"Holy Communion under Quarantine" by Timothy J. Wengert
Unless one is over 100 years old, none of us has lived through such a serious worldwide pandemic. While we can stream our worship service online, the Lord’s Supper poses a particular problem for Lutherans, who in the last fifty years have gone from quarterly to monthly to weekly communion in many of our congregations. What should we do?
The first thing to say is that, outside of following the guidance of medical professionals, there is no one “right answer” to this problem, and we must be very careful not to project our anxiety upon others who may find other solutions to this practical problem. The frequency of the Lord’s Supper is not fixed in the New Testament and is not part of the Ten Commandments, so we must not assume that what we do is the only right way. It is adiaphora, a word that does not mean that it is not important but rather means that we cannot clearly tell what the right or wrong practice is. Thus, we should not judge one another. In the Formula of Concord’s article on adiaphora (art. 10), the concordists remind us:
We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has, when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments, according to the well known saying, “Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei,” “Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith.”
Franklin Drews Fry, a long-time pastor in New Jersey, taught me an important method for approaching such matters: “Give it your ‘reverent, best guess!’” It is reverent, in that we study Scripture, pray, and beg God for guidance. It is best, in that we use our heads to figure out the best thing to do. But it remains a guess, because we are ignorant, sinful mortals, not God. This means that once we make a decision, we should always be open to suggestions about what may be better.
Now, when it comes to the Lord’s Supper, as I said, there is no magic number of times to celebrate. The fact that Roman Catholic priests were required to celebrate the Mass daily in Luther’s day led the reformers to emphasize a comment from the ancient church, which described how the church in Alexandria, Egypt did not do this. The fact that many of us celebrate weekly does not necessarily mean that this is the only practice. Indeed, not receiving the Lord’s Supper during Lent this year would remind us that we are in solidarity with those who were preparing for Baptism in the ancient church, who would first receive the Supper after Baptism on Easter Day. Perhaps this virus is forcing on us a better Lenten discipline to impress upon us once more just how precious the Meal is and how we all need to return to the promises of the baptismal waters and God’s Word.
In 1523, followers of John Hus in Bohemia posed a question to Luther about the sacraments, given that many of them were bereft of pastors as a result of their struggle with the church of Rome. Luther, giving it his “reverent best guess,” responded with Concerning the Ministry (Luther’s Works [LW] 40:7-44). There he reminded his correspondents that in each household the head of that household could preach and, in this emergency situation, baptize. But, for Luther, the Lord’s Supper was somewhat different and was intended to take place in the Sunday gathering and not privately. He also had high respect for the public office of ministry, so he did not think that the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated without a properly called minister. Given that the church in Bohemia could not receive such pastors, Luther advised them to do without pastors in the emergency. He wrote (LW 40:9):
“For it would be safer and more wholesome for the father of the household to read the gospel and, since the universal custom and use allows it to the laity, to baptize those born in his home, and so to govern himself and his according to the doctrine of Christ, even if throughout life they did not dare or could not receive the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is not so necessary that salvation depends on it. The gospel and baptism are sufficient since faith alone justifies and love alone lives rightly.”
Moreover, in the same letter, Luther points out that the Supper is itself a proclamation of the gospel, given that Christ commands it be done “in remembrance of me” and Paul states that “as often as we eat … and drink … we proclaim the Lord’s death.” Thus, the Supper is not some sort of separate, required spiritual magic but it is another form of the Word, what St. Augustine called a “visible word.” Thus, we must not confuse our desire to receive the Lord’s Supper with a kind of necessity that leads us away from faith and trust in God’s promises and toward a belief that worship is not really worship without the “performance of the work” of the Eucharistic liturgy. What matters is faith in the Word of God, who comes down from heaven and in aural and visible Word whispers, “You are mine,” to which faith answers: “I’m yours.”
