# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 03 28_S125
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

125

Strauss and perhaps his then adherent, that leader, and, say, gives immediate credence to a written testimonial of the others concerning the uncommon excellence of their reverend pastor, and makes no arrangement to investigate, through a competent committee drawn from its own number on the spot, the doubtless very contradictory statements of Strauss and his adherents on the one side and of us both on the other. I should be very eager to hear how, without such an investigation, which did not take place, indeed was not even deemed necessary, the Reverend Ministerium could become so certain of this, that the so-called congregation "was founded in an orderly way;" and this conclusion, to speak most charitably, in any case hasty and unwarranted, which of course declares Pastor Husmann and me to be liars or blockheads, proves abundantly how small the understanding or the love of justice of the Reverend Ministerium was in such a conclusion, and that to doubt the "earnest prayer and supplication" of which they boast before and during the investigation is hardly a sin of the spirit of judging; for if this had taken place in deed and truth, the dear God would surely have preserved them from so frivolous and unjust a manner of proceeding.

But since from this very wise — I almost said foolish — decision it follows irrefutably that the Reverend Ministerium does not know at all what "the orderly way" is for the founding of a new Lutheran congregation in a city where an orthodox congregation already exists, let it be permitted, perhaps for the benefit of this reader and that, to supply the necessary information on this point.

The "orderly way," namely, is that which 1, is according to the Word of God, 2, serves the common weal of the church; 3, takes place in friendly agreement with the existing congregation; and 4, is occasioned by local circumstances.

Ad 1., St. Paul, who as an apostle had the authority to preach the Gospel everywhere, yet says expressly in Rom. 15:20 that he had "strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." If then the Apostle already kept such a rule, at a time when the church was still being planted even through his ministry, how much more does this rule hold in the church already planted and ordered, that where the LORD has already established His orthodox ministry through the regular call of orthodox Christians (Lutherans), no one has the right and power to administer the ministry also in the same place and accordingly to meddle in another man's office; and Lutherans in name who should induce such a person to do so, because, for example, the ceremonies or other matters indifferent in the existing congregation did not please them, would undeniably sin against the saying: "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3), and instead of that, contrary to 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4, would stir up divisions, so that one part of the Lutherans would cling to this teacher, the other to that,

Thereby, however:

ad 2., the common weal of the church is not only not promoted, but rather hindered, and, contrary to the mind and love of Christ, His spiritual body, the church, is not built up but rent asunder; for through such a disorderly way hatred, wrath, strife, discord, envy, contempt, judging, lies, slander, pride and other works of the flesh are powerfully strengthened, and the harmonious and confession-true cooperation of outward and inward gifts and powers for the preservation and extension of the church of Christ is hindered; and where, as for example here in and near Fort Wayne, the new so-called congregations have arisen in hostile opposition to those already existing, many souls, especially of the instigators and ringleaders, may suffer irretrievable eternal harm.—

Ad 3 and 4., Where, however, local circumstances, as for instance the extent of a city, a rapidly growing population through masses of Lutheran immigrants, perhaps from the same regions of the German fatherland, make it impossible that one pastor should serve them all and one church hold them, it would indeed be most beautiful if they should nevertheless all together form one congregation and only one more church were built and an assistant preacher called; yet it would also be permissible if the newly arrived, but in peaceful and friendly agreement with the already existing congregation, should set up the holy ministry especially among themselves in another quarter of the city and form a congregation of their own. And if the same called a right-believing, apt to teach and blameless servant, then, even if the new congregation in matters indifferent, as for example in ceremonies, had an altogether different form than the older, church fellowship could nevertheless take place between the two on the ground of the same ecclesiastical confession, only that it would become necessary, according to the situation of the two churches, to divide the city territory between them by definite boundary lines along streets, lest disorder and confusion break in.

