# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 12 11_S60
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

60

sinner for his own person, and whoever receives it in faith has what it says. We are far from regarding the power to absolve as a power attached to a certain priestly order, like the Roman. We confess with all our heart the saying of Luther in his Kirchenpostille: "Therefore one must understand it rightly when Christ says: ''Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,'' etc., that there is not established thereby the power of him who speaks, but of those who believe." (See sermon on the Gospel for the Sunday Quasimodogeniti.)

(Contributed by Dr. Sihler.)

Remarkable Testimony of the Hireling Preacher Mr. W. Suhr in Cincinnati.

(Conclusion.)

Mr. Suhr asserts, to be sure, in another place, that it is impossible for laymen to convict a preacher of having preached wrongly against the Bible or the symbols of the Church;*) but Mr. Suhr makes this assertion probably only from his knowledge of the character of his own and similar congregations; and one hardly knows who is more to be pitied, Mr. Suhr or his congregation; for every honor-loving preacher of churchly mind who preaches God's Word purely and clearly has surely at least a few orthodox members of the congregation who compare with their Catechism what he preaches, which examination is also heartily welcome to him, and to which he gladly seeks to train them all. But it is pitiable where the congregation cannot at all "judge" what the preacher says, and where he in the end is quite well content that they do not understand everything he says. — There teachers and hearers are worthy of one another, especially when the latter have heaped to themselves a teacher, after whom their ears itch, and he serves them up the fables and self-wise conceits of "sound common sense," instead of God's firm and certain Word and the truth unto salvation.

*) What a pitiable rationalist, yea frivolous scoffer, the said Mr. Suhr is, by the way, according to his inner disposition, is made clear by these his words: "Yes, if it should once succeed in charging it to his account that according to the judgment of your sound common sense (this, therefore, not Holy Scripture, is according to Mr. Suhr the judge in spiritual and divine things) he has preached nonsense — will he not send you home with the answer that precisely among you sensible people reason has not yet been taken captive under faith, and that you therefore cannot judge about sense or nonsense in the pulpit? He must know that, he will tell you, and at the same time promise you, to your shame and soothing, a believing intercession with God (hear the godless scoffer) that he would give you enlightened eyes, so that in future you may not again confound unfathomable revelations of the incomprehensible Spirit of God with nonsense."

As, however, over the doctrine, so also over the life and conduct of the preacher a certain kind of oversight belongs to the congregation; and it would indeed be a rude, godless mob, but no Christian congregation, that would not, though without any malicious distrust, carefully take heed whether its preacher also lives as he teaches; for even dissolute people, who on the one hand heartily desire and do their part that their pastor, their Mr. N. N., should put himself on a level with them, carouse with them, gamble, etc., so that he may not be able to reprove them for it, even such people despise him on that account in their hearts and occasionally express themselves in disapproval of his conduct, since they well know that a servant of the Church ought not to behave so loosely and unspiritually.

We therefore maintain on one side much more than Mr. Suhr, namely that the congregation should not merely once a year show its pleasure or displeasure with its preacher, but that it should at all times with bright and sharp eyes observe his doctrine and his life and judge both by God's Word, which is only welcome and desirable to every upright preacher. Nor does he by any means make a claim to be exempted from the order of Christ in the steps of brotherly admonition according to Matth. 18:15-17. For naturally the same apply also to every preacher, when he has sinned against individuals; but if he has taught falsely in public or given offense in his conduct, he must in fairness, like everyone else, also publicly recant and publicly make apology, and if need be, that is, if he does neither, be deposed from his office by the congregation, be held as a heathen man and a publican, and where possible, also with the cooperation of the Synod or of other congregations of the same faith, be put under the ban, that is, be excluded from the communion of the Church. This procedure, however, takes place wholly according to the rule and order of God in His Word, and therefore every faithful preacher will gladly submit to it, and not, in good papistical fashion, imagine that as a so-called consecrated person and a kind of mediator between God and the congregation he is far exalted above its judgment and office of judging and subject only to his spiritual superiors.

Quite different, however, is that procedure which Mr. Suhr, contrary to God's Word, in good American fashion pretends to be a duty of the congregation, namely: "to show yearly by a vote its pleasure or displeasure with its preacher." Here, first, not a word is said as to what, then, alone is to and may determine "the pleasure or displeasure of the congregation with its preacher"? by what standard the judgment of him is to be held? Mr. Suhr has either again not known this, or he has prudently not said it, lest it should in the end redound to his own disadvantage, and in order that he may at the same time please his democratic electors. What, however, can this standard alone be? nothing else than the pure doctrine of the divine Word and the blamelessness and morality of conduct in the preacher. If the congregation finds both, it must of necessity show its "pleasure"; if it does not find it, it must surely show its "displeasure" with the preacher, if it is, namely, a truly Christian and churchly-minded congregation. But if it is such in nature none, but a worldly-minded, unruly mob, then it will indeed, as "sovereign power" and in its "divine authority," be pleased to show its most exalted "displeasure" where its preacher preaches God's Word as it reads, and, for example, by a thorough exposition of the holy Ten Commandments earnestly rebukes its fleshly liberty, its pride, its covetousness, its avarice, its lust of the eyes and of the flesh, in order that it might, if God so willed, first arrive at the wholesome knowledge of sin. On the other hand it will, conversely, not withhold its great "pleasure" when its preacher lies to and deceives it about its soul's salvation, when he flatters it and fawns upon it, when he its brazen, unbridled nature liberty, its pride noble pride and self-respect, its covetousness prudent use of circumstances, its avarice wise thrift, its gluttony, drinking, gambling, dancing, etc., permitted enjoyment of life, in sum its unbelief dominion of "sound common sense," its unruliness, yea godlessness, "majesty and sovereignty (supremacy) of the people," calls. And this its pleasure will increase still more if its time-serving hireling preacher confirms this excellent doctrine with his conduct and example and, for instance, takes part in the permitted enjoyment of gluttony, drinking, gambling and dancing.

In the second place, according to Mr. Suhr's excellent provision, the pleasure or displeasure of the congregation with its preacher is to be shown "by a vote."

Suppose, then, for example, that a congregation in C. has a preacher of "sound common sense" and of permitted enjoyment of life, and nine tenths of his like-minded congregation therefore bear great "pleasure" in their soul-murderer; then it will naturally be very zealous to elect him anew every year. And since it is the majority, the one tenth, which perhaps still has some traces of fear of God and Bible faith and therefore bears great "displeasure" at the doctrine and life of its present preacher, is outvoted; and if this minority, which according to God's Word is in the right, has not yet enough decision of faith, after fruitless testimony against the false teacher, to call a faithful one for itself, then it is compelled to keep the wolf and hireling also, since, according to Mr. Suhr, God's Word and the conviction drawn from it are not to decide, but human opinion and the number of votes.

A vote, however, in matters of church government takes place only where, as here, God's clear Word does not give the decision, but where it is a question of matters which do not the