A
Brief Study of John Philipp Koehler
By
Joel Hensel
From FAITH-LIFE,
Vol. XXXV, No. 7, pp.4ff
It is well nigh a presumptuous task
(to say nothing of being an ambitious one) to write
a brief report on the work and life of a man of John
Philip Koehler’s stature. There was nothing brief
about his work; it was thorough and complete in
every respect. Therefore in this paper I shall
limit its scope to a biographical sketch of the man,
and give example of his comprehensive approach to
theology and finally provide some evidence regarding
the why of his departure from the Wisconsin
Synod Seminary in 1930.
J. P. Koehler was born in
Manitowoc, Wisconsin, in the year 1859. His father
was a Lutheran pastor of the conservative school.
The young Koehler attended Northwestern College at
Watertown, Wisconsin. From there he went to
Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, from which he
graduated about the year 1880; thus he was a student
of C. F. W. Walther and Georg Stoeckhardt.
Following his graduation he vicared for his father
in Hustisford, Wisconsin.
Bethany
Lutheran Church, Hutisford, WI
Then came a six-year
pastorate in Two Rivers, Wisconsin
(1882-1888). Northwestern College called him there
to teach religion, history, German, and Latin. He
remained at Northwestern until 1900; the last eight
years of his stay there he also served as inspector
of the college, a position roughly equivalent tot
hat of a dean.
The next step was to
seminary in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, a suburb of
Milwaukee. A very small faculty (no more than three
men) necessitated his teaching a varied assortment
of subjects. Church history, interpretation of the
New Testament, hermeneutics, liturgics, and music
were all included under his instruction. In 1920
Koehler was appointed president of the seminary, a
position which he held until 1930 when he was
forcibly removed from office. (The information in
the Lutheran Cyclopedia and also in the
Concordia Theological Monthly obituary of
Koehler [Jan. 1952] stating that he resigned his
position, is not correct. Documentary evidence
following will prove this.)
Following his dismissal
from the seminary he moved to Neilsville,
Wisconsin. Here he lived with his wife (who died in
1938), son Karl, and daughter Ada. From 1930 until
his death he was associated with the Protes’tant
Conference of the Wisconsin Synod, a group whose
history is recorded in their monthly publication,
FAITH-LIFE. The pages of FAITH-LIFE
served to perpetuate much of Koehler’s literary work
by way of translation. Among these are his
commentary on Paul’s letter to the Galatians, a
commentary on the Gospel of John, [also
‘Ephesians—Paul’s Rhapsody in Christ,’ a book-length
commentary on that epistle—Ed.], a history of the
Wisconsin Synod and lengthy portions of his
penetrating church history, Lehrbuch der
Kirchengeschichte.
John Philip Koehler
died on September 30, 1951, at the age of 92,
in Neillsville, Wisconsin.
The above-mentioned
Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte probably stands
out as Koehler’s most outstanding single work.
His scholarship as revealed therein is not a mere
compendium of facts, but rather a comprehensive
survey and analysis of all human life, thought and
emotion, with strong emphasis of general
history, particularly the development of culture in
its manifold form. The title of the book is
significant in that it does not pretend to be ‘a
history’ of Christianity, as many such volumes try
to be. Koehler’s title suggests that his work is to
be a guide, a manual, possibly an inspirational
outline to the study of history. The very title of
this work is indicative of Koehler’s pedagogical
principle, namely of allowing each student to
develop and grow according to his natural spiritual,
and mental bent rather than to try and place him
into a dogmatic approach to matters of learning.
Koehler was not a dogmatician……
The scope and depth of
the Lehrbuch is too great for me to use it as
a point of departure in looking at Koehler’s actual
work, but the pattern of his approach is similar in
most of his work. Thus I have selected one of his
shorter articles, written for the Quartalschrift,
the theological journal of the Wisconsin Synod. The
English translation appears in FAITH-LIFE,
July 1951 and following. This article is entitled:
“Die Heiligung geschieht nicht mit Hurra.” The
translator’s title is “Sanctification Is Not
Hurrah.” This article was written shortly after
World War I and is still in good season in this
post-World War II era. The use of the term “hurrah”
presents some problem in the present day, for it is
no longer used in such common parlance describing
emphasis of public relations as we find it in our
present church situation; the spirit of playing to
the audience, catering to the crowd and blowing up
one’s own interests with the subsequent influence of
aligning the crowd to those interests…The following
is particularly apropos to the conditions prevailing
in the Lutheran Church today and marks J. P. Koehler
as a keen student of men and the motives that move
men to act:
“Every kind of society,
church groups included, is seized by the hurrah
phenomenon and as such it becomes apparent generally
at a time when a certain goal is to be reached
quickly by a drive with external blatant means. All
this hurrah business has certain traits which make
it evident in arising out of the flesh; they are: 1)
It appeals to the natural brutal sense in man,
indicating that those who make use of it are willing
to accommodate external brute force. 2) In a
rousing attack, force is applied to accomplish with
the might that which quiet, sustaining and thorough
work cannot be relied on to produce. 3) Mass
agitation is the object and the individual must be
swept along by force with the crowd, because there
is no confidence in the spontaneous decision of the
individual personality. 4) The promoter, by noisy
conduct, attracts attention to his own person. 5)
Thus he would put himself across together with his
concepts and aims, yet indeed not by an inward
conviction of his fellow men but by the use of
external means. 6) By so doing, love toward
neighbor is forgotten, while selfishness,
disaffection and malice have an open field. 7)
Finally, hurrah sentiment always has the nature of
clever fabrication. Headlines there are, true
enough, and slogans that would give the impression
of genuine value. Yet it does not carry the imprint
of something which grew out of the unencumbered
understanding of intelligent men of character and
blossomed forth into an overwhelming truth…Now,
sanctification, our actual Christian business,
doesn’t agree with that sort of thing. When once it
becomes apparent that sanctification is in every
point the direct opposite of hurrah sentiment, then
every Christian ought to see for himself that we
must avoid this general ruling spirit of the time.”
