# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1852 12 07_S1006
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

6

contents thereof. Naturally there was always preaching about avarice, etc., and this, because one knew whither it aimed, was bound to become a burden. In confession Pastor Grabau called to account not only men, but also women and young people on account of the shilling.

It happened once that two or three of us were sent as delegates from the congregation to Buffalo (namely Schweickhardt, Müller and Rauch) to beg Pastor Grabau that he would give us the student Lange for pastor. At the same time they were also to negotiate with Pastor Grabau that the shilling might be abolished; then these delegates came back and brought a new plan concerning the shilling; we do not know whether Pastor Grabau suggested this plan to them, or whether they themselves devised it: namely, to draw up a document and to have the shilling confirmed by signature. At that time it was the wish of the whole congregation that the shilling business should come to an end. We say this for the reason that Pastor Grabau in his report speaks always only of "some members of the congregation," and of a "crowd in the congregation." But this plan also, wherever it may have come from, availed nothing. Many indeed, in the opinion that Pastor Grabau had ordered the document, signed from fear of men, by no means from inclination and willingness. (For the explanation of this one must know that we were at that time so perverse and clung to Pastor Grabau as to a demigod.) Some, however, though they signed, afterwards did not pay all the same, for they soon found cause for it. Sutter also did not sign, but was always willing to pay, for he was a faithful adherent of the pastor. Once Sutter's wife came to the confessional, and Pastor Grabau asked her why her husband would not sign for the shilling? The woman answered: Her husband was at all times willing to pay, but not to sign, for he did not find it necessary and thought one could trust him without a signature. Thereupon Pastor Grabau said: It was not on account of distrust, but by this he merely wished to recognize his faithful church children. Since signing also would not work, Pastor Grabau seized upon another means. He said publicly from the pulpit: Whoever would not sign the shilling, or the "Christian order," as he always called it, of him he could no longer be pastor, and to him he could not give the holy Supper. (See how Pastor Grabau says on p. 60 that he made an announcement of excommunication.)

One can imagine how such a declaration was bound to affect us! In the meantime, in 1848 it also came to the building of a new church. The building materials were half procured, the mason already contracted with, but a Babylonian confusion prevailed among the members and the pastor. Some wished to yield, the others to persist in their right, and so it wavered back and forth among the members themselves. For through the great prestige that Pastor Grabau at all times enjoyed among us, some were won over again and again. At last a further means was applied to the "stiff-necked": These were not to be allowed to build with us; from them also no contributions to the building of the church were to be accepted. This means failed for this time. The eyes of all were opened that in this way it must come to a separation. Therefore the whole congregation gave to the deputy Schweickhardt the commission to seek counsel and help for this sad dispute at the synod (it was the same synod of which the cited, untrue "Synodalbrief" gives an account). What counsel and help we received there, however, the reader may learn for himself in Grabau's Synodalbericht. (p. 58.) For those, however, to whom the Synodalbericht does not come to hand, we wish briefly to communicate so much:

"The Reverend Synod could not meddle in this counsel and dispute, for it was a quarrel of 'some members,' and these had first to hear the admonition of the church ministerium." This "admonition" was also carried out by Pastor Grabau. On a Sunday, after he had read the Gospel and spoken some words upon it, he read off the so-called "admonition," which lasted not a short time. (Was the Gospel also preached on that day?) This admonition effected something (p. 62), but nothing good. Some let themselves be caught anew under the servile yoke of Pastor Grabau, the others remained firm. So it came gradually nearer to the complete separation. Besides, one must know that Pastor Grabau privately applied all his strength, one may well say, cunning, to frighten and confuse the consciences of the people; especially did he seek to work upon the women.

So the reader sees from what we have here reported in accordance with the full truth, that it was a purely human order which had been set up at the beginning "for the sake of peace and good order"; but since it was found that nothing but discord and disorder had arisen from it, and that they wished to make such an order a matter of conscience, the congregation found it good, yea necessary, twice to abolish it again. To desire this the congregation had the right, and Pastor Grabau, had he been humble and faithful, ought to have yielded and not to have pressed consciences so as he had done. Or does that not mean to ensnare consciences, when for the sake of money to be paid one refuses the holy Supper and the cure of souls? Let it be judged impartially whether we had not both right and duty to resist such proceedings? We have never asserted that this order was sin in itself; but we have asserted that, because so much disorder and discord, etc., had arisen from it, one had the full right to abolish such a human order according to the doctrine of the 15th Article of the Augsburg Confession. For only such church orders made by men does that article teach to be kept as are not only not sin in themselves, but also serve for peace and good order. Of this last sentence, which we often held up to Pastor Grabau, he would never hear anything. We would not become the servants of men. (1 Cor. 7:23.) We would not purchase absolution and the holy Supper by our submission to this order forced upon us. We would stand fast in all the true liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be caught again in a servile yoke. (Gal. 5:1.) Let Pastor Grabau judge of us never so wantonly, and speak of a "brand" in our conscience, we commend it to God, who will bring it to light in His own time. We must, alas, fear that Pastor Grabau himself has brands in his conscience, so that he no longer feels the injustice and tyranny committed upon us. Bear with us such earnest and strong language! We know what we say. But whoever cannot yet recognize that we speak so hard with right, let him recognize it later. For it is hardly to be thought that God will look on in the long run at this domineering man; HE, the LORD, will reveal him, if he does not soon go into himself. Many souls banned by him most unjustly cry to heaven, and such sighs of the wretched will the LORD hear. Let one go to Buffalo, and hear and see how it stands in Pastor Grabau's congregation!—Let the blinded man call us a "faction"; a right to do so he has not; for again we repeat most emphatically: We have done and maintained nothing against the 15th Article of the Augsburg Confession, but for it.

From what has been said thus far, an impartial person can already sufficiently recognize that we are no faction. But since Pastor Grabau has yet invented seven grounds of exclusion to stamp us as a faction, we must answer these also briefly.

Second ground:

II. Because they, as a crowd in the congregation, asserted that they had power to overthrow it according to their will, and that the pastor and other church members must obey them therein."

Our answer: That is untrue, as sufficiently proved above. Not "a crowd in the congregation," but the whole congregation twice wished this so-called "Christian order" to be abolished. That we were in the end only a "crowd," that is, a part (yet the larger), comes precisely from this, that, as indicated above, several, out of fear of men, man-pleasing and out of fear of