which people can serve without committing sin (qui sine peccato servari possunt) and which uses the the sincere efforts of those complying to it in order to maintain the peace. Even a gang preacher can see here that the text does not pertain to the maintenance of peace within the community but rather to the concept of service to the ordering. It is the ordering which provides peace for the Christian; the lack of order serves only those seeking disharmony. In the Eden farmers we have a living example of this latter state.
5.) Let it be noted here that this gang and Mr. Ernst and the Missouri Synod have rearranged the chronological sequence and completely distorted the facts; for example, when did Pastor Grabau supposedly lecture on the Saxon church orders; what followed and why? And what about the nonsensical issues, which do not exist in the church orders? There is proof in such distorting that good ordering was met with quarreling and conflict, as if Pastor Grabau had brought this about!
Furthermore he accuses Pastor Grabau of countless distortions of the facts but he does not cite any. Instead he stresses a word by underlining it, such as on page 50 of the Second Synodal Letter "and others," namely other related matters. Using emphasis makes it seem as though the entire Synodal Letter is a book of lies.
6.) Finally it is Mr. Ernst's opinion that there is evidence of spiritual tyranny on page 65: Jacob Bauer declared during the warning that the order was proper and he knew that if he died tomorrow, in his current standing (in the gang) he would be lost; however he could not bring himself to retract his signature from the letter of separation from his pastor and he could not leave the gang. Since Bauer was convinced of his sins and he knew the order was right and Christian, supposedly this is spiritual tyranny! In this manner the mutinous author of this Sidecar could accuse the Lord Jesus himself of having exercised spiritual tyranny since he convinced Judas Iscariot of his sins.
7.) Mr. Ernst barely mentions that the church ministry and synodal members would have been there and would have questioned people, however since they lived in another part of the country far distant from Eden they could not render a decision on the matter. And then he makes fun of our synod for its singularity of mind, depicting it as though the entire synod blindly followed Pastor Grabau's word. Therefore a man must lie and commit slander out of stupidity if he wishes to correct the evil undertaken by another in order to achieve a particular end. However Mr. Ernst is a clever man * and he can better investigate and judge everthing in this case even though at the time he was in Ohio at least 200 miles from here.
8.) In conclusion, Mr. Ernst will now see that his proof of improper ban is mistaken when he himself recognizes that
these people never accused their pastor, and yet they supposedly deposed him properly! Similarly they supposedly chased away their school teacher and replaced him because they had to be consistent in their actions and because he had made accusations against one of the gangsters before the church court. For no other reason the gang charged him with having supplied false testimony. They did not take the charge against him to his own church committee! Such is the spiritual freedom of the children of God, which according to Mr. Ernst knows no boundries.
Let us also add the gang's singular and false assertion that no further outrage was committed by them when in truth they smashed the church window, ripped the church door open, drove one of our church fathers into a corner; the church father had to rip a lamp from the wall and throw it. One of the gang called Pastor Grabau a hooligan and another called him a wetnurse; Bürger was present at the break in and let it happen since he wanted to hold early morning church service there with his gang in an hour and a half and deliver his first sermon concerning the young man in Nain.
Incidentally this author of the mutinous article calls Moritz Bürger a properly appointed preacher in Eden. Undoubtedly he bases this on John 10, 1: Whosoever enters the sheep pen, etc. The editor, Prof. Walther, states in an comment on page 12 that the Missouri Synod has had written accusations in hand since May 1, 1851 but had no wanted to address the matter in the hope that it might be resolved privately and there might still be a chance at reconcilation with Pastor Grabau. The man never left his rooms, therefore he had to deliver this matter by publishing it in this mutinous article concerning Eden! — Any Christian can see just how shamefully and immorally the Missouri Synod conducts its business. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are forever goodness, justice and truth. If the Missouri Synod had this supposed written accusation in hand since May 1, 1851, then it was their duty in accordance with the 8th Commandment of our God to send it to the Buffalo Synod, which held an assembly in September 1851, so the matter could be investigated. Then they could have learned the truth. Instead the Missouri Synod concealed the supposed accusation — so they would have their prize in hand; so Pastor Grabau would deal with them privately; and if this had happened, they would have concealed it right up until today (quite dishonorably), as they themselves had promised. However now they come forward with it on the understanding that they do not wish to contribute anything to the investigation and await the response of our synod!
(See the page in their Lutheran on which they state they will not discuss the matter with us in another manner.)
Summary: If Pastor Grabau deals with them in private, then they will keep the accusation secret; if he will not deal with them, then they will publish the accusation and ignore his response to it.
A friend from hell would wish them luck for such a set of ethics.
How deep a synod sinks into immorality when it merely works to enlarge its territory for worldly reasons rather than for the sake of the Christian Church.
The Fourth Article of the Missouri Sidecar
The so-called Historical and Theological Contribution of the Gang Preacher Fürbringer in the Lutheran, Volume 9, No. 10
After the "historical and theological contribution" was read there was inquiry. The unanimous decision of the synod was as follows:
1) The history of events in this libelous article is distorted by a multitude of untruths and fictions.