Upon reading a draft of this reflection, Gordon Lathrop reminded me of this (included here with permission):
The only thing I would add is that for Lutherans it is not only that the sacrament is a sort of Word — it is that the Word itself is sacramental: it is full of the presence of Christ, come “to do us good.” I think of that marvelous passage about what happens in the reading of the Gospel in Luther’s preface to the Church Postil. I want us to remember that Luther argued that when the Gospel-book is read and preached, we should know that Christ is here, coming to us or we being brought to him, present in the reading and preaching, doing to us now what the text says he did then: forgiving us, healing us, raising us from the dead (LW 35:121): “If you pause here and let him do you good, that is, if you believe that he benefits and helps you, then you really have it. Then Christ is yours, presented to you as a gift. After that it is necessary that you turn this into an example and deal with your neighbor in the very same way, be given also to him as a gift and an example.” I love also especially that final “happy exchange” turn! So, in this time we may just cling to the sacramental Word. Then, in a healthier time, we can carefully rebuild that wonderful Sunday Eucharistic frequency that has been built up so lovingly among us. But not the sacrament as required, not the sacrament as fetish.
Once we are freed of some sort of spiritual necessity for celebrating the Supper, we are much better prepared to discuss with one another how best to behave in this situation. But here, rather than doing theology “by fiat” (“the Bible, Luther, the Bishop or I say it; you better believe it; that settles it”), we need to practice Christian conversation about these matters, remembering that line from Proverbs: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.” Or, as Philip Melanchthon once put it: “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren” (We are born for back-and-forth conversation). In part this means admitting to the weaknesses in all of our practical solutions. So, what are our options?
First, some congregations and their ministers may decide not to celebrate the Lord’s Supper until the threat of this virus is over. The danger here, of course, is that people suddenly get the idea that the Lord’s Supper is optional even on days when we are healthy—even pointing to Luther for support, when in fact he was speaking especially to the emergency in the Bohemian Church.
Second, one could find a way to distribute the Lord’s Supper as people drive up in their cars. Here we are in danger of turning the Sacrament into something other than the community gathered around Christ’s table. Faith and proclamation would disappear as if the Sacrament were effective by the mere performance of the work, by simply finding a way to “do the thing.” The church is not a drive-through restaurant but a Christian assembly, gathered around Word and Sacrament.
One could also, I suppose, send out bread and wine that would be “live streamed” consecrated by the pastor somewhere else. Here, too, the trouble revolves around trying to create a virtual community and, again, turning the Supper into something that is about our works rather than God’s once-for-all work to save.
Another possibility might be to consecrate the elements and leave them on the altar for people to commune themselves as they come in individually to pray during the week. Here, too, the very communal nature of Holy Communion could easily get lost, and the meal becomes a support for individual piety rather than what it is: “Given and shed for you” [always plural in the Greek New Testament text].
Perhaps one of the ways to sort out our approaches is to ask, “Why do you or I want to do this? What’s the point?” I regularly warned my students that when it comes to the sacramental practices, the reformers saw two dangers. Either we make the sacrament into something effective by virtue of some work we do and virtue we possess (“Only if you’re a real believer who does the right thing is the sacrament effective”) or we make the sacrament into something effective “by the mere performance of the rite” apart from faith. Even in an emergency such as what we face today, these temptations are lurking, and such practices threaten to undermine why we use the sacraments and the Word they help proclaim. At the heart of it all is the gospel of God’s truly undeserved mercy and love to us, which creates and strengthens the faith that receives all the grace-filled goodness that our Lord so richly gives.
Timothy J. Wengert
Monday of Holy Week, 2020
The first thing to say is that, outside of following the guidance of medical professionals, there is no one “right answer” to this problem, and we must be very careful not to project our anxiety upon others who may find other solutions to this practical problem. The frequency of the Lord’s Supper is not fixed in the New Testament and is not part of the Ten Commandments, so we must not assume that what we do is the only right way. It is adiaphora, a word that does not mean that it is not important but rather means that we cannot clearly tell what the right or wrong practice is. Thus, we should not judge one another. In the Formula of Concord’s article on adiaphora (art. 10), the concordists remind us:
We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has, when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments, according to the well known saying, “Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei,” “Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith.”
