The Third Synodal Letter, Pages 23 - 27


After reading the verdict and conducting its inquiry the synod unanimously agreed that it was a Christian and proper verdict and that it was truly impartial. Not only did it correctly portray the actions of the rebels; it was also correct in it's presentment of Pastor Winkler's conduct and we believe that this verdict will stand up before God and man. It also shows that Pastor Crämer was a biased partyman from the beginning and that he instigated the forming of a rogue congregation in Detroit without ordained appointment. It is our heartfelt wish that many of the seduced souls may be moved to turn back by this verdict. In exposing the presence of the Missouri Synod we expressly take note of the dishonorable behavior of Mr. Walther and Mr. Crämer; this was after they knew that Pastor Winkler had enjoined both congregations to a Christian synod and had rendered the matter to that synod's church court. Despite this, they continued to meddle in the affair and support the mutiny. God grant that they may become repentant for this and other shameful deeds, such as the sending of the mutineer preacher Schaller, whereby they multiplied their guilt. May they learn to abhor this behavior.

IX

Further Historical Events regarding the Gang in Detroit

Whereas further church disciplinary actions on it was terminated, this gang began to receive its ministerial service from the Missouri preacher Hattstädt from Monroe (an emissary of Löhe's), who came to Detroit, administered the sacraments and conducted other negotiations with it. Through Mr. Walther in November 1850 the gang received its own gang preacher, Schaller (from Bavaria), who was unable to accomplish anything in Philadelphia and Baltimore. At first this man preached (like a closet preacher) in Stricker's house, later placing an article in the Lutheraner in which he indicated the dire need of his pious, banished congregation especially since it had been robbed of its church building *, and now must build its own church and ask for financial support, whereupon the Missouri synod sends it a substantial sum of money and subsequently Schaller's gang raises its own noble temple on a piece of purchased property right behind St. Matthew's church and constructs its counter altar. Because of the deceitful article Schaller was asked to make an account of himself by missionary Baierlein in 2 Christian letters; Schaller gave two poor responses, which had the stench of a burnt meal and he was unable to defend himself any further. However he continued with his gangster church service like a hardened champion of sin;

_____

* Here is the godless tenet of the Missourians that a whining gang, which deposes its pastor, comes under church discipline and finally is excommunicated, should own the church building! Return to text


plus he passed himself off as though he and his atrocious group of gangsters were the Lutheran Church in Detroit while Pastor Winkler and his loyal congregation were a papist sect! All this occured, according to individual members, after the completion of the gang's church disciplining, it's properly ordered excommunication from the Lutheran church and its placement under the ban in August and September of 1850; that is, prior to the arrival in Detroit of its current head, Schaller. Therefore Schaller was appointed by those specifically excommunicated. To this Schaller states in the Lutheraner, "that the maltreated flock left quietly without any thought of revenge." It may be appropriate here to cite proof of this. Namely,

1) that this little flock posted a satire concerning its spiritual caregiver on the street corners of the city and on the church, in which was recorded its withdrawal, as if from a wolf.

2) that they placed this same shameful composition in a socialist newspaper in order to take away the good name of their spiritual caregiver and incite the hatred of the street rabble against him. (See Supplement 5a)

3) that on September 21, 1850 they made an open attempt to sieze the church and school buildings in order to take the church property into their possession by force!

4) Later a slanderer entered their midst, who published libelous letters against Pastor Winkler in the Detroit newspaper, in which he accused the pastor of perjury. When he was requested to prove the charge of perjury, he maintained that he did not need to provide proof and he wanted to justify himself with a fable concerning a fox and two cats. This slanderer identified himself as "Dr. Lörsch."

After still more suppressed proofs and inquiry, the synod decided that there was nothing godless in the deeds of these gangs, which spewed forth the flotsam like a wild sea: lies, hatred, revenge, shameful words, insulting a German prince, 2 Peter 2, 10; Jude 8 - 10; fables and tomfoolery, shameful rejection of the preaching office, mocking the remaining loyal church administrators; in short, a spewing forth of all shameful things, which can only be fictions written about a preacher and a Christian congregation — all this came together here and Mr. Schaller blew the same trumpet of shame and proved he too was a truly mutinous spirit of the crudest sensibilities, insulting in the most unabashed fashion a pastor about whose conduct in office he knew absolutely nothing, calling him a false shepherd, a gray wolf, and similar things. God grant that this self-inflated, impudent slanderer and stranger may seek repentance and that he may yet learn to preach true repentance to his gang.

X

History of the Gang in Macomb County, near Detroit, before Krause came to Detroit

The pamphlet published by our church ministry against Krause was read - (Supplement 5b)


Afterwards a brief introductory history of the gang in the St. Peter's congregation in Macomb County, near Detroit, was given by the Senior Minister and the formal warning (Supplement 6), delivered in the name of the church ministry to Geo. Nummer, B. Chr. Schröder, et. al., was read. After inquiry the synod decided that among these mutineers one injustice was linked to another and one evil brought forth another. They truly deserved to be placed under the ban immediately after the initial uproar; warnings were sent to them, but to no avail. Already under Krause's influence, they sent the church ministry's warning back with the response, "Since this does not concern your ministry, it is impertinent." However warning them was the concern of our ministry since they had joined our synod on June 6, 1850.

XI. Further News on the Gang

A man by the name of Görlach, who owned a beer and schapps house and had not been a member of the congregation for a long time, was now the gang's leader. In December 1850 the Mount Clement trial proceeded against this gang. Pastor Winkler introduced evidence at the trial on the insane behavior of this gang, which he gathered from various documents and witness testimony. (See Informatorium, Volume 1, pages 49, 61, 74.) Additional events include how the gang installed the rebel Krause in the church, which they had taken by force, how it allowed him to preach under a raised banner, how after about 5 months Krause had a falling out with the gang, which then scattered into 3 separate factions. Special attention was given to how the gang tried to drive Pastor Winkler out of the area and possibly send him to prison, to which end they attempted to place a charge of perjury against him, but this attempt was not sucessful.

