# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 10 16_S31
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

31

longer suffice merely to grind off the corners of the existing confessions; we want no united church of accommodation out of considerations of politeness; we want no indifference toward differences of faith." How true and worthy of heeding these words are, and yet how incomprehensible it is that they exert so little influence on the author himself! Why does he let himself be guided so little by their spirit? Why? Because, beyond question, modern aestheticism and a prattle which is meant to be scholarly but is at bottom empty, about union, lies nearer his heart than the earnest cause of union itself. Or does he not know that we Lutherans cannot with a good conscience let go the Word of God, not even one letter of it? Are we, "for the sake of peace," to cease testifying against every departure from the Word of God, also against the disobedient spirit of "Reformism," however beautifully it speaks, which indeed "would have to stir up discord in the inner heart"? Why does the author not set forth honestly and sincerely the distinguishing doctrines, known to every schoolchild, concerning the Person of Jesus Christ, the Sacraments, etc., which indeed, and quite alone, separate Lutheranism from "Reformism," and seek instead to remove "these points" altogether, since he himself says: "if these points are entirely removed, then uniting is easy." He knows that whoever does not duly lay this to heart "directly sows the seed of discord." But without being moved by his own fine phrases, without touching even in the least those actual points of difference, he cries boldly into the blue mist: "the spirits must press toward a new goal"! "If a true, magnificent union is to come, that means in other words One new (?) Church. That must come to pass through a great deed of a great age"!

What, then, are the points of difference which the interesting author announces so grandly? Only listen: "Luther has designated the matter admirably, in his grand manner, in which he helps his feeling, so ever correct about the objective state of affairs, to an objectivity again with a catchword, when he says there outright to the representatives of Reformed teachers: You have just another spirit! With that everything is said that is needful for explaining the differences pending." (Six pages further the same author says: "Here in these tribal differences ... there we have also more than elsewhere to seek the deep causes of the chasm dividing all Protestant Christendom." In the front it is "the spirit," in the back "the tribal differences," but to such a witty builder of periods it is all one.) And in what, then, does "the full difference" of this spirit consist, according to the author? hear! "In both is mirrored the one light of the Gospel," and this "One" is refracted in both only "in a different ray of color." — But why then still union, is, then, the "One" not yet united, "united" enough for Mr. W. J. M.?! — But the author knows yet another difference: "If one speaks of a rent in the Protestant Church, it is certainly wrong to wish to derive it from personalities, or from three-hundred-year-old misunderstandings, or from passing zeal, or from opposing learned opinions. Had such accidents been the true cause of the separation, union would long since have taken place. But the grounds of it are the same today, are still present and operative today." And what grounds are these? The Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian tendency already named above, which, further developed by the author, runs out into "the watchword," for Reformism: "I shall and will," for Lutheranism: "I may and can" (So the Reformed man has no may, no adiaphoron, and the Lutheran no shall, no law?). "But who will assert that the one or the other is an expression contradicting the truly Christian spirit? Both have equal justification also on the field of Holy Scripture." But why then still, for heaven's sake, a union? Is the field of Holy Scripture too wide, too torn, must that too first be united? — — Is that honest dealing? Let Mr. W. J. M. be ashamed of his lack of earnestness, and first learn to take off the shoes of foolishness before he steps on holy ground. —

These hints may suffice for the present, although it would be easy to point out much more that is superficial and unfounded, yea, wholly confused. We will here cite only a few examples. The author says: "But these names (Lutheran and Reformed Church) represent to us in themselves, the one a person who created and worked reformatorily, the other a cause which was quite directly Luther's own cause." Who, then, is that person who created reformatorily and whose cause was not quite directly his own cause? Or is a reproach perhaps meant thereby, that Luther's cause was quite directly his own cause? is that to mean, the Lutheran Reformation is a subjective one? —

The author says further, p. 274: "Letters in themselves divide and bind infinitely less than is often believed." That is again beautifully said, yet nonsense, for letters "in themselves" never divide and bind, but only the spirit which speaks from the words formed by the letters. But what divides the Lutherans and Reformed in fact is nothing other than those "letters," by which the author can well understand only the symbolical books. Further: "Everyone now just looks at the matter with his own eyes." Is that not spoken like Pilate in ancient times, and Ronge and Uhlich and their associates in more recent? — We should also like to request the proof that "the communion of saints is something other than One, holy, universal Church." —

Now one more request: in future somewhat more wool and somewhat less cry, and, if it should be possible for Mr. W. J. M. to become sober from the drunkenness of aestheticism, a clearer, simpler, more solid style. About California and the Isthmus of Panama one lets oneself put up with some interesting leaps in the air, but in so important a matter as the present one, such croakings ought to be avoided.

(Submitted.)

Result of the Election for the Professorship at the Theological Institution, at Present in Altenburg, Mo.

It has pleased the LORD, according to His unsearchable counsel, to translate two dear members of our electoral college into the number of the just made perfect, and out of labor into the blessed rest of heaven: the highly revered Senior of our Synod, Pastor Löber, and our beloved brother, Professor Pastor Wolter. The latter cast his vote shortly before his death, on the 17th of August.

The members of our electoral college vote, according to the written communications that have come to me, as follows:

1. For Pastor Walther vote the late Professor Past. Wolter, Mr. Piepenbrink, Past. Wyneken, Past. Keyl, Past. Crämer, Mr. Tschirpe, Past. Schieferdecker, and the undersigned.

2. For Pastor Brohm votes Past. Walther.

Only the vote of Doctor Past. Sihler is lacking, whose letter may have been lost owing to the uncertainty of the postal connections here.

So far as the votes cast up to now are concerned, Pastor Walther is elected first professor of our theological institution not merely by a majority of votes, but by a complete unanimity of votes.

Herman Fick,
pro tem. Secretary of the electoral college.

Revival of Lutheranism in Alsace.

Through the hand of a friend a lot of small tracts printed in Strasburg has been sent to us, which serve as a most gratifying factual proof that at the present time the old Lutheran faith has now awakened also in beautiful Alsace, and that consequently many who formerly, though Lutherans by name, supported the Reformed and United missions, now turn their contributions to the newly arisen exclusively Lutheran missions. Among other things it says in a note to one of those tracts: "In our Alsace and the adjoining lands many are already active, by prayer and helping hand, in supporting the missions of the Evangelical Reformed Church at Paris, Basel, and Barmen. We are of good confidence,