Franklin Drews Fry, a long-time pastor in New Jersey, taught me an important method for approaching such matters: “Give it your ‘reverent, best guess!’” It is reverent, in that we study Scripture, pray, and beg God for guidance. It is best, in that we use our heads to figure out the best thing to do. But it remains a guess, because we are ignorant, sinful mortals, not God. This means that once we make a decision, we should always be open to suggestions about what may be better.
Now, when it comes to the Lord’s Supper, as I said, there is no magic number of times to celebrate. The fact that Roman Catholic priests were required to celebrate the Mass daily in Luther’s day led the reformers to emphasize a comment from the ancient church, which described how the church in Alexandria, Egypt did not do this. The fact that many of us celebrate weekly does not necessarily mean that this is the only practice. Indeed, not receiving the Lord’s Supper during Lent this year would remind us that we are in solidarity with those who were preparing for Baptism in the ancient church, who would first receive the Supper after Baptism on Easter Day. Perhaps this virus is forcing on us a better Lenten discipline to impress upon us once more just how precious the Meal is and how we all need to return to the promises of the baptismal waters and God’s Word.
In 1523, followers of John Hus in Bohemia posed a question to Luther about the sacraments, given that many of them were bereft of pastors as a result of their struggle with the church of Rome. Luther, giving it his “reverent best guess,” responded with Concerning the Ministry (Luther’s Works [LW] 40:7-44). There he reminded his correspondents that in each household the head of that household could preach and, in this emergency situation, baptize. But, for Luther, the Lord’s Supper was somewhat different and was intended to take place in the Sunday gathering and not privately. He also had high respect for the public office of ministry, so he did not think that the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated without a properly called minister. Given that the church in Bohemia could not receive such pastors, Luther advised them to do without pastors in the emergency. He wrote (LW 40:9):
“For it would be safer and more wholesome for the father of the household to read the gospel and, since the universal custom and use allows it to the laity, to baptize those born in his home, and so to govern himself and his according to the doctrine of Christ, even if throughout life they did not dare or could not receive the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is not so necessary that salvation depends on it. The gospel and baptism are sufficient since faith alone justifies and love alone lives rightly.”
Moreover, in the same letter, Luther points out that the Supper is itself a proclamation of the gospel, given that Christ commands it be done “in remembrance of me” and Paul states that “as often as we eat … and drink … we proclaim the Lord’s death.” Thus, the Supper is not some sort of separate, required spiritual magic but it is another form of the Word, what St. Augustine called a “visible word.” Thus, we must not confuse our desire to receive the Lord’s Supper with a kind of necessity that leads us away from faith and trust in God’s promises and toward a belief that worship is not really worship without the “performance of the work” of the Eucharistic liturgy. What matters is faith in the Word of God, who comes down from heaven and in aural and visible Word whispers, “You are mine,” to which faith answers: “I’m yours.”
Upon reading a draft of this reflection, Gordon Lathrop reminded me of this (included here with permission):
The only thing I would add is that for Lutherans it is not only that the sacrament is a sort of Word — it is that the Word itself is sacramental: it is full of the presence of Christ, come “to do us good.” I think of that marvelous passage about what happens in the reading of the Gospel in Luther’s preface to the Church Postil. I want us to remember that Luther argued that when the Gospel-book is read and preached, we should know that Christ is here, coming to us or we being brought to him, present in the reading and preaching, doing to us now what the text says he did then: forgiving us, healing us, raising us from the dead (LW 35:121): “If you pause here and let him do you good, that is, if you believe that he benefits and helps you, then you really have it. Then Christ is yours, presented to you as a gift. After that it is necessary that you turn this into an example and deal with your neighbor in the very same way, be given also to him as a gift and an example.” I love also especially that final “happy exchange” turn! So, in this time we may just cling to the sacramental Word. Then, in a healthier time, we can carefully rebuild that wonderful Sunday Eucharistic frequency that has been built up so lovingly among us. But not the sacrament as required, not the sacrament as fetish.
