# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 05 27_S156
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

156

demn, and, imputing the very worst construction to his supposed words, to damn both on that account! Is that: to excuse the neighbor, to speak well of him and put the best construction on everything? That is the spirituality of all zealots; it was also the spirituality of the inquisitors; but the spirit and mind of Christ it does not breathe.

7. Unlutheran seems to us poor heterodox ones, fallen under his ban, his procedure to be, if indeed he permits us even to pass judgment on such things. It would seem to us that he has forgotten that the 7th Article of the Augsburg Confession does not call everything that he names unlutheran by that name. If we do not join in his churchly usages to a jot, we are forthwith guillotined by him as heretics. There, however, the pure preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the holy Sacraments in accordance with it are called the mark of the Church, and uniformity in ceremonies is represented as "not necessary." We can therefore never bring ourselves to mix Lutheranism and papistical ceremonialism. Then he could indeed with right accuse us of confusion of churches. Though others submit to his intolerant spirit, let him only not expect that the Ohio Synod will put up with his command. We know our rights as Lutherans, and are resolved to let no popery in any shape be laid upon our necks.

8. His unchristian behavior brings only disgrace upon the cause of the Lord. The Church in America has a higher, nobler destiny than to furnish the field for the lust of dominion of any man, be he who he may. Has it then come to this, that one can no longer, after apostolic word and example, bear with the weak in patience, or, after Christ's word: Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, allow genuine pastoral prudence its right, without being called for it a wolf, a man-pleaser or a time-server? This, however, seems to be the inevitable reward of those who wait patiently for the working of the truth, and do not help to force through, in childish haste, the plans of the author of the "Denkwürdigkeit." The example of Jesus' patience with His disciples has for him no meaning. Shall then compulsion take the place of conviction, and unconditional obedience to him count for a convinced conscience! So it was not before the Reformation; so may it never be! If this is genuine orthodoxy, it will soon be only a name of mockery, and deserves to be. And if narrow-heartedness and contentiousness, hair-splitting and hierarchical despotism are not to become synonymous with orthodoxy, we have certainly Dr. Sihler to thank for it in no way. A mode of procedure like his brings the holy faith of our Church into disrepute, promotes factions, apostasy and sectarianism, lays waste the Lord's vineyard, where it needs only digging about, manuring and patience, in order to bring forth fruit abundantly. In the kingdom of Christ conflict is necessary, but not always and everywhere. The kingdom that is divided against itself cannot stand. The conflict about the faith and in the faith is noble, but carnal zeal about wretched ceremonies and unessential human things is unnecessary and unworthy, unlutheran and unchristian. Pulling down the combative reporter understands far better than building up, like his predecessors Carlstadt and Zwingli and the iconoclasts generally. With zealots the moment of the present and the accidental have all worth, the future and the essential none; they are zealous, as once Saul, just as fervently about a shred of the Law as about the garment of the noblest righteousness.

papistical ceremonialism." — In what church, we ask Mr. L., (for this is also meant as a loving side-thrust at our Synod) has he then seen such "papistical ceremonialism"? He has surely never attended one of our services. — Since the Herr Professor does not seem to know what "papistical ceremonialism" is, let him hereby learn it, if he is not already too learned. Papistical ceremonialism within the Lutheran Church would be such, where either these or those ceremonies were the expression and representation of crypto- (that is, secretly) papistical doctrines, or where in the papistical manner it were commanded to keep these or those ceremonies, for conscience' sake, and on pain of loss of salvation. Let Mr. L. be so kind, instead of empty and spiteful assertions (which have been cut to the lying pattern of Br. Weyl and Co.), to bring forward facts, and by these to prove that anywhere among us there are ceremonies which express papistical doctrines, or that we teach that these and those in themselves indifferent usages and forms of worship must be kept for conscience' sake. That, however, we retain old edifying ceremonies, which express the common faith of the Church, and in which the congregations also take a living part, as Luther and his followers did, — that we do not, for love of the Reformed "brethren," adopt their bare and naked worship, in which the preacher alone is the acting person, and according to his mood and fashion prays before the people, — or that we do not use the unanointed and unsalted rationalizing Agende of the Ohio Synod; — that is, it is hoped, in the eyes of just and understanding Lutherans neither papistical nor "unlutheran."

As to 8. Here, to be sure, there would be much to answer, since of declaiming or judging there is unhappily again much at hand, and of "Christ's spirit and mind," which Mr. L. recommends to me in No. 6, nothing is to be perceived. Let him first prove that it is "a carnal zeal about wretched ceremonies and unessential human things," if I press upon the conscience of the Ohio Synod, which confesses the churchly Symbols with the mouth, its practice contrary to the Confession, if I, after its ignorance had also been sufficiently helped by others, reproved it on that account *) and still reprove it,

*) This took place in No. 3 of the volume for 1848 of the "Lutheraners."

1. that it, now as before, obstinately holds fast its frivolous and insufficient examination of the Reformed before the holy Supper; (see above at 1 and 2.)

2. that its preachers will have no "orderly call," but remain "hired" hireling and temporary preachers;

3. that for the sake of better pay or human reasons they lightly change congregations or even also their calling;

5. that they neither themselves keep an orderly congregational school, nor do their part that the congregations call schoolteachers, in order that the children from youth up may be carefully instructed in God's Word

5. that they retain the for the most part unbelieving, unionistic "common hymn-book" and the similarly constituted Agende;

6. that the confirmation instruction is handled by many very frivolously, (here also I challenge Mr. L. to demand the proof through the Synod.)

7. that the examination and appointment of the candidates is conducted so lightly and superficially.

Now I ask every sincere Lutheran, yea the spiritual Mr. L. himself, whether the reproving of such gross and evil practices, through which the poor congregations must of necessity ecclesiastically decline more and more and wither away, — whether this reproving is "a carnal zeal about wretched ceremonies and unessential human things."

But because I reprove such ruinous conditions in a matter-of-fact way (and not personally and spitefully like Mr. L.), I must in the judgment of Mr. L. be "a zealot, a Carlstadt, an iconoclast, a "pulling-down man," must have to do only with "narrow-heartedness and contentiousness, hair-splitting and hierarchical despotism; he, however, with his followers possesses the "genuine pastoral prudence," that they persist in the customary slovenly routine, and adopt no synodical resolutions for the amendment of these evil injuries. That is, to be sure, "to be prudent