Reading this book with essays by Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf, 2012: “Kritische Standpunkte fuer die Gegenwart. Ein lutherischer Theologe im Kirchenkampf des Dritten Reiches, ueber seinen Bekenntniskampf nach 1945 und zum Streit um seine Haltung zur Apartheid”. Edited by Markus Buettner and Werner Klaen in Oberurseler Hefte Ergaenzungsband II. Goettingen, Edition Ruprecht, I came across some striking comments by missionary Gottfried Stallmann, who was sent by the Mission of Evangelical Lutheran Free Churches (MELF – Bleckmar, Germany) after the 2nd World War to serve in the Lutheran Church in Southern Africa amongst the Zulu people. He worked in Enhlanhleni and Salem before he was called home by the Lord over living and the dad.

Rev. Stallmann addressed two vital issues in the young LCSA namely “missions” and “independence” – and he saw these in clear contrast and even contradiction towards each other.  On the one hand as the Church was trying to find a way forward to address the call by Jesus Christ to reach out faithfully to heathens, unchurched and erring, they were struggling with the challenge of to few laborers in the field: pastors, missionaries and evangelists. On the other hand they were also confronted with the dilemma of “independence of the young Church” as were all denominations and churches worldwide. More missionaries from outside would always delay the independence of the young Churches even more. I think it is important to understand that the promotion of “independence” was indeed always a strong driving force behind “apartheid” and that it also contrasted and even clashed with the idea of unity and oneness of the holy Christian Church.

The Church was tasked to work out, which of these two issues demanded priority. I think due to the general set-up in South Africa during Apartheid and the political movement across this continent as a whole after the 2nd World War, the issue of independence had natural predominance. Even if there were always voices in the Church, who would advocate the priority of missions due to the clear mandate of our Lord in Mt.28,18ff, the issue of independence would always be pushed by the popular majority.

Rev. Stallmann put this controversy into perspective and showed that it is a irreconcilable conflict and actually a dogmatic one too. The question remains, what is the priority for the Church: “Mission” or “Independance” – “Mandate of the Lord” or “political correctness”? Obviously by putting it this way, I have already taken sides. I believe that the issue of independence is secondary to the clear mandates of our Lord. I don’t see “independence” as a mandate for the Church promoted anywhere in the NT. St. Paul goes to great lengths to promote the unity of the gentile mission Church and that of the mother congregation in Jerusalem. I think that he is doing that in faithful response to the Lord’s prayer recorded in John 17.

Being at home in a Church and a fellowship of Churches, who have as part of their separatist history emphasized vigorously the need to be “independent” from state and heterodox Churches, I think that we are in dire need to consider the relevance, priority and even vital necessity of faithful unity in the Church. This is not only in South Africa with our history of separate development, but also globally between North – South, 1st world and 3rd world, rich and poor, connected and isolated.

To complicate issues I would like to add a few other issues, which come into the picture too, because its really not just about these two issues “mission” and “independence” in the young Church – its also about pastoral care for congregations in the diaspora in regular and edifying time frames with the faithful preaching of Law and Gospel, faithful administration of the Lord’s sacraments of Baptism/Lord’s Supper, confession and absolution, catechesis of confirmands, Sunday School education, Youth and student ministry, adult instruction, evangelistic outreach, church music, hymnody, liturgical worship,   it’s about solid confessional Seminary training, it’s about diaconic projects and other works of mercy, it’s about schools, hospitals, boarding schools, HIV/Aids centres, orphanages, administration, sustainable financing etc.

If all this needs to be done by every group independently to promote the “independence” of the Church I believe that we loose out on God’s gifts for the entire Church, the wholesome aspects of sharing these good graces of God and the divine institution of having various limbs of the body cooperating with each other to the common good of edifying the entire Church. Just as the project of apartheid failed partly because it was just too much to provide a own government with legislature, judiciary, executive, own university, Radio station, industry, schooling system to every different language group in this own country of only 25 million people (at that time) – so too its highly impractical to create separate amenities for every different group/congregation/culture in the confessional Lutheran Church.

Stallmann summarizes and I translate freely his comments as found on page 295 of the book mentioned in the beginning:

Are missionaries from Germany still required?

Answer:

1. Yes, dozens of them – but then the day of true independence is even further away.

2. No – so that independence is achieved.

So far the conclusion of Stallmann. I think it is evident that we have here a classical conflict of priorities and even today the Church needs to have clarity about this and decide, what goal should occupy the driving seat and what should just play second fiddle.

Because we are first and foremost a confessional Lutheran Church – the promotion of this should be our priority and major goal. Everything that promotes that should be given right of way in the fast lane and all else should be relegated to the slower lanes or parking places.