Once we are freed of some sort of spiritual necessity for celebrating the Supper, we are much better prepared to discuss with one another how best to behave in this situation. But here, rather than doing theology “by fiat” (“the Bible, Luther, the Bishop or I say it; you better believe it; that settles it”), we need to practice Christian conversation about these matters, remembering that line from Proverbs: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.” Or, as Philip Melanchthon once put it: “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren” (We are born for back-and-forth conversation). In part this means admitting to the weaknesses in all of our practical solutions. So, what are our options?
First, some congregations and their ministers may decide not to celebrate the Lord’s Supper until the threat of this virus is over. The danger here, of course, is that people suddenly get the idea that the Lord’s Supper is optional even on days when we are healthy—even pointing to Luther for support, when in fact he was speaking especially to the emergency in the Bohemian Church.
Second, one could find a way to distribute the Lord’s Supper as people drive up in their cars. Here we are in danger of turning the Sacrament into something other than the community gathered around Christ’s table. Faith and proclamation would disappear as if the Sacrament were effective by the mere performance of the work, by simply finding a way to “do the thing.” The church is not a drive-through restaurant but a Christian assembly, gathered around Word and Sacrament.
One could also, I suppose, send out bread and wine that would be “live streamed” consecrated by the pastor somewhere else. Here, too, the trouble revolves around trying to create a virtual community and, again, turning the Supper into something that is about our works rather than God’s once-for-all work to save.
Another possibility might be to consecrate the elements and leave them on the altar for people to commune themselves as they come in individually to pray during the week. Here, too, the very communal nature of Holy Communion could easily get lost, and the meal becomes a support for individual piety rather than what it is: “Given and shed for you” [always plural in the Greek New Testament text].
Perhaps one of the ways to sort out our approaches is to ask, “Why do you or I want to do this? What’s the point?” I regularly warned my students that when it comes to the sacramental practices, the reformers saw two dangers. Either we make the sacrament into something effective by virtue of some work we do and virtue we possess (“Only if you’re a real believer who does the right thing is the sacrament effective”) or we make the sacrament into something effective “by the mere performance of the rite” apart from faith. Even in an emergency such as what we face today, these temptations are lurking, and such practices threaten to undermine why we use the sacraments and the Word they help proclaim. At the heart of it all is the gospel of God’s truly undeserved mercy and love to us, which creates and strengthens the faith that receives all the grace-filled goodness that our Lord so richly gives.
Timothy J. Wengert
Monday of Holy Week, 2020
Oswald Bayer's Birthday Festivities
On October 4 last year, many colleagues and admirers gathered at the Protestant seminary (Stift) in Tübingen to celebrate Oswald Bayer’s 80th birthday (September 30, 2019). The festivities began with this “Andacht” or meditation in the chapel given by his friend and colleague Athina Lexutt, framed by music, hymns, scripture, prayer and blessing. Lexutt’s original and unpublished German text is here translated by Jeffrey Silcock, who has often translated Bayer’s own essays for Lutheran Quarterly, and who also edited and translated Lexutt’s Luther reader, namely, A Year with Luther (Adelaide: ATF Theology, 2016).
Our thanks to Bayer and Lexutt for their permission to share this personal memento of the occasion, and to Silcock for the translation and for the photograph he took the next day.
The English Festschrift for Bayer, also presented to him on the same festive day, is now published: Promising Faith for a Ruptured Age: An English-Speaking Appreciation of Oswald Bayer, edited by John T. Pless, Joshua C. Miller, and Roland Ziegler (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2019).
Read the Meditation here!
