# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Februar 1904_S88
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

88 Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

where there is a divorced wife or husband living; but this rule shall not be
applied to the innocent party to a divorce for the cause of adultery, nor to
divorced parties seeking to be reunited in marriage.“ The Presbyterian
Church (North), in May, 1903, adopted the following: That this General
Assembly hereby enjoins all ministers under its care and authority to refuse
to perform the marriage ceremony in the cases of divorced persons, except
as such persons have been divorced upon grounds and for causes recognized
as Scriptural in the Standards of the Presbyterian Cburch.“ The language
of theStandards' is: Nothing but adultery or such willful desertion as can
in no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate is cause sufficient of
dissolving the bond of marriage.“ It speaks well for the determination of
the General Assembly to make itself heard on this subject that the above
resolution was twice adopteéed, being offered ou different days by different
committees. In vieweof their congregational polity, it is impracticable for
both the Congregationalists and the Baptists to enforce such restrictions
upon their ministers. What now is the case with the Lutherans of the Gen-
eral Synod? At the Canton convention, 1893, the following resolutions were
adopted: (1. That the marriage service by the ministry of the Church can be
properly given only under the conditions, relations, and limitations set forth
in that divine law which the Church and the ministry represent. 2. That this
Synod understands the divine law as allowing no dissolution of the marriage
bond except for the one cause specifled, viz., adultery, and consequently as
not permitting remarriage of persons divoreed où½ other grounds, or of the
guilty party in the case of a legitimate divorce. 3. That the General Synod
hereby places on record its earnest desire that the ministers of the synods in
connection with it should carefully harmonize their practice in the solemni-
zation of marriage with these divine principles and the rule they indicate.““
— Wiederholt sind von den verschiedenen Kirchengemeinschaften in dieser Sache Be⸗
schlüsse gefaßt worden; aber die Pastoren kümmern sich wenig um dieselben. Das
gilt auch von der Generalsynode. Dr. Wolf befürwortet es darum, daß hierin Wan⸗
del geschafft werde. Freilich die Generalsynode könne weder gebieten noch verbieten.
Von ihr würden darum auch die Beschlüsse von 1893 nur bezeichnet als “earnest
desire“, nicht als Gebot der Synode. Aber die Einzelsynoden könnten und sollten
hier handeln. Wolf schreibt: „Tucse undoubtedly possess the very power over
their ministers which the general bodies among the Episcopaliaus, Metho-
dists, and Presbyterians possess. It is perfectly consistent with our semi-
Presbyterian, semi-Congregational polity for synods to enjoin all ministers
under their Care and authority to refuse to perform the marriage ceremony
in certain cases. Each synod holds its clerical members to accountability.
What is granted at ordination must be exercised in accordance with the laws
and regulations of the synod, and subject to its disciplinary provisions.“ —
Die Sache ist sehr einfach. Was Gott nicht geboten hat, das hat auch keine Synode
zu gebieten. Was Gott nicht verboten hat, das darf auch keine Synode zur Gewissens⸗
sache machen. Und was Gott geboten und verboten hat, darnach soll sich ein Pastor
richten, auch wenn ihn seine Synode dazu nicht anhält; fordert sie aber das Gegen⸗
theil, so soll er ihr den Gehorsam verweigern. Thatsache ist nun aber, daß der zweite
Punkt der Beschlüsse von 1893 über Gottes Wort hinausgeht. Die öffentliche Schei⸗
dung auf Grund böswilliger Verlassung ist von Gottes Wort nicht verboten. Und
die absolute Verweigerung der Trauung eines wegen Eden Geschiedenen wird
nirgends in der Bibel gefordert. F. B.