2) There are blatant contradictions within it, for example on page 9, paragraph 3 where it states that the Missouri preachers were cordially disposed towards Pastor Kindermann in 1844 when they installed the gang preacher Geyer in the Watertown congregation. At the time it was known that Pastor Walther had written a letter to Watertown which stated that if Pastor Kindermann was such a teacher then they had the right to separate from him and appoint another; the Smalkaldic Articles (N. Y. edition, page 239) teaches, "therefore, if the bishop is either a heretic or, etc." Here supposedly is proof of the independence of the local congregations and the assertion that they are the highest court!
3) In particular there is the work of reconciliation which God manifested through our Senior Minister in Wisconsin and which Fürbringer and his gang so distorted and cast suspicion upon by calling it hypocrisy. More than a hundred witnesses are at hand who can testify that the two assembled congregations professed with praise to the Lord resounding through the building that the reconcilation was from God; three times a unanimous "yes" rang through the crowd.
Comment: (Afterwards the reconcilation compact was destroyed and the devil incited anew — and so these gangs are from the devil, even they had acknowledged at the time that the reconcilation was from God.)
4) Specifically, it is a lie that the two congregations at this meeting supposedly decided that Krause had said, "I cannot forgive my Freystadt congregation unconditionally." He may have said that once in the past, however after elucidation of all the events there was heartfelt and proper reconcilation between pastor and congregation, after which the meeting was closed. — The author of this article spoke the truth when he wrote that two of the instigators, M. Helm and A. Lempke, stepped forward as the reconcilation compact was being written and stated, "they could forgive their pastor only on the condition that they need no longer go to him for the eucharist;" they could not trust him to be their confessor. They were instructed
to ask God the Lord to remove the hatred and mistrust from their hearts.
There are too many ancillary lies from Fürbringer to list them all here.
5) Along with everything else the dishonest author of this article must acknowledge that after the reconcilation compact was broken (because Lempke and Helm again incited their 40 cohorts to it), the three grades of warning were issued to these people in the manner proscribed by our Lord, Jesus Christ.
6) Mr. Fürbringer has not proven there were improper bans in his unjust historical and theological article; rather he must acknowledge that the bans were executed in the proscribed manner.
How would it be possible to address all the erroneous items and untruths, the lies, charges and slanders piled up in a mass of 31 paragraphs (on 10 ½ quarter sheets) plus write a refutation and publish it within the brief period of time allotted! We can only address the major points.
7) A particular point is in No. 12, page 18 of Mr. Fürbringer's commissioned article. It states:
This regards our report in the Kirchliches Informatorium of March 1, 1852, page 52 concerning the proper teaching of the Christian preaching office, namely that the office does not issue forth from the faith of an assembled small group (as Dr. Sihler maintained) but from the gospel spoken by Christ. Thus Mr. Fürbringer must acknowledge this pure teaching, yet at the same time he asserts it is a perversion and defaming of pure Lutheran doctrine which could only be spoken by a satanic tongue. And in order to bring this point home to his readers, he prefaces these word with "Pastor Grabau has taught a church without faith which bestows proper appointment to the preaching office. " However this is a gross untruth. On pages 74 and 75 of Kirchliches Informatorium there is no church without faith; instead it is proven that within the church ordained vocation is not validated because of the faith of those
within the assembly making the choice or appointment but rather because of the command and ordering of Jesus Christ. Even if none of those assembled were spiritual priests, ordained appointment within the church would properly occur because of the command and ordering of Christ. Thus we see that Mr. Fürbringer wrote gross lies in asserting that in the Informatorium we taught about a true church without faith. On the basis of these lies he constructs his slander that Pastor Grabau is Satan's mouthpiece.
Upon additional inquiry the Synod agreed that the Sidecar should be completely disregarded by the pastors and church administrators because we did not have time to deal with it. We also believe that sufficient inquiry had been accorded to it to prove that the Missouri Sidecar transports impure matter which the driver then scatters about.
In the synopsis Professor Walther purports to show the blatant errors of Pastor Grabau, compares them to papist heresy and indicates their lack of agreement with Lutheran teaching. Due to the lack of time a cursory examiniation will have to suffice here. The errors wills be elucidated in a supplement to the Fourth Synodal Letter delivered in a Christian and basic manner. Brief excerpts of this will appear in Kirchliches Informatorium so that our church members can recognize the scholarly treachery of Professor Walther.
To this end we examine merely the first passage from the Synopsis, January 4, 1853, Volume 9.
This passage was carefully read several times and compared with articles of the Roman church and passages from Dr. M. Chemnitz regarding the third column. After inquiry the Synod delivered a unanimous verdict as follows:
1.) It is apparent that the author of this synopsis went about his work dishonestly. For example, when we state that divine appointment and commission are also components of proper administration of the holy eucharist and that words of investiture alone are not sufficient, we state nothing other than the words taught and professed by the Augsburg Confession, Article 5, the Apology, Article 4 and the words spoken by Our Lord Jesus in Luke 10, 16 — "Whoever hears you, hears me," and the words of blessed Luther, "the power, which actuates the body of Christ into the eucharist, is not manifested merely by speaking the words of transmutation but in God's promise and it is his promise which joins with our speaking of the words." Thus, while we teach (in the Second Synodal Letter, page 11 and the Third Synodal Letter, page 8) that God's promise and command
Go on to pages 28 - 32
Copy of text provided by the A. R. Wentz Library, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, PA
Imaging and Translation by Susan Kriegbaum-Hanks