LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

92 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII which he received the previous year. While he recognized that Schultze had probably misrepresented the reactions in London to his own “confused letter out of New York”, Muehlenberg still had problems with Ziegenhagen’s advice that he remain in his rural congregation. He wrote, If I am to be a victim for Hanover and Providence, my remaining strength will be expended. I cannot raise my children under such conditions but must commend them to God. If the Reverend Fathers in mercy would release me from carrying out this impossible task, then I will remain with one or even no congregation but will stay in my home, lead my family in spiritual matters through God’s grace and seek to supplement my earthly support through honourable secular work. 129 For the next four years, Muehlenberg’s letters to London were directed not to Ziegenhagen but to Albinus. As well, though letters were still directed to Ziegenhagen and Francke jointly, some were also directed only to Francke. On 22 February 1752, for example, Muehlenberg wrote to Francke, “Regarding the New York situation, please confer with Court Chaplain Ziegenhagen and send me your final directive. When I have before me the word and statement of the Reverend Fathers, I can function joyfully and my conscience will be at peace.” 130 These words have a strange ring to them, given the fact that Muehlenberg must by this time have received the advice separately from Francke and Ziegenhagen telling him in no uncertain terms that they felt he should stay where he was and not go to New York. In a brief note to Muehlenberg on 9 August 1752, Francke tried to mend matters between Muehlenberg and Ziegenhagen. He wrote that Muehlenberg had not correctly understood Ziegenhagen and that Schultze had twisted his meaning further. 131 He followed this up with a carefully worded letter on 13 September 1752. 132 But, by the end of 1752, the development of the church in Pennsylvania and hence the relationship between Muehlenberg and the “Reverend Fathers” had reached a new phase. The Ministerium of North America, which had been organized in 1748, 133 was meeting annually and the Pennsylvania mission field was developing a distinct corporate identity. With eight pastors and two catechists serving over twenty congregations at the beginning of 1753, Muehlenberg had assumed a strategic leadership role. Thus, the reports from Muehlenberg to Ziegenhagen and Francke now focussed on the developments and conflicts in various congregations within the Ministerium and not just within his own congregation. Francke continued 129 Muehlenberg to Albinus, New York, 1 June 1752, printed in Aland 1:515-524. 130 Muehlenberg to Francke, Providence, 22 February 1752, printed in Aland 1:496-507. 131 Francke to Muehlenberg, Poelzig, 9 August 1752, printed in Aland 1:529. 132 Francke to Muehlenberg, Halle, 13 September 1752, printed in Aland 1:530-38. 133 E. Clifford Nelson, ed., The Lutherans in North America, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 49.
THREINEN: FRIEDRICH MICHAEL ZIEGENHAGEN 93 to be the one to comment with advice on what was occurring in America. Ziegenhagen resumed the position of a silent partner. If communication from London was called for, it was with Albinus rather than Ziegenhagen, an arrangement which was terminated when Albinus accepted a call to Germany on 2 June 1761. Following the departure of Albinus from London, communication tapered off for a time. On 10 January 1762, Muehlenberg wrote to Ziegenhagen, “For the longest time, I have not received the tiniest report either from London or from Halle.” 134 Almost a year later, Muehlenberg repeated his complaint. “If, without intending to do so or knowing it, I have offended the Reverend Fathers,” wrote Muehlenberg, “I would rather receive fatherly chastisement and correction or even ‘farewell’ than to be left in suspense without any report.” Muehlenberg directed his remarks particularly at Ziegenhagen when he wrote that a young English preacher from London had arrived again that week “but did not bring along even a note from the Reverend Fathers.” 135 Ziegenhagen’s response to Muehlenberg’s letter of 1 December 1762 was uncharacteristically emotional. He turned the table on Muehlenberg as he told him that he and Francke had written: on 15 July 1761 (Francke) and August 13 (Ziegenhagen). Why did it take the dear brother almost a year to acknowledge our letters? Even more, one must wonder why the 1 December 1762 letter did not give answer to the main point of our letters, that is, how the serious break in brotherly harmony between the beloved brother and Pastor Handschuh can be restored? … These matters certainly call for an answer, but because none came, we thought that our earnest and loving proposal and admonition to brotherly unity was partly not found appropriate and also did not have the desired effect. … We remained in darkness and ignorance as to the true condition of the Pennsylvania congregation and who was actually at fault for the conflict and still is! … Your letter did not give us any more light or understanding but contained only a general expression of Satan and his cunning and the malignancy of satanic chaos. But who this Satan or his tools are and whether Handschuh is meant by this is not indicated. Although he found certain parts of Muehlenberg’s letter “offensive” and “irritating”, he sent it on to Francke the day after he received it and admonished Muehlenberg not to be overwhelmed and rant against bad 134 Muehlenberg to Ziegenhagen, Philadelphia, 10 January 1762, printed in Aland, 2:535- 38. 135 Muehlenberg to Francke and Ziegenhagen, Philadelphia, 1 December 1762, printed in Aland 2:578-585.
Page 1:
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5:
4 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII S
Page 6 and 7:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 8 and 9:
8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII W
Page 10 and 11:
10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43: 42 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 44 and 45: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 110: 110 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?