# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 11 21_S49
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Der Lutheraner.
"God's Word and Luther's doctrine pass away now and nevermore."
Published by the German Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States.
Edited by C. F. W. Walther.
Volume 11.  St. Louis, Mo., November 21, 1854.  No. 7.
Terms: Der Lutheraner appears once every two weeks at the annual subscription price of One Dollar for out-of-town subscribers, who are to pay it in advance and bear the postage. — In St. Louis each single number is sold for 5 cents. Only the letters which contain communications for the paper are to be sent to the editor; all others, which contain business matters, orders, cancellations, money, etc., are to be sent to this place under the address Mr. F. W. Barthel, care of C. F. W. Walther, St. Louis, Mo.

(Contributed by Prof. Dr. Sihler.)
Memorable Matters
from the last meeting of the General Synod of Ohio at Thompson township, Seneca Co., Ohio, in June 1854.

1. It may perhaps still be remembered by the readers of the Lutheraner from No. 16 of the 10th volume how frivolously and unconscientiously the Ministerium of the Western District Synod of Ohio acted in the Strauss affair; for upon the complaints directed by Pastor Husmann and myself to the then President, Professor Lehmann, against A. Strauss on account of his godless machinations and lies, aimed at the formation of a so-called second congregation, it did not think it worth the trouble to arrange an investigation of our complaints on the spot; furthermore, it paid not the slightest heed to the warning issued against Strauss, and officially sealed, by two pastors from Germany, one of whom was a superintendent; rather, it gave such credence to the dear Brother Strauss in his own cause that it acquitted him and declared his unrighteous cause to be righteous.

In this year, now, the matter has come out, also through other new facts, that Mr. Strauss is really a shameful liar; he is therefore rightly excluded from the synodical connection. The Ministerium of the General Synod, however, which pronounced this exclusion, gave the Ministerium of the Western District the following declaration of honor: "Resolved, that we, however, after hearing the oral explanation of the committee formerly appointed in this matter by the Western District Synod, unanimously acknowledge that that Ministerium, according to the documents laid before it, acted conscientiously in its decision at that time."

What is to be concluded from this declaration of honor? Either (which is still the better case) that the Ministerium of the General Synod of Ohio has just as little understanding and insight into the nature and manner of proceeding of an impartial church court as that of the Western District, or that it harbors the same ill-will and dislike toward the persons of the former complainants, since they were reproved by the one party already several times on account of their unchurchly practice, contrary to the Confession, in the superficial examining of candidates, in letting themselves be hired, in the frivolous leaving and changing of congregations, in the neglect of the youth, in the accepting and business-like serving of several congregations, in the administering of the Lord's Supper to Reformed persons as such, in the omission of careful private pastoral care and of the announcement for confession, in the failure to set up proper church discipline, in the use of unionistic hymn-books and forms.

2. Mr. P. Albach, in consequence of a quarrel in which he is indeed partly guilty and has also acknowledged this, was first suspended by the English District Synod, afterwards even excluded; he appeals from such a decision to the General Synod of Ohio and asks for a renewal of the investigation under certain, thoroughly unobjectionable conditions. What happens? The Ministerium resolves "that this petition be laid on the table forever."

Where, now, in this act of violence, indeed in a manner of moral manslaughter, is there even the remotest willingness to practice, in a Christian and churchly way, justice and love together; for the former required that one who could not recognize the justice of his condemnation by the Ministerium of the District Synod be given room to take up his case anew before the Ministerium of the General Synod, as the higher court, whether it be that he were able to demonstrate the complete or partial injustice of that judgment by irrefutable reasons, and thus to invalidate it, or that the Ministerium of the General Synod were able to show his reasons advanced for his complete or partial vindication by ge-