effect.

We must not forget that these editors, and even Martin Wittenberg, who since 1933 researched Loehe intensively, still held that Loehe's thoughts, and especially his liturgical decisions, would speak immediately to Christians--for instance, that his worship setting of 1844/1852-53/1859 should still be practiced in 1953. (16) But one did not paint a picture of a saint. Editions of sources do not fit such a picture. And the edition itself survives such an overwhelming demand pretty well. The method of editing, including the comments, this nearly unbroken access to Loehe, showed results: Loehe was not presented as a "figure of church history" in an unmitigated way.

In conclusion, I want to mention some concrete Loehe research programs that perhaps can be pushed forward through the decisive promotion of the two Loehe Societies now in existence: the previously mentioned one and the most recently founded International Loehe Society. Here one can see where the use of the Gesammelte Werke (Collected Works) of Loehe is difficult. For instance, GW will be supplemented by a series of supplements (Erganzungsreihe; GW .E) in which texts will be published that are still missing in the GW. For example, in 1991 the Sermons on the Lord's Supper of 1866 were published. Then a bibliography on Loehe's writings will be published including secondary literature. We hope that in the GW .E also an "Index of the Correspondence by Wilhelm Loehe" can be included. Three thousand items of the approximately nine thousand present in the Loehe archive of the Society for Home and Foreign Mission in the Intention of the Lutheran Church have been included in a data bank. To complete this index, more intensive research outside Germany is needed. In the GW .E also an index can be included of the items that are available in the archive of the Society for Home and Foreign Mission in the Intention of the Lutheran Church. A Wilhelm Loehe Study Edition will be started in 2006 with a new edition of Loehe's Three Books on the Church of 1845 including a commentary. Finally, in the Collected Works: Appendix, indices for the volumes of the GW will appear to unlock more easily the treasures contained in these volumes. An index of "Where do I find what in the GW" will also appear.

A necessary emphasis of Loehe research consists in scientific engagement with the sources about Loehe. Without question Loehe has become a "figure of church history." To correspond to that figure, editions of his works must be drafted and supplemented.

For a valid Loehe depiction, a discourse with the sources is an unquestioned presupposition of all sober interpretive portraits of Loehe. To present him as a saint or a heretic--to paint the golden background or show the dark sides of this pastor from Neuendettelsau--may miss what is available in the sources. This is forbidden to any responsible historiography that wants to do justice to Loehe.

--Translated by Hans Schwarz

Dietrich Blaufuss

Erlangen, Germany

Co-President, International Loehe Society

1. Adolf Stahlin[dagger] ([Albert] Hauck), "Loehe, Wilhelm, gest. 1872," 3d ed. of Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche [RE[.sup.3]] (Leipzig 1902) 11:576-86. The first presentation in the 2d edition of Realencyclopadie [RE[.sup.2]] (1881) 8:711-25 is more extensive. References in this essay are from the 3d ed.

2. Johannes Deinzer, Wilhelm Loehe's Leben. Aus seinem schriftichen Nachlass zusammengestellt. Vol. 1-3 (Nurenberg: Gutersloh, 1872-1892), 3:336.

3. Manfred Seitz, Hermann Bezzel. Theologie--Darstellung--Form seiner Verkundigung (Munich, 1960, and Wuppertal, 1987), 31-33, 35-37.

4. Published in 1908, for instance, in Allgemeine Evang. Luth. Kirchenzeitung, Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift (AELKZ) but also in almost obscure publications. Important, however, is the Korrespondenzblatt der Diakonissen von Neuendettelsau.

5. Korrespondenzblatt der Diakonissen von Neuendettelsau 51 (1908, Nr. 4/5): 16.

6. Johannes Rupprecht, Hermann Bezzel als Theologe (Munchen, 1925), 369/ 7, n. 1, taken from Bezzel's consecration lectures for deaconesses of 1903.

7. Seitz, Hermann Bezzel, 43-51.

8. From the word of the Oberkonsistorium on the occasion of the centennial birthday of Loehe, reprinted by Bezzel in Korrespondenzblatt der Diakonissen von Neuendettelsau 51 (1908, Nr. 4-5): 16-17.

9. Christian Weber, Missionstheologie bei Loehe: Aufbruch zur Kirche der Zukunft (Gutersloh, 1995).

10. Found in Concordia: Mitteilungen des Neuendettelsauer Missionskreises 55 (1967, Nr. 158-60): 647-51, 678-81, 711-16; on pp. 715-16 the motto is explained.

11. Loehe, Abendmahlspredigten (1866), in GW, supplementary volumes, vol. 1, ed. Martin Wittenberg (Neuendettelsau, 1991), 13 n. 1.

12. Ulrich Schindler-Joppien, Das Neuluthertum und die Macht (Stuttgart, 1998), 48-49.

13. Heiner Schmidt, Quellenlexikon zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte (Duisburg, 1999), 19:243-55.

14. Anne Stempel de Fallois, Das diakonische Wirken Wilhelm Loehes [...] 1826-1854 (Stuttgart, 2001), 24-25.

15. Ibid., 29, n. 118.

16. Martin Wittenberg, "Loehes Agende ist wieder zu haben!," Concordia. Mitteilungen des Neuendettelsauer Missionskreises 41 (1953, Nr. 103): 70-74, 74: Es "[s]ollte [...] die Agende [...] fur die kirchliche Arbeit von heute moglichst bald benutzbar sein!"