From all these individual events, as indicated in the 1st Volume of Kirchliches Informatorium and the supplements to this letter, we see the abominal act of devastation, the frenzy of persecution by the godless, the vile conduct of rebellious Krause and the papist injustice of the Missourians, who allowed Krause to be installed there through Schaller. May the entire Lutheran church witness how tragic and faulty the administration of justice often is in this country; may we become more alert and pray for the government authorities so that God may send them the spirit of wisdom, of understanding and of justice so that through God's grace they may steer clear of all injustice and judicial recklessness. The mutineers never openly indicate where the false oath supposedly occurred. Through private discussions it's said that it originated in a declaration purported to have come from Pastor Winkler during the Hermann Gang Trial in 1848.

It was supposedly during this case in 1848 against Frank, Miesel and Stumpf (the charge issued because of a personal attack on the pastor in the church) that he made the false oath.


The current gang spread this rumor (after three years) verbally and in the newspaper. However they did not want to say where the false oath took place. Eventually Pastor Winkler learned privately from an individual congregation member that it originated in his statement before the court: "He did not know on the day of the attack (1848) that the rationalist preacher Hermann was in the church even though Görlach, the one who declared he made a false oath, had supposedly told the pastor." However there is no record of such a question, whether Pastor Winkler knew about the presence of Hermann in the church, in the transcribed proceedings of Lawyer Hale and Judge Lee; these men testified, "if this had been asked it would have been important and certainly not left out of the record." Thus it is apparent that Pastor Winkler was not asked this question and could not have issued such a response. To the contrary, in the record Pastor Winkler stated before the court, "he had been informed by a member of the congregation outside the church that an attack against him was planned for inside the church." Indeed, since this false rumor comes from beerhouse owner Görlach, it is pertinent to note that according to a sworn statement made by the entire congregation on February 28, 1849, Görlach had lied in his testimony before Justice of the Peace Digel on September 7th. We will not consider the other lies here. On April 1, 1849 he was placed under the ban as an unrepentant man guilty of deceit and other sins. It stands to reason that no faith should be placed in a rumor created by this lying upstart. This man is the chairman and inciter of the Krause gang near Detroit.

Upon inquiry it had been decided that a notice was to be placed in the Kirchliches Informatorium indicating that there was still no proof of perjury against Pastor Winkler and that our entire synod must consider it an honorless piece of slander until such time as proof is delivered and clearly indicated as to where the false oath originated or at the very least with a sworn statement signed by those issuing the charge of perjury and intending to bring the proof before the courts.

XII.

History of former Pastor F. L. E. Krause,
now Excommunicated

There were letters and documents before the Synod concerning former Pastor Krause of Martinsville; how he moved himself to Buffalo around the time of Pentacost in 1850 because of an eye ailment; how it was necessary to give him several warnings, particularly because of an attitude he had adopted: "If his congregation in Martinsville would do nothing as far as building a parish house, he need not do anything for them." Since that time, many more nasty rumors have surfaced concerning his inordinate demands;


how he had appeared on July 8th at the Church Ministry and started a quarrel because of a remark concerning Arndt's concept of true Christianity as discussed on page 49 of the Second Synodal Letter, under the misapprehension that Arndt's True Christianity must be considered a pietistic book; how he then threatened to publically preach against this remark and the senior ministry and how he considered it his duty to do so out of love for Arndt's book! (1) Furthermore, how he had not recognized that he was supposed to concede to the final decision of the entire church ministry and the synod. On the following day he wrote to the church ministry and postulated many more untruths. The church ministry had sent him a written warning on the same day, July 9th, and informed him that he was in error and committing falsehoods, in particular that we had taken a hierarchical point of view; furthermore he knew he was supposed to respond to us concerning this written warning after a few days, however he never did anything. On September 2nd he received a second verbal warning from two brothers in office and another written warning from a third brother, Kindermann. He did nothing about these either, rather he remained steadfast to his declaration even after he was shown that part was erroneous and untrue and part was indeed deceptive assertion; for example, "No one had ever spoken to him or reproached him in Martinsville!" But he also showed himself very sensitive to the fact that church discipline would also be applied to him and at the very least he should have recognized his covetousness and feigned poverty. It was also brought out that he received his third and final warning on September 9, 1850 from senior ministers Pastor von Rohr and Pastor Lange along with 5 other Christian witnesses, who at the time were synodal deputies - Joh. Drews of Buffalo, Chr. Wendt Sr. of Wallmore, Friedr. Grosskopf and C. Sack of Martinsville, A. Grobengiesser of Bergholz. It is worth mentioning that three days before this letter he had written his own letter to the Martinsville congregation in which he informed it that he was withholding the ministry from the congregation. Even in this discourse he came to no recognition of his sins but rather sought out useless and vainglorious defensive measures, which the group issuing the warning appraised and then decided that it was time to give the congregations an explanation of the Krause matter so they could be warned and confusion and mistrust derived from the matter could be averted, etc. So that Krause could not defend himself against the complaints and charges leveled by the members of the Martinsville congregation, it was also deemed necessary to have the ministry examine the evidence leading to the charges so that the ministry could decide on a verdict. This was done in Martinsville on September 11th (1850). — It was also brought out that Krause asked for amnesty (a kind of peace treaty) and he also wanted

_____

(1) Concerning this hypocritical love, testimony has since come forth that he himself had made disparaging remarks and found fault with Arndt's book here in Buffalo in 1841. Return to text


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