Our thanks to Bayer and Lexutt for their permission to share this personal memento of the occasion, and to Silcock for the translation and for the photograph he took the next day.
The English Festschrift for Bayer, also presented to him on the same festive day, is now published: Promising Faith for a Ruptured Age: An English-Speaking Appreciation of Oswald Bayer, edited by John T. Pless, Joshua C. Miller, and Roland Ziegler (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2019).
Read the Meditation here!
"This is not Martin Luther" by Martin Lohrmann
Click here to read an article that shows this now easily available image of "Luther" is actually Bishop Stokesley of London.
The original painting of Bishop Stokesley (attributed to Hans Holbein) can be viewed in the online collection of the Royal Trust Collection: https://www.rct.uk/collection/662313/john-stokesley-bishop-of-london.
The original painting of Bishop Stokesley (attributed to Hans Holbein) can be viewed in the online collection of the Royal Trust Collection: https://www.rct.uk/collection/662313/john-stokesley-bishop-of-london.
"Martin Luther & Education" by Matthieu Arnold
Back to school special from LQ: Enjoy "Martin Luther & Education" by Matthieu Arnold of the University of Strasbourg.
"The Self-Giving God" by Oswald Bayer
LQ is again pleased to make available an essay by German theologian Oswald Bayer. Click here or on the essay title above.
Click here to read an exclusive complement to this essay: a Trinity Sunday sermon by Dr. Bayer.
Click here to read an exclusive complement to this essay: a Trinity Sunday sermon by Dr. Bayer.
"the Freiburg 'Bonhoeffer circle' (1943)" by Michael GRzonka
Enjoy this detailed study of the risky process involved in preparing for a more just post-war Germany, conceived during the height of fascist power.
PLUS, a translated appendix that could not be included in the printed version of Lutheran Quarterly can be found here: "Appendix 4 - 'Economic and Social Order.'"
PLUS, a translated appendix that could not be included in the printed version of Lutheran Quarterly can be found here: "Appendix 4 - 'Economic and Social Order.'"
"Getting Women Ordained" by Gracia Grindal
With the 50th anniversary of women's ordination among North American Lutherans on the horizon in the year 2020, LQ is glad to share this essay by Gracia Grindal.
In Memoriam: Vítor Westhelle, 1952-2018
Dr. Vítor Westhelle, professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, died on May 13, 2018. With so much to say about his life and work, Lutheran Quarterly would like to share this essay that Dr. Westhelle published in 2010. From beginning to end, it testifies to the God who brings life out of death.
It is entitled "Justification as Death and Gift." It concludes with these words:
"Justification should be addressed as one would in writing an obituary to oneself, saying that it is neither what one wanted or desired, nor what one's interest bargained for, only that a single word would convey, and yet would already be a word too long to account for justification: tetelestai, finished.”
Among his countless contributions to the global church and the academy, Dr. Westhelle was a member of Lutheran Quarterly's Council of Editorial Advisors.
For more about Vítor's life and witness, please see this announcement from LSTC.
Requiescat in pace.
It is entitled "Justification as Death and Gift." It concludes with these words:
"Justification should be addressed as one would in writing an obituary to oneself, saying that it is neither what one wanted or desired, nor what one's interest bargained for, only that a single word would convey, and yet would already be a word too long to account for justification: tetelestai, finished.”
Among his countless contributions to the global church and the academy, Dr. Westhelle was a member of Lutheran Quarterly's Council of Editorial Advisors.
For more about Vítor's life and witness, please see this announcement from LSTC.
Requiescat in pace.
Summer 2018 Featured Essay:
Oswald Bayer on Marcuse's Critique of Luther
Click here to enjoy another thought-provoking essay by Oswald Bayer.
Spring 2018 featured Essay: 'Martin luther & the Danish Welfare State' by Jørn Henrik Petersen
Click here to read this study on the relationship between Lutheran church culture and the Danish welfare state.
