The Third Synodal Letter - Pages 93 - 97


I present the following documents and ministerial reports in God's name.

§1. Soon after his posting in Freystadt in Wisconsin in 1848, he complained that his congregation was small; he complained of poverty and the lack of help - for example, that there were no domestic servants and his children had to muck out the cow barn. In our simple mindedness we believed this and sympathized. It was later decided that he would receive ordained appointment to Martinsville. Perhaps he had accepted this appointment because he thought he would have a better standard of living, which we could not see. In the beginning he was quite happy in Martinsville, however in the winter of 1849 - 1850 he wrote many letters to me complaining of the bitter need, since he had no bread for his children. He wanted them to come to Buffalo so they could earn their daily bread. While making these complaints, as it became known to us later, he had $300 in a chest and his children were supporting themselves in Martinsville by doing women's work. I didn't know this at the time and I was disturbed by his great need, however he did not request action from the church ministry to do anything with the congregation. He also had not turned to the church administrators in Martinsville but he spoke in private with Carl Sack, saying that he was poorer now than when he was a theology candidate. I did not know any of this and I sympathized with his bitter need (needlessly) but was unable to give assistance. I finally communicated this to the brothers in office, von Rohr and Lange. In the interim Pastor Krause moved to Buffalo because he had an eye ailment (catarrh of the eyes) and he wanted to let the eyes heal. He moved to the city at the end of May. It is noteworthy that he expressed to me in a letter that he wanted to leave Martinsville and return to Wisconsin; for this I disciplined him as a ministerial brother with a warning. Then I found out that he had no true love for his church children and that he talked like a weary hypochondriac.

He came to Buffalo by his own willful decision, without consulting me or the church ministry and completely abandoning his ministerial work. Because he had assured his congregation that he had come to Buffalo so his eyes would heal, it forwarded his salary to him. Soon after he arrived here he expressed the principle, that if his congregation would not fulfill its obligation to him and build him a parish residence, as he wished them to, then he need not do anything for them and he would not move back. The congregation was willing to fulfill its obligation but was not at the time in a position to do so, thus we confronted him with his lack of charity and administered brotherly discipline. While in Buffalo his wife spread false rumors that the congregation in Martinsville had let them suffer in dire need, that in 6 weeks they had only received 1 dollar. His eldest daughter, Caroline, also spread false rumors. Both were warned about this and the lack of truth was shown to them. Unfortunately Pastor Krause still supported his wife's lie! He was also warned.

Shortly afterwards, on July 8th, Pastor Krause came to our pastoral conference,


during which we were discussing an issue dealing with marriage. He boldly and untruthfully asserted:
a) In a note of our synodal letter, page 49, (which his wife unwillingly read to him) Arnd's True Christianity was placed alongside pietistical books; it was specifically selected and only certain deficient portions were quoted because of a few fanatics, especially Methodists, who had referred to it and wanted to embellish upon it.
b) The decision of blessed E. Neumeister concerning Arnd's book was deceitful and intractable; it was not true that Arnd had retracted certain things. — We are well aware that Arnd retracted many things in the year 1619, especially the high and dark expressions.
c) Pastor Krause threatened that if the Senior Minister did not publically retract the note, then he would bring the matter up in his congregation and testify or preach about it. We convinced him that he was in error and wherever our words were too harsh during the process of convincing him, we apologized. He departed from us without having sought harmony with us. On the following day, July 9th, he wrote a letter to us, in which he made the same assertions as before. He insulted us, saying we were hierarchical because we demonstrated that his remarks against the note were sinful and mutinous and because we had told him that he must allow the church ministry or the synod to make a decision concerning this note. He was also told that he was hierarchical if he passed over his church court and on his own authority conducted disputatious sermons against the Senior Minister, who had requested that the matter be turned over to the ministry or the synod for deliberation. He did not accept our verbal warning of the 8th or our written warning of the 9th.

