# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 11 21_S53
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

53

A Document concerning the Dispute between the Lutheran Synods of Buffalo and of Missouri in North America.

Pastors Grabau and von Rohr, delegated to Germany by the German Lutheran Synod of Buffalo in North America, had requested of our Supreme Church Council "an opinion and counsel concerning their relation to the Synod of Missouri." Our Supreme Church Council complied with this request and addressed the following letter to the said synod, which we can the less hesitate to give to the public, since in No. 11 of the ecclesiastical Informatorium edited by Pastor Grabau, of this year, p. 87, it is said that our Supreme Church Council was asked for a "public" opinion in the dispute in question. We hope, however, that this opinion will prove suited to bring together the divided opinions concerning the distressing dispute between the Synods of Buffalo and of Missouri, so far as this is possible without exact knowledge of the particular occurrences in this discord.

To the Reverend German Lutheran Synod of Buffalo N. Y., care of Pastor Grabau, Right Reverend Sir,

at

Buffalo N. Y.

in North America.

The Reverend German Lutheran Synod of Buffalo has, by a letter of its delegates, Pastors Grabau and von Rohr, dated Copenhagen, the 29th of October 1853, addressed to us the "request for an opinion and counsel concerning their relation to the Synod of Missouri." For the brotherly confidence thereby shown toward us we express to the Rev. Synod our hearty thanks, and give the assurance that it lies upon our heart, for the sake of the holy cause of the Lord, to answer to the confidence placed in us, to the best of our ability, by our faithful Christian counsel and conscientious opinion.

In setting forth our expressed opinions we keep to the several questions in point which have been laid before us in the letter of the Synodical delegates.

Under I. it is desired that we admonish the Synod of Missouri to desist from the public interference in the office of the Buffalo preachers, which they themselves admit.

In support of the reproach hereby uttered, reference is made to the writings: "Sag's der Kirche," to the Synodical Reports of the Missouri Synod, and to some passages of the ecclesiastical Informatorium.

We declare in reply: that we do not on principle consider it right when one receives without further ado persons excluded from other church bodies, especially those of kindred faith, and lends a hand to their being withdrawn from their lawful church court.

Yet this principle suffers in application many exceptions, which have their ground, on the one hand, in the possibility of a glaring and manifest abuse of church discipline, on the other hand, in the highest consideration in all church matters, namely to save souls for the LORD Christ, and in which the most complicated questions of fact may come into consideration. Whether, therefore, sin has actually been committed by the reception of excluded persons on the part of another church, can only be pronounced by way of a judgment after hearing both parties and upon the ground of proof adduced. Since now, with regard to the several cases cited in the writings named, in which complaint is brought concerning the practice of the Missouri Synod and concerning existing factions and faction-preachers, the necessary special knowledge of the facts is lacking to us, we must refrain from pronouncing a judgment upon individual cases, and see ourselves accordingly unable to comply with the wish of the Rev. Buffalo Synod on this point and to admonish the Missouri Synod on account of this practice laid to its charge, since we would not be able to furnish the necessary proofs. When it is remarked that the Missourians themselves admit those interferences in office, this can fairly be understood only to mean that they concede having received persons excluded by the Buffaloans and having provided them with preachers, but not that they themselves have judged and acknowledged this their doing to be an interference in another's office.

Under II. a Christian opinion is desired of us "concerning the doctrines and theories set up by the Missourians for the justification of their practice — which is designated as destructive of the church."

We remark hereupon in general that, in our judgment also, such a practice, which denies the above principle with regard to the treatment of persons excluded from other churches, and without strict proof of a well-founded exception proceeds regardlessly on this point, is rightly called destructive of the church.

When, now, for the justification of such a practice as is laid to the charge of the Missourians, 1) the theory is set up: that an unjust ban makes the church false: we must reject this proposition, if by the unjust ban is understood one which, where a scriptural order of church discipline exists, is carried out contrary to order by a church authority. If, however, by the unjust ban is meant an unevangelical order of church discipline introduced in the church: then the church might on that account indeed be called, to a certain degree — namely so far as the unevangelical order of discipline rested on false doctrine — an impure and false one, even though the error might not be held to be a fundamental one. If it

2) is given as a Missourian principle, set up for the justification of the practice there: that, so long as the doctrinal controversy between the two synods lasts, the Missourians had a right to send opposition preachers into the Buffalo congregations and to keep them there until agreement in doctrine: then it follows already from the above that we cannot on principle justify such a procedure, especially where unity of confession of both synods is conceded, according to which the doctrinal controversy can concern only subordinate points.

For the doctrinal controversy alone gives to neither party a right to hold the other party convicted of false doctrine, much less to deny to it the rights of the church; and for the settlement of such a dispute quite other means must be applied than have hitherto been tried.

Since, however, as already explained above, no judgment can thereby be passed upon all the individual cases which bear the stamp of interferences in office, and since it is hereby again shown how the way of an opinion obtained from one side only, in our position, will hardly help the Rev. Synod much farther, we therefore take occasion to lay before the Rev. Synod, in brotherly good will, that counsel which we consider the most fruitful for the settlement of the pending dispute.

We have, namely, according to the total impression which the present position of the two synods toward one another has made upon us, come to the point of having to advise the Rev. Synod of Buffalo: that for the sake of the holy cause of God and of the love of Christ it enter upon a colloquy with the Synod of Missouri, and indeed in the manner in which the latter has proposed it, namely without insisting that the opposition preachers first be recalled from the separated congregations, and that the latter be again released from the union of the Missouri congregations and referred back to the Buffalo Synod.

It is true that the letter of the delegates contains

under III. 2, a scruple drawn from Holy Scripture against this, in that it is said that according to God's Word it is inadmissible to hold a colloquy with excommunicated persons. We must however declare in reply, that in those passages of the Bible to which reference is here made, namely 2 Thess. 3, 14. 15. and Rom. 16, 17. 18., we cannot find such a prohibition of intercourse with excommunicated persons. For that in the first passage the words: "Have no company with him," are not meant to express an absolute prohibition of that kind, we find plainly indicated by the addition: "admonish him as a brother," according to which, therefore, free room is left for intercourse for the purpose of instruction, conversion, and amendment. — With this the second passage cannot be in contradiction. — Besides, there is rightly recalled in this connection 1 Peter 3, 15: "be ready