# Pieper Correspondence_St. Louis Missouri_August Pieper to Franz Pieper 10 March 1908_S1
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

August Pieper to Franz Pieper, on difficulties in the Wisconsin Synod
(CHI, copied 11/96, Box 17, File 2)
================================
Wauwatosa, Wis., 10 March 1908.
Dear Franz!
I come to you with an urgent request: give me your judgment whether the statement in the latest number of the Quartalschrift (V, 1, pp. 30-31)
"but
that he (Christ) now feels the law . . . as an authority over himself, as if he were a sinner." -- "Christ felt the law as a burdensome authority over himself," and p. 31, top: "He feels it as an oppressive authority, as a foreign will over himself" -- whether this "truth" is false or right doctrine. Further: can you discover false doctrine (not mistaken exegesis) in Ulrich's article on the footwashing, in which he understands the "washing," "cleansing," "being clean" of enlightenment through Christ's teaching and not of justification [compare pp. 70, 71]?
Third: Is it false doctrine in Professor Harders's article on preaching to the heathen when, on p. 58, our half and following, he compares Adam and Eve with the heathen for his purpose?
Why would I like to have your judgment? -- Listen! Professor E in Watertown had been put forward by von Rohr and his accomplices on the Board as candidate for the directorship of the Seminary and was to be elected on 3 March. Protests hailed down from all sides, among them one from me, Köhler, Naumann, E. Hoyer, Professor Hans Meyer; the last charged E with lying and at the same time supplied the proof by appeal to the Watertown faculty. Result: E had only 4 votes left on the Board: von Rohr, Knuth, Gräbner and Kelling, the other eleven against
(page 2 of letter).
him. E is finished and can never be elected. Against Wente we as a faculty have protested on the basis of a thoroughly unsound article he submitted for the Quartalschrift, which he had until now defended as correct and which Hönecke had also condemned. -- With the failure of all his plans, von Rohr has now become furious beyond all measure and has himself raised the charge of false doctrine against Köhler and me. Against Köhler on the basis of the sentences quoted above in his article on the promise of Christ. Against me he has protested (my name too is among the candidates for the directorship) on the ground of sharing in Köhler's false doctrine, because I had after all allowed the article. Against us both together he raises the reproach of incompetence to teach, because we allowed Ulrich's article and Harders's paper. ----- In addition Bergmann of Milwaukee and, I believe, Adelberg with him have protested against me because of my position in the ---- controversy, on the Milwaukee picnics, because of bad treatment of Hönecke, because of failure to support the Watertown institution. -- Finally Professor Schubarth, who stands under accusation before the Synod, has protested against me because I have stirred up a faction against him in his congregation. Bendler and Ebert have collected the "proofs" of the factionalism in Schubarth's congregation. On the day before the (election meeting held at Winona (3 March) the whole arbitration committee, which has Bendler as secretary, was gathered at Rohr's. General President Soll too, and he was in the Board sessions, while Bendler and Dornfeld sat up in R's study, presumably in order to study there! -- In the Board R portrayed Köhler and me as Missouri men, who would not
(page 3 of letter).
safeguard the independence of the Wisconsin Synod if they came to head the Seminary. The thing was to maintain Old Wisconsin against New Missouri! Now when Rohr had raised the accusation of false doctrine against Köhler and me and supported Schubarth's protest against me on the ground of factionalism, our friends on the Board: Schroedel, Albrecht, Lederer, Witt, also Bergmann of Fond du Lac, insisted that these charges be investigated and, if found to be well-founded, that we be removed from our professorship at once, or that the Board reject such grave charges with all decisiveness. It was then resolved that Soll, Gausewitz, Bergmann, John Frank and Weinsheimer should deal with us about these charges as a Board committee. The committee will come to us next Monday. -- You see, this is a fight to the knife between the Rohr clique and us. Now it is win or go under. I fear that our Synod will go to pieces over it. We will insist on withdrawal of the accusations, or bring charges against the accusers before the General Synod and demand an extra session. -- Now we are indeed sure of our cause and know that God will grant us the victory. The other things from Bergmann and Adelberg are very easily disposed of. -- But I would still like to have your and Stöckhardt's opinion about the sentences cited above. If there should indeed be a fault there, that you call our attention to it, so that we can arrange our conduct toward the Board accordingly. Therefore please (all this is of course written in the strictest confidence), take
(page 4 of letter).
Stöckhardt into your confidence, read the passages in the Quartalschrift, test everything closely and write me your finding at once! I beg this very much. So much depends on the outcome. -- But write me so that I have your answer by Monday morning at the latest, earlier if possible!!
Against Schubarth's protest I also intend to take the position that the Board has no right to accept his protest against me, and I will flatly refuse the Board an official answer. Sch stands publicly accused before the Synod of falsifying marks [Notenfälschung; the sense is uncertain] and of lying; the investigating commission meets in the near future. If he is again found guilty, it is clear that he has not been a member of the Synod. -- His membership in the Synod is in doubt through the public accusation against him. No one can say today whether he is a member of the Synod and has the rights of one. Therefore he may not exercise these rights, not go with us to the public sacrament, he sets himself on his own side against us, he practises factionalism. -- Am I right or not? Please write me your opinion on this point too!
Forgive me for troubling you with this matter. But so much is at stake. If we win this bout too, we shatter the Rohr -- Ernst/Ebert(?) - Wente - Bendler - Knuth - Soll etc. machine for good. If we lose, they get the upper hand and the separation from the Synodical Conference is quite certain.
With hearty greeting!
Aug(ust Pieper).

Note on the side of page 4 of the letter: If you think it good that I should come down, then telegraph me at the address Lutheran Seminary, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, about the following words: "It would be advisable." -- I will then leave Chicago on Friday evening by the Alton line and be in St. Louis on Saturday morning.