§2. As brothers in office we wrote a second warning on September 2nd, the content of which referred back to the first warning, this time supported by a third ministerial brother of Pastor Kindermann, with whom he had corresponded about the exchange of letters. Pastor Krause declared that he had been badly treated by us, that he had been subjected to so much suspicion, inspection and discipline that he could no longer function within his congregation and therefore he was resigning his post. He was reproached for his mercenary attitude, and told that it was a sin to prefer to leave his flock because he shied away from a Christian investigation and the verdict of the synod, and because we would not put up with his mutinous tendencies. He also accused us of having accepted all the charges made against him by the Martinsville congregation even though we had only asked him to vindicate himself by submitting to public investigation or offer repentance.

It must be remembered here that at this time of the second warning, his wife and eldest daughter, Caroline, had gone back to Martinsville to pack up his books. While there they gossiped with two families that the note on page 49 was highly improper and that their husband and father had disapproved of it and would not condone it. — they also carried on other evil discussions to the distress of several families, who had turned


to ministerial brother, von Rohr, with their complaints. As a result many more families came forward and testified,
1) that Pastor Krause had treated his congregation uncharitably, especially the sick.
2) that he had preached false teachings, for example that in a proper confession, sins had to be named if a proper absolution was to be attained and that there weren't ten people in Martinsville, who had properly confessed, and that in Martinsville there were so few Christians that one could inscribe their names on the nail of the little finger! How like Ehrenström!
3) they wanted to testify to Pastor Krause's many inproprieties, such as the desecration of the 3rd Commandment, etc. And besides this,
4) a maid had previously corroborated that Pastor Krause and his wife were probably living in feigned poverty and avariceness, a fact which had come out in Pastor Krause's own admission to Pastor Grabau. Above all else Pastor Krause did not want an investigation of himself or his wife, rather he showed himself to be reluctant and easily offended by church disciplinary procedures. He was admonished to think of his sanctity and the welfare of the church, but instead he threw the church into confusion and created much grief and trouble for us. He was indifferent to us and above all else he remained unrepentant, so we forsook him.

On the following day, September 3rd, his wife also received a warning for her careless gossiping and her feigned poverty,etc. She did not accept this. She insulted us by calling us inquisitors and priests, whom she never wished to see again, etc. Thus we forsook her. Pastor Krause encouraged his wife and did not punish her for her sins.

§3. In consequence, a third warning was issued to Pastor Krause on September 9th. The Senior Minister, along with Pastors von Rohr and Lange and the honorable synodal deputies Christian Wendt of Walmore, August Grobengiesser of New Bergholz, Fr. Grosskopf of Martinsville, Johann Drews of Buffalo, along with C. Sack of Martinsville as witness went to him and once again gave a heartfelt warning.

This warning had to be issued quickly because he, along with his wife, had already stated their intention not to return to Martinsville. On September 6th he had written a letter of resignation to the congregation in Martinsville, in which he made false accusations against them and withdrew from his ministry. — When we came to him, we laid out 6 points of sin.
1) the untrue statement concerning the synodal letter, page 49.
2) the untrue charge that we were hierarchical.
3) the avarice and feigned poverty, which had become public knowledge.
4) the sinful claim that we had taken the word of the Martinsville congregation in an improper manner when all we had wanted was for him to either provide justification or offer repentance.
5) the sinful announcement of his resignation from the ministerial post, whereby he intended to flee like a mercenary and would accept no investigation.
6) his sinful withdrawal from the church ministry, whereby he wished to have no further contact, as taken from his letter of September 9, 1850.


To this he responded:
1) He would take back his letter to the Martinsville congregation.
2) For the time being he would stand by his previous declaration. That is, unrepentant. He was remonstrated for this. It remained his responsibility to justify himself in the face of the complaints. Only then, and not by himself (as he intimated), would the message in his letter to the Martinsville congregation be cancelled. — If he could not vindicate himself, then repentant acknowledgement was necessary. — Furthermore, since he had resigned from the church ministry and the synod, he had also resigned his ministerial post in Martinsville because it is a portion of the synod. He would therefore also have to take back his letter to the church ministry. He stood by his resignation. We told him again that he could not reconcile himself with the congregation if he would not disprove the charges or, if he failed to do so, to repent. If he did not want to discuss the matter, give information, provide justification or offer repentance, then we would see him as a willfully obstinate and unrepentant man, who ran away because he would or could not justify himself. At the conclusion, each individual warned and begged him to return. It was useless. Pastor Krause and his wife had no desire to offer justification for the charges brought against them; they called them lies and slanders. It was therefore our duty to hold a ministerial session in Martinsville and hear the witnesses. Then the church ministry, if necessary, would render a verdict.

