further discussion with the three pastors, Chr. Wendts Sr., Fr. Grosskopf and C. Sack. Krause raised the possibility here that we had all sinned and should therefore throw everything out and start over again. It was later made clear that he did not acknowledge any of his sins and he was not repentant. Thus this extra attempt at a third warning was useless.
Also read before the synod was the fact that on September 11, 1850 the congregation in Martinsville was assembled under the auspices of the senior ministry and Pastor von Rohr. The necessary announcements were made in a Christian and careful manner and the witnesses, who were willing and able to testify to the charges brought against Pastor Krause, were requested to appear that evening and early the next morning before the pastors and committeemen. Additionally all, who had a complaint against Pastor Krause, were requested to come forward so that they could properly give testimony. The following came forward: Carl Sack, Gottfr. Hilges, Mich. Melchert, Mart. Bahnemann, Fr. Grosskopf, Gottfr. Rehwald, Dan. Page, Mrs. Sattelberg the elder, Fr. Kruse, Fr. Füllner, Joh. Melchert, Carl Sack's wife, Mrs. Neuenkirch, Aug. Sack's wife, the elder Mrs. Friedrich, Aug. Sattelberg, Wilh. Wurl, Mich. Dürrnfeld's wife, Heinr. Kruse, Gottfr. Kopp. (26 separate complaints were filed.) Additionally the synod was informed how on September 15th the congregation issued a letter of warning to their misguided pastor through the senior ministers and two deputies of the congregation, which was delivered to Krause's residence in Buffalo and which listed the 26 complaints from the congregation. It was hoped and desired that he would vindicate himself through proper channels of investigation and if he could not, that he would admit his guilt and reconcile himself with the congregation and the church ministry. It was also read before the synod that he appeared on September 23rd and 24th at 2 sessions of the church ministry, at which he admitted that not all charges brought by the congregation were untrue; he also admitted his own deceitfulness. However due to his great sins of greed and feigned indigence, he was totally convinced that he was bound to his words and he left the ministerial session in disgust and went home. On September 25th he wrote a letter in which he once again resigned, declaring that he would conduct his holy office in the name of God, who had opened a door for him. He had already resigned from the church ministry on September 9th.
Inquiries were made by the synod concerning the recitation and the documents at hand. It was unanimously agreed:
1) that Krause's sins - harshness with the church children, deceitfulness, greed and feigned indigence, sinful resignation from his office in Martinsville and from his church ministry - were sufficiently apparent.
2) that his greatest sin, whereby he wallows in corruption, is his unwillingness to justify or vindicate himself through proper channels of investigation.
Instead we had his avoidance of all investigations, the flight to Detroit in the State of Michigan, where he became a mutinous priest and pseudo-bishop to gangs in the country, shortly after having preached to gangs in Buffalo, which he proclaimed God's children. With a published announcement he hypocritically threw himself into the arms of the gentlemen from Missouri even though in 1850 he preached that he would not surrender his soul to their influence!
3) The synod recognized and was unanimous in its contention that it had dealt with Krause in a Christian, just and loving fashion, that everything possible had been done to again help him recover from his deep fall, and no one can prove that in word and deed an injustice was perpetrated upon him. His prevalent weaknesses and rashness of expression had been brought to his attention in a heartfelt and brotherly manner, however remaining proudly steadfast, he did not listen.
The Synod was also told of how all the pastors of the synod and the church committees of all the congregations were informed by the senior minister and how the situation with Pastor Krause was being handled, "that Krause would once again receive a written warning from the entire church ministry." The pastors were all in accord with this verdict. The same warning was issued to Krause as the one that appears on pages 6 through 9 of the printed pamphlet published against Krause. Krause sent back this warning without a response in January 1851. In accordance with a verdict rendered by all the pastors, an meeting of Krause's former congregation was conducted in Martinsville on January 26th by the senior minister of the Lutheran church and Krause was publically shunned as a heathen and a publican and the ban was placed against him. The five reasons for this action were published in the same pamphlet on page 10. Several times he had stated that proof of our hierarchical existence was demonstrated in the warning sent to his wife on September 3rd, therefore the record of this letter was also read to the synod and after some investigation the synod declared unanimously
According to the investigation the synod had considered it necessary and just that the church ministry send yet another letter of remonstrance to Krause's wife and eldest stepdaughter. When the warning was rejected, they too were publically excommunicated in the place where their sins had been made known and where they had received the warnings, namely Buffalo, where they had moved in order to evade church discipline. The greatest sin, with which they live, is mutiny. (1)
(1) This warning has not yet been issued and under the current circumstances within the church ministry there needs to be further deliberation on the matter and further agreement reached. Return to text
Based on Krause's charge with regard to the issue on page 2 of the Second Synodal Letter, after investigation the following was decided:
1) that the remarks were not falsehoods, but rather an explanation of the text of synodal documents, and that the remark concerning Arndt's True Christianity was appropriate because the book had some of the same deficiencies as pietistic books and because Methodists, Mennonites and other sects deem these deficiencies regional preferences.
2) that there was no injustice or deception committed by the senior minister in publishing the Synodal Letter because the remarks may have been extracted from the text but the text itself was unchanged.
3) Experience teaches that even this remark on Arndt's True Christianity, which in the beginning prompted much suspicion and considerable disquiet, upon further reflection brought forth sound results.