ABSTRACT: Generally, religion has played only a minor role in comparative welfare state research. Some scholars have even termed the topic “religion-blind.” During recent years, however, a smaller group of researchers have investigated the relationship between religions or denominations on the one hand and the origin and development of the welfare state on the other. Jørn Henrik Petersen investigates the rise and establishment of the Danish Welfare State in the light of Lutheran Reformation influences.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Aarhus professional and Professor of Social Policy Jørn Henrik Petersen first wrote multiple volumes on the history of the welfare state in Denmark, and then, in 2016 and 2017, books on the role of Martin Luther and Lutheranism in that history. Next up for him, in Danish, is Luther as a Social Reformer.
ABSTRACT: Generally, religion has played only a minor role in comparative welfare state research. Some scholars have even termed the topic “religion-blind.” During recent years, however, a smaller group of researchers have investigated the relationship between religions or denominations on the one hand and the origin and development of the welfare state on the other. Jørn Henrik Petersen investigates the rise and establishment of the Danish Welfare State in the light of Lutheran Reformation influences.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Aarhus professional and Professor of Social Policy Jørn Henrik Petersen first wrote multiple volumes on the history of the welfare state in Denmark, and then, in 2016 and 2017, books on the role of Martin Luther and Lutheranism in that history. Next up for him, in Danish, is Luther as a Social Reformer.
New Forde Publication: 'America's god & Lutheran Faith'
Click here to read this essay, which was presented to a group of pastors by the late Dr. Forde in 1992.
2017 Featured Essay:
On Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue by Theodor Dieter
Click here to read "Commemoration of the Reformation in Germany and Lund" by Theodor Dieter (Spring 2017, Vol 31)
Featured Essays for the 500th Reformation Anniversary
To commemorate 500 years of the Reformation, LQ is proud to share these great essays on Luther, Lutheranism, and the meaning of the Reformation for today.
"Luther on the Market Economy" by Carter Lindberg
"Sources for and against the Posting of the Ninety-Five Theses" by Volker Leppin & Timothy Wengert
Recommended books in the field of Reformation history, compiled by Mary Jane Haemig
"Twenty Questions on the Relevance of Luther for Today" by Oswald Bayer
"Katharina von Bora, the Woman at Luther's Side" by Martin Treu
Bonus: index of every piece published over the past 30 years!
"Luther on the Market Economy" by Carter Lindberg
"Sources for and against the Posting of the Ninety-Five Theses" by Volker Leppin & Timothy Wengert
Recommended books in the field of Reformation history, compiled by Mary Jane Haemig
"Twenty Questions on the Relevance of Luther for Today" by Oswald Bayer
"Katharina von Bora, the Woman at Luther's Side" by Martin Treu
Bonus: index of every piece published over the past 30 years!
17 Lutheran Theses on Government
Click here to read "17 Lutheran Theses on Government" by Martin Lohrmann of Wartburg Seminary.
From the introduction:
"The following 17 Theses are points for discussion about faith and government. They come from the Lutheran tradition, with the awareness that other traditions also bring insights to this topic that could be great to share together. The title '17 Theses' is a nod to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, a set of statements about indulgences and repentance that launched the Reformation era in Europe in 1517. While times have changed a great deal in the past 500 years, the need for understanding and dialogue remains just as critical."
From the introduction:
"The following 17 Theses are points for discussion about faith and government. They come from the Lutheran tradition, with the awareness that other traditions also bring insights to this topic that could be great to share together. The title '17 Theses' is a nod to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, a set of statements about indulgences and repentance that launched the Reformation era in Europe in 1517. While times have changed a great deal in the past 500 years, the need for understanding and dialogue remains just as critical."
Re-dedication of Jehu Jones marker in Philadelphia
Rev. Jehu Jones (1786-1852) was the first African-American Lutheran pastor. He led a congregation in Philadelphia in the 1830s and served as a missionary in the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. A historical marker was recently rededicated at the site of his Philadelphia congregation. In honor of that occasion, Lutheran Quarterly is proud to share this 1996 essay by Karl E. Johnson, Jr. and Joseph Romeo on Rev. Jones (click here for essay).
