Bliefernicht DMLC History

Other DMLC History: https://issuu.com/mlc.edu/docs/1934-1935_dmlc_messenger_vol._25

Bliefernicht DMLC History

Part 01: Bliefernicht DMLC History

In order to understand the reason for the founding of Dr. Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota, it will be of aid to us to go back to the beginning of the church body that established this institution.

In the fifties of the nineteenth century, German and Norwegian Lutheran settlers moved into the state of Minnesota in ever increasing numbers. With these early settlers came pastors who were willing to share the hardships and privations of pioneer life, and devote their time to the spiritual welfare of their brethren. We are informed that these pioneer pastors frequently journeyed from forty to fifty miles afoot to reach their various preaching places. Among these early pastors we mention the following: Missionary Heyer, Pastors Blume, Brandt, Wier, Mallison, and Thompson. These men soon recognized the advantage of an organization in order to carry out their work effectively, and, in 1860, at St. Paul they organized the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Minnesota.

The confessional attitude of this newly formed church body was not so very definitely Lutheran. On the contrary, it was the rather loose unionsitic attitude of the the General Synod, to which larger organization the newly organized Synod belonged.

A few years later, in 1867, under the leadership of Pastor Sieker, the Minnesota Synod declared its severance from the General Synod and joined the General Council, which had just been formed. Since the General Council had been found by such men who deemed the doctrinal position of the General Synod not in conformity with True Lutheranism, the members of the Minnesota Synod felt that they had now found affiliation with a truly Lutheran group.

However, they soon realized that their new affiliation had not improved matters. They found the same conditions obtaining: pulpit and altar fellowship with sectarians, no definite stand on the lodge question and Chiliasm. Although a committee of the Minnesota Synod appeared before the session of the General Council and asked for a definite reply in regard to the so called “Four Points”, no definite reply was forthcoming. Consequently, the Minnesota Synod severed connection with the General Council.

Within the short space of ten years, the Minnesota Synod had changed its affiliation twice and now stood alone. For the little Synod this meant much. It had been receiving financial aid for its missionary work both from the General Synod and from the General Council. To carry this burden alone was next to impossible.

In the meantime the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod had pushed their mission outposts into Minnesota. Neither of the two, however, for the time being, would recognize the Minnesota Synod as orthodox, owing to its affiliations with the eastern church bodies. Yet, during the time the Minnesota Synod was a member of the General Council, the Wisconsin Synod made efforts to get into closer touch with the Minnesota Synod. As early as 1866 the Wisconsin Synod had sent Dr. Moldehnke as its representative to the meeting of the Minnesota Synod. In 1868 Rev. Streissguth was present, and in 1869 Pres. J. Bading and Prof. A. Hoenecke.

The latter two suggested a union of the Wisconsin and Minnesota Synods. This paved the way for the later affiliation and the ultimate union of these two bodies.

The year 1871 brought about the first real attempt at co-operation between the two Synods. The then president of the Minnesota Synod, Rev. J. H. Sieker, stated in his annual report that, owing to doctrinal differences , and owing to disagreement in regard to church policy, further affiliation with the General Council was impossible, He also called attention to the fact that the future development and continued existence of the Minnesota Synod could be secured only by preparing young men for the ministry to supply the crying needs of the many mission fields. The Minnesota Synod itself was too small to make any arrangements for the training of pastors.

In the same year, 1871, the Wisconsin Synod had received a favorable report on the Minnesota Synod from its delegate, Prof. A. Hoeneke, and Pres. J. H. Sieker, who was present at this meeting of the Wisconsin Synod, found here a conservative, confessionally true Lutheran church body.

The following proposal came from brethren of the Wisconsin Synod:

“Proposals for Co-operation between the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Minnesota and Wisconsin:

In regard to the institution at Watertown, Wisconsin and the education of pastors

1. The Synod of Wisconsin offers the Synod of Minnesota, in regards to the institution at Watertown, all rights and privileges which the Synod of Missouri enjoys — namely to offer the Minnesota Synod the opportunity to prepare its pastors at Watertown without tuition charges, to offer free room to such students, to reduce the cost of board, and to permit them to share all donation the institution may receive.
2. The Minnesota Synod, on the other hand, is to appoint a professor at Watertown and to support him with the sum of $500 per annum, the balance of the salary to be paid by the Wisconsin Synod.

Besides these, the proposal included stipulations in regard to Wisconsin Synod publications , but these are not for immediate interest in this connection.

Both Synods ratified the above proposal in 1872, and according to the agreement, the Wisconsin Synod provisionally called Pro. Easterday.

However, owing to financial stress, the Minnesota Synod was not able to carry out the stipulations of the agreement. From 1871 to 1874, particularly, certain sections of the State of Minnesota suffered from the grasshopper plague. We find that in the year 1871-72 only $25 was contributed toward the support of the professor at Watertown, in 1872-73 only $375, and in 1873-74 still less. Therefore the Minnesota Synod informed the Wisconsin Synod in 1875 that it was not in a position to keep its promises in regard to the proposed co-operation. A deficit of $700 had accumulated in the treasury of the professor’s salary. Besides, owing to the distance and expense of travel, very few students from the Minnesota Synod attended this school at Watertown, Wisconsin.

We can well realize that his information was a great disappointment to the members of the Wisconsin Synod. In fact, at this time there was evident in the Minnesota Synod a strong inclination to look for the Missouri Synod for teachers and pastors, for it was decided to lend financial support to the Teacher’s Seminary at Addison, Illinois, and to the Theological Seminary at St. Louis, Missouri.

In 1872 the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of America was established, which body the Minnesota Synod joined at once. In this body a movement developed to establish a General Theological Seminary. It was proposed to unite the Theological Seminary of the Missouri Synod at St. Louis and the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod at Columbus, Ohio, into one institution, and to ask the Wisconsin Synod to refrain from founding its own theological seminary. This plan was heartily endorsed by the Minnesota Synod.

But owing to the controversy on the doctrine of conversion, election, and predestination, which had flared up in the meantime, this plan came to naught. This situation left the Minnesota Synod in the same predicament in which it had been before. It had ever growing mission fields owing to the steady immigration, and yet it possessed no ways and means of providing men to carry on the work in these mission fields. Nevertheless, the leaning toward co-operation with the Wisconsin Synod was predominant, for we find that in 1879 a resolution was passed favoring a union with the Wisconsin Synod. This resolution suggested the use of the institutions of the Wisconsin Synod — namely, the Northwestern University, as it was then called, located at Watertown, Wisconsin and the Theological Seminary, which had been founded in 1878, then located at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The reports of the Minnesota Synod for the years 1880 to 1882 do not in any way refer to the above-mentioned arrangement for the education of the pastors. We can well understand this. The disturbing election controversy was absorbing the interests of all, and we find that the doctrinal discussions in these sessions of the Minnesota Synod center entirely on this theme.

In the year 1883 a new epoch began in the Minnesota Synod. In the previous year, the Rev. C. J. Albrecht had become pastor of St. Paul’s congregation at New Ulm. Pastor Albrecht had long harbored the thought that the Minnesota Synod should establish and maintain its own educational institution. Coming to New Ulm, he found support for his plan among the members of his congregation.