# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 07 29_S186
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

186

we have now a threefold reply to make:

In the first place, we cannot concede that Mr. P. Grabau bans "in the order of Christ"; for he openly declares as a principle governing his practice that the congregation owes the servant of the Church obedience in all things which do not run counter to God's Word (see the Hirtenbrief of P. Grabau, etc., pp. 14 and 55); further, that the laity are to be admitted to the synods only as "hearers" and as "witnesses who ask questions and let themselves be instructed," but not as such as may also "judge" concerning doctrine (see P. Grabau's 2nd Synodalbrief, pp. 141, 142, and Hirtenbrief, pp. 18, 19); finally, that the congregation, in the matter of the ban, has not first to "declare" that a sinner is worthy of the ban, and has nothing to "judge" herein or to "decide" according to God's Word (2nd Syn. Brief, pp. 16 and 28).

This anti-evangelical proposition, however (for an evangelical principle it cannot be called), we must decidedly reject; for since Christ has given the last and highest court to the congregation, that is, to the assembly of teachers and hearers, the latter, whether as an assembly of the individual adult members of the congregation capable of judgment, or as such representatives to whom they have transferred their authority for its exercise, can by no means be reduced to mere mute witnesses, or even to such hearers to whom the sentence of the ban pronounced by the pastor would merely be communicated for due observance; rather, every single one of the aforesaid members of the congregation has the right and the power, as soon as a case of church discipline according to Christ's order comes before the congregation, to decide and judge together in its assembly, according to God's Word, after the whole course and facts of the case have been properly made clear to him, that the one who has been vainly punished and admonished is worthy of the ban, which then, to be sure, the pastor alone has to carry out. Where, therefore, as a matter of principle, this their right, grounded in God's Word, is denied and robbed from the body of hearers, or at least from their representatives, through an undue encroachment of the preaching office, one cannot say that the ban is exercised "in the order of Christ," but must rather maintain that it is done contrary to the order of Christ. To furnish the more exact proof of this from the symbolical books we regard as superfluous, since we have mostly to answer to Lutheran preachers, who, as such, are bound to recognize the same also in their connection and as conclusive; and it would in fact be nothing less than Lutheran practice, setting the Symbols aside and contrary to the connection of the evangelical doctrine already gained, to begin again from the beginning to prove from Scripture, or even under the dominion of particular favorite ideas to undertake this and that exegetical crusade and raid through Scripture in a partisan manner.

It is therefore firm and certain that it is for every member of a local congregation his good evangelical right and duty at once to judge along with the rest whether another member of the congregation can remain longer in the union, since moreover in this every individual is concerned with respect to his neighbor; and no doubt or offense may rightly exist in the understanding and conscience of any member as to whether the debtor is lawfully, that is, according to God's Word and order, to be regarded henceforth no longer as a brother but as a heathen man and a publican, that is, by common verdict, wherein all as with one mouth give judgment, to be put out of the congregation. Naturally the case must be in substance thoroughly clear and manifest, and the one punished must also be convicted of his guilt in his own understanding and conscience, so that in the refusal of repentance his evil will and the pride of his heart become manifest to all; for cases in themselves unclear, confused and doubtful cannot, of course, draw the ban after them. But should it happen that in those cases wherein the guilty person is found to be a manifest and obstinate sinner, this and that member, against better knowledge, out of carnal partisanship, stand by him in order to hinder the lawful ban, then church discipline would have to be applied against these, and if they did not repent, they would at last have to be put out of the congregation.

That disorderly banning of Mr. P. Grabau, however, is so much the more dangerous and pernicious when one views it in connection with his assertion mentioned above, that the "church-children" owe their "spiritual fathers" obedience according to the third and fourth commandments even in such matters as, though not doctrine of the divine Word, yet also contain nothing contrary to Holy Scripture, for which P. Grabau is accustomed to cite Heb. 13:17, in contradiction to the orthodox understanding of this passage, as the Apology, Art. XIV, and following, sets forth. For this assertion is altogether untenable and contrary to the evangelical doctrine of Christian liberty in things indifferent, the ordering of which belongs neither to the pastor alone nor to the body of hearers alone, but to both in common cooperation, as it may serve the peace and welfare of the congregation.

But besides it is clearly evident what pernicious consequences the practical application of that proposition must draw after it; for supposing that the pastor, along with confessional decisiveness, does not unite sufficient humility and wisdom, evangelical mildness and gentleness, patience and longsuffering, that he is perhaps, by his natural temper, choleric and self-willed and stubborn, to say nothing of half-conscious love of dominion, how much trouble and heart-sorrow must then necessarily follow from that assertion, to the no small injury of his own and others' souls!

How much needless distress of conscience, yes, what pernicious snares of conscience are easily laid about the neck of this and that member of the congregation who venture, in this and that matter of indifference, such as ceremonies which are not precisely the immediate expression of the confession, or in matters of the building of churches and schools and the like, to have an opinion different from that of their pastor, or who are even able to prove that his counsels, for example in things which concern the external church affairs, are not suited to the circumstances of the congregation, and who are able, though in all reverence and modesty, to make other and better proposals! —

How is it here, with that false proposition concerning the obligation of the parishioners to obey their pastor even in things indifferent, especially with the temperamental faults mentioned above, which scarcely admit a fortunate practical inconsistency, how is it here otherwise possible than that even those modest objections, doubts and scruples concerning the suitability or practical feasibility of the pastor's counsels should at once be made the sin of disobedience against the 4th commandment, which then easily draw the ban after them, if the person or persons supposedly guilty refuse, as indeed they cannot do otherwise, against their better knowledge and conscience, to acknowledge and confess their differing opinions and proposals and the like as a sin of disobedience, and to make apology to the pastor, who, just as a result of his false unevangelical doctrine of the power of the preaching office, and (in the best case) with an erring conscience, demands such repentance and apology! —

Would that now be a ban "in" or not rather contrary to the order of Christ, even if it had the outward legal form? Yes, would not the pastor rather, if he did not execute such a ban out of lack of knowledge and so out of an erring conscience, truly put himself under the ban before God, while the banned, if he were otherwise a believer, in spite of such a Sch......s, as Luther calls it, would certainly remain in the true Church of Christ, that is, in the congregation of believers, although he is separated from the local congregation by such shameful act of violence?

That cases of the ban of the kind mentioned above, as a consequence of the false doctrine of the power of the preaching office and in express contradiction to Apol. Art. XIV: "Item, the jurisdiction extends not to sin against their new laws, but only to such sin as is contrary to God's commandment; for the Gospel sets up no government for them (the bishops) outside the Gospel, that is surely clear and certain," have occurred in no small number in the Buffalo, or rather Grabauite, church government is beyond all doubt, since we have had several proofs printed in our "Lutheraner," without Mr. P. Grabau having furnished a thorough and even in any way satisfactory refutation