In the 1990s, a student at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, [Karl] Earl Johnson, directed by Prof. Richard Stewart, began to do some investigation of Jehu Jones, the first African American Lutheran pastor in the US. Among other things, he discovered that the original building of St. Paul's was in existence and the cornerstone preserved. In 1998, Prof. Stewart and Dr. Timothy Wengert successfully lobbied the Pennsylvania Historical Commission for a marker at the site, 310 S. Quince St., Philadelphia, PA. Within a few years the sign disappeared. Only this year did Prof. Stewart again get the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to restore the marker. On November 19, 2016, a group of Lutheran pastors and laity gathered to rededicate the sign. Profs. Stewart and Wengert made remarks as did Bishop Clair Burkat.
Jehu Jones, born in South Carolina was designated by his pastor, John Bachman, to become a missionary to Liberia. Ordained by the New York Synod, Jones was unable to go to Liberia and instead came to Philadelphia, where in the 1530s with the half-hearted support of some of the Lutheran pastors of the Pennsylvania Synod, he started an African American Lutheran congregation, St. Paul's. They built a sanctuary at 310 S. Quince St. By 1839 the building had been sold in a sheriff's auction for failure to pay loans (in part because the Synod failed to live up to its promises). Jones later faced charges by the New York Synod regarding the legitimacy of his ordination and ministry, which he answered in a tract. He died in Philadelphia on September 28, 1852.
Only through the tireless work of Earl Johnson and Richard Stewart has the life and work of this remarkable pioneer come to light.
In the 1990s, a student at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, [Karl] Earl Johnson, directed by Prof. Richard Stewart, began to do some investigation of Jehu Jones, the first African American Lutheran pastor in the US. Among other things, he discovered that the original building of St. Paul's was in existence and the cornerstone preserved. In 1998, Prof. Stewart and Dr. Timothy Wengert successfully lobbied the Pennsylvania Historical Commission for a marker at the site, 310 S. Quince St., Philadelphia, PA. Within a few years the sign disappeared. Only this year did Prof. Stewart again get the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to restore the marker. On November 19, 2016, a group of Lutheran pastors and laity gathered to rededicate the sign. Profs. Stewart and Wengert made remarks as did Bishop Clair Burkat.
Jehu Jones, born in South Carolina was designated by his pastor, John Bachman, to become a missionary to Liberia. Ordained by the New York Synod, Jones was unable to go to Liberia and instead came to Philadelphia, where in the 1530s with the half-hearted support of some of the Lutheran pastors of the Pennsylvania Synod, he started an African American Lutheran congregation, St. Paul's. They built a sanctuary at 310 S. Quince St. By 1839 the building had been sold in a sheriff's auction for failure to pay loans (in part because the Synod failed to live up to its promises). Jones later faced charges by the New York Synod regarding the legitimacy of his ordination and ministry, which he answered in a tract. He died in Philadelphia on September 28, 1852.
Only through the tireless work of Earl Johnson and Richard Stewart has the life and work of this remarkable pioneer come to light.
editor Paul Rorem on LQ, past & Present
LQ editor Paul Rorem wrote this piece about the past and present of Lutheran Quarterly for an issue of Currents in Theology & Mission that surveyed a variety of journals produced by and for North American Lutherans.
Read Dr. Rorem's essay here. [Shared with permission of Currents in Theology & Mission]
Want more? Click here to visit the Table of Contents for this inspiring issue of Currents!
Read Dr. Rorem's essay here. [Shared with permission of Currents in Theology & Mission]
Want more? Click here to visit the Table of Contents for this inspiring issue of Currents!
* If you do not already have it, you will need to install Adobe Acrobat Reader on your computer to read these files. Acrobat Reader is supplied in versions to match most computers without cost to you at the Adobe website: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