§4. After this was decided, Pastor Lange indicated to us on the following day, September 10th, that Pastor Krause had said he would reconcile himself with us and his congregation; people had acted hastily, so mistakes should be rectified. An investigation of the complaints in Martinsville was necessary; he still did not understand it, but his conscience was uneasy. He did not want to create a rift in the church. Thus the Senior Minister, Pastors von Rohr and Lange, Fr. Grosskopf and Chr. Wendt went back to him on September 10th in the afternoon.
1) He retracted the statement that we were hierarchical if it had not been our intention to be hierarchical.
2) He would be at peace if the Senior Minister would not, with the note on page 49, disparage Arnd's book.
3) He wanted a reconciliation to come about so that all things would be forgiven and forgotten on both sides. We responded. Yes, this reconciliation could occur with righteous acknowledgement and apology for his sins, and if he requested a proper investigation in Martinsville and either justified himself or offered repentance. His current declaration was still not repentant since he imagined that, given our behavior, he had had cause for his evil verdict and his declaration was not something tangible but an "if this, if that" supposition. Specifically, "if we had not intended to be hierarchical" and "if we didn't want to disparage Arnd's book with the note." — Pastor Krause began again to quarrel with us about the purpose of Arnd's True Christianity and again maintained that it had been set alongside the pietistical books.


He would only be happy with us if we clarified this or that point or if we had not meant what we said about it. This most certainly was not repentance! We stated that it was hardly suitable that he carry on a dispute with us concerning godly existence, as was taught in this book, when he conducted his own life in an ungodly and evil manner and it was his life we were dealing with at the moment. He wanted to evade this proceeding with quarrelsome words. Believing that the conversation was making him sick, he went to a different room and laid down on a bed. We asked him for patience and circumspection and questioned him — Did he consider his lie concerning the note in the synodal letter sinful? — He would not admit any guilt. Question: "Did he consider his threat to testify and preach against us sinful? The response again began with an "if." Further we asked him, whether he considered it a sin to have called us hierarchical? He responded with an "if," specifically, if we had not wanted to be hierarchical against his wife!

We told him that all these responses containing "if" were signs of unrepentance. He said that we and he had sinned against eachother, so we should all forgive eachother, cover it all up and cast it away. We expressed our complete dissatisfaction with this, since we were not an injured party or sect but rather his ordained admonishers and appointed disciplinarians, who served up harsh words because we had pleaded with him so many times. Finally he said, "You only want to be without sin!" We reprimanded him again for these oft repeated words and assured him that he could not be sanctified. We left with renewed sadness for him.

5. Hearing conducted in Martinsville by Pastors Grabau and von Rohr on September 11th.

Those present were church administrators Friedrich Grosskopf, Joh. Fr. Kruse, Gottfr. Rehwald, Wilh. Wurl, Gottlob Schulze. On the second day there was also administrator Friedrich Füllner, who had been absent the first day due to illness.

Summation of this hearing. Pastor Krause should be charged with
1. falsely expressed teaching on confession and absolution in that he preached for a proper confession, sins must be named and that there were not 10 people in Martinsville, who had properly confessed. Also, one could write the names of all the Christians on the nail of the little finger.
2. Pastor Krause should be charged for a) harsh handling of the sick, b) negligence in his spiritual caregiving to the sick — he had often said he was not a bedside preacher. He also no longer called upon the sick out of fear. c) a hatefully separatist sermon: "What is Pastor Grabau to me? What is Pastor Rohr, or Buffalo or Walmore to me? Pastor Grabau is Pastor Grabau, Pastor Rohr is Pastor Rohr, and I am Pastor Krause! And if all the people in Buffalo and Bergholz were to go to the devil, they would still be as sanctified as they're supposed to be!


Go on to pages 98 - 102


Copy of text provided by the A. R. Wentz Library, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, PA

Imaging and Translation by Susan Kriegbaum-Hanks