These, then, would be in brief the guiding principles for the formation of a new Lutheran congregation beside an old one, and this alone is "the orderly way."—But since in this case it did not proceed in any particular thus, the Reverend Ministerium of the Synod of Ohio, Western District, can clearly see from it that what it calls the "orderly way" is not that, but the "disorderly way" of self-will, of pride, of resistance to right ecclesiastical order, and in the best case of ignorance and of the improper transference of civil relations to the ecclesiastical domain.

2. The second part of this ministerial decision, born, as it seems, so hard after several days' labor, reads thus: "that the accusations against Mr. Strauss, that he is a manifest and wilful liar, etc. *) are in reality without foundation, but that he has nevertheless committed much in his lifetime out of weakness, imprudence and haste, which he feels constrained to repent heartily."

*) At this strange "etc." one cannot help having one's own particular thoughts, whether about a lack of understanding or of moral earnestness in the Reverend Ministerium, since it appears rather trifling.

Here may the kind reader recall that weighty, officially attested and sealed twofold testimony of the Superintendent Dr. Wortmann and of Mr. Pastor Gräber from Germany, which was communicated above in extract, and in which they, according to duty and conscience, bear witness that Strauss is a wilful, deliberate liar, indeed a man utterly eaten through by the spirit of lying, who no longer knows when he lies, and who, immediately after his arrival in America, so shamefully and faithlessly broke his promise, vowed orally as before God's face into the hands of Pastor Gräber and issued in writing, to take absolutely no step here to enter the service of the church.

The Secretary of the Synod writes above that this testimony from Germany was read in the session of the Ministerium by Professor Lehmann, the present President, and that the same wrote me, as mentioned above, that this testimony must "first be properly and maturely considered."

I now ask the Rev. Ministerium, in the sight of the whole Lutheran Church here: wherein did this "proper and mature consideration" consist, that as its result the absolution of Mr. Strauss from those grave accusations followed in the verdict: "That the accusations against Mr. Strauss, that he is a manifest and wilful liar, are in reality without foundation?"

Has perhaps the Mr. President, if he distrusted my inquiry to Mr. Pastor Gräber concerning Strauss, himself written to the latter and received a retraction of his testimony against Strauss addressed to me?

Answer: No! For then he would hardly have delayed to send me at once a copy of this retraction, which would have justified his dear brother Strauss, at least with respect to his conduct in Germany, possibly, and would have represented Pastor Gräber as a lying or feeble-minded person.

Or have perhaps, orally or in writing, credible and unimpeachable eye- and ear-witnesses from Germany, from those congregations, appeared before the Rev. Ministerium, who by victorious counter-arguments for Strauss have invalidated the officially attested and sealed testimony of those two pastors? Answer: No! although even in such a case those original witnesses would have had to be heard anew, as natural common sense teaches of itself.

Now what then has happened, whereby the Rev. Ministerium was in its conscience firmly and certainly convinced of this, "that the accusations against Mr. Strauss, that he is a manifest and wilful liar, are in reality without foundation?"—Answer: Nothing of legal force or substance, for supposing that leader of the former Straussians had declared himself, partly orally, partly in writing, also in the name of his associates, most decidedly for Mr. Strauss, as the paragon of all truthfulness, fidelity and reliability, it was yet impossible that by such party testimony that official testimony against Strauss could be set aside in the conscience of the Ministerium, since the latter, moreover, could have in its conscience no certainty that the adherents of Strauss were in the right against our congregations, inasmuch as it had, alas, unconscientiously ordered no investigation on the spot.

What, then, was the worth — I ask every morally honest man of some understanding of justice, he need not be a Christian at all, nor have any special enlightenment of the Holy Spirit — what was the worth under such circumstances, according to truth and right, even of the best testimony of those party-men for their former party-head, to reduce that testimony against him from Germany to nothing? Answer: Nothing.

By what, then, to ask once more, was the Rev. Ministerium finally in its conscience assured and undoubtedly certain, that that twofold officially attested and se-