Koehler then goes on to
show that it is the Holy Spirit and He alone who
produces true life and continues to produce it.
Sanctification, being the direct opposite of the
hurrah spirit, is an operation accomplished in the
quiet, gradual progress of repentance and faith. It
begins at once with faith. A commentary on
Koehler’s seven points listed above is hardly
necessary to indicate how he places an alert finger
on much of the activity carried on today in the
church, also our church.
It is also significant
that we remain aware of the time of his writing this
thesis, for the conditions which he here describes
were then building up in the Wisconsin Synod. Two
divergent schools of theology were gathering their
forces for an ultimate rupture; at the time of that
writing this rupture was already noticeable. Now
back to Koehler’s development of the thought.
He has already
indicated that the true workings of sanctification
lie in faith. “Faith in grace, that is where the
power lies. The consciousness that by grace
one is able to do something, is developed only by
further activity of the Holy Spirit through
experience, that is sanctification.”
“But what kind of
experience is that? It is what Paul sets forth in
Romans 7…Sanctification takes form not so much in an
awareness of the Christian that he is advancing
along the ways of God, that he is positively acting
the good part; much rather it takes form in a
consciousness that he must guard against the evil
within himself. Our new life consists in
killing the works of the flesh…Since the Christian’s
battle against his sin is a battle against his own
flesh, there nee r will arise in him by the Holy
Spirit the dynamic energy necessary to develop a
hurrah sentiment…Sanctification is not a matter of
our ability at all. It is a gift entrusted to us by
faith…Not something done to our for others, but
something dome to one’s self; a personal individual
matter; one that does not belong on the street
corner…but into the seclusion of the little chamber
back home, even as with the prayer of the
Christian.”
Koehler then proceeds
to show how this very hurrah spirit gnaws its way
into the work of the church, especially when it
involves people working together. The “party
spirit” often develops and forms the politics. This
spirit may not evolve maliciously by those involved;
they may well be convinced of which a champion of
right doctrine and right practice can rise and
trample under food every sense of love and mercy,
thinking he is doing God a service thereby.” A look
at the final portion of the thesis will be helpful
in getting a more complete picture of his argument:
The hurrah sentiment
which governed the entire world during the war years
and still governs it has produced a vicious
institution. That was the ‘drives.’ I need only
mention those things in order to show you that it is
something that does not conform to sanctification.
But this secularism has already begotten two things
with us which will seriously threaten the very
existence of our church. 1) The drives to raise
money; and 2) the concern to get onto the bandwagon
together with the world in order to protect
especially our (school) interest against attacks
from the outside.
The drives are supposed
to bring our money affairs in order, according to
the ways of the world;…The drives I mean occurred
out of a complete disavowal o the nature becoming to
Christians who know the doctrine of
sanctification…How is the matter taken care of
properly? Even as sanctification through faith and
Gospel reveals it to us. I am a poor sinner and
know that I live only by grace. I know that if I
take pains to curb my flesh, that can happen only
through the power of the Holy Ghost, which I always
and again appropriate by faith. I am aware of the
fact, too, that a thing like that doesn’t happen in
the twinkling of an eye…How then can I seek to
induce another person to perform a Christian deed by
indicating to him what he must do according to an
eternal obligation, collecting his deed as revenue
of that obligation? Doesn’t that proceed from a
lack of patience and form self-accommodation with
which we would desire to make the arduous take of
sanctification easy for ourselves?...Sanctification
is rearing; rearing is not training. Training can
bring about something quickly by force.
Sanctification is the rearing by means of the
Gospel, which God does to us with great patience and
without ever reaching perfection here on earth…We
want to let ourselves be guided solely by the
fundamental thought on which we stand and by the
goal toward which we are striving—salvation in
Christ…Finally, these thoughts must pervade our
entire being, our conception of all things and the
manner in which we move in this world.”
Now there was no
particular doctrinal issue here; it was
rather one of life. Koehler’s essay was not well
received by his synodical colleagues…Koehler’s
thoughts are cause for serious reflection, for they
stand in direct antithesis to much church practice
that goes under the guise of consecrated “kingdom
work.” We can well imagine how his direct approach
must have struck negative response with his hearers,
just as it would were he to present that paper
today…
Koehler is concerned
with the manner in which true sanctification
manifests itself in life…The believer’s
sanctification is not separated from his daily walk
in life but is embedded in every breath. Therefore
we cannot separate faith and life…Koehler showed his
students and readers the universal aspect of
theology, how it involved the whole being of a man
and that on a full-time basis. Nor was this
peculiar only to his theological thought. This same
principle was applied to the appreciation of art,
music, literature, history…Theology for theology’s
sake; art for art’s sake; music for music’s sake;
history for history’s sake—all are futile unless
they point the believer to the Fountain-head of all
life and show his relation to the same Head. He
called this particular approach the
“historical-exegetical” means…It is beyond the scope
of this paper to show how he carried this out in all
his work…Suffice it to say that it was a new
approach to theology and the arts in American
Lutheran circles. As his future years at the
seminary bore out, his approach was not well
accepted. Indeed, it was utterly rejected! But
that not on a doctrinal basis.
Koehler had a rival
within the small faculty at the seminary in the
person of August Pieper…These men were colleagues in
a four-man faculty…It was while Koehler was in
Europe in 1924 that the beginning of the need
developed. In that year…pre-ministerial students
were found guilty of organized theft and
subsequently expelled by the faculty. Koehler’s
son, Karl, was a member of the Watertown faculty at
that time. The college board over-rode the faculty
decision of expulsion and recalled the students.
Karl Koehler and another professor resigned their
positions from the faculty. All this happened
unbeknown to the elder Koehler. Upon his return
from Europe he met a high-chaotic state within the
ranks of the Synod, for there were many pastors who
supported the faculty’s position and respected Karl
Koehler’s resignation as justified. Koehler Senior
analyzed the grave situation objectively, voiced his
opinion and was met with an arm-flailing response
from Pieper. From this point on, two elements were
unmistakably evident within the synod. Two opposing
camps were gradually but surely forming between
Koehler and Pieper.
In the fall of 1926
Pastor William Beitz delivered a local conference
paper entitled: “God’s Message to Us in
Galatians—The Just Shall Live by Faith.” This paper
touched on many a sore spot on the church of that
day and was received with mixed response; but the
response of the synod’s officialdom was vehemently
negative. The seminary faculty prepared an answer
to this paper; it was called the Gutachten.
Koehler was asked to sign this answer, thus
endorsing its contents. He did sign it, but with
the reservation that he (Koehler) talked with Beitz
regarding the disputed issues before the
Gutachten be sent to the Wisconsin Synod
clergy. The faculty disregarded Koehler’s
reservation and broadcast their answer to the synod
without his knowledge. Koehler saw Beitz on two
occasions shortly thereafter, the result being that
the two came to an understanding regarding the
disputed points of Beitz’s paper. Nevertheless, the
Beitz-condemning Gutachten had Koehler’s
signature and it was now public property. Thereupon
Koehler wrote his own position regarding the entire
matter in a paper known as his Ertrag. The
Ertrag divorced him from the contents of the
Gutachten; actually expressed his opposition
to it. Koehler read this Ertrag before the
Joint Synod Committee in October, 1927. Upon
hearing it this committee turned Koehler over to the
Seminary Board for further dealings. The writing
was clearly on the wall at this point, for several
other men, among them another seminary professor,
had already been suspended y this same Board. The
situation hung in critical tension for almost two
years when, in August of 1929, the Seminary Board
handed Koehler the following resolution:…”
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 13, 1929
Esteemed Professor:
It is my grievous
duty to communicate to you the following decision…We
are reservedly in agreement…and therefore declare
that Professor Koehler cannot continue in the office
at our seminary and expect God to bless his efforts.
On behalf of the Board,
W. Hoenecke, Secretary
This, then, is the
final break. What had been long in gathering force
over the previous decades now erupted in the firing
of J. P. Koehler. Let it never be said that he
resigned! Pieper’s forces had won their long-sought
victory, but at the expense of blighting the
Wisconsin Synod’s theology from that day to this,
which is another history in itself.
Koehler remained in
residence at the seminary for a year and then moved
to Neillsville, Wisconsin. He continued to
write [e.g., The History of the Wisconsin Synod,
Commentaries on Ephesians, John, and
I John, and book reviews] and lecture fro the Protes’tant Conference,
that group of men who were suspended from the synod
during this lengthy controversy. He requires no
eulogy; the work he has left bears sufficient
testimony as to his merits. The Lutheran Church in
America and especially the Synodical Conference
would do well carefully to examine his message for,
truly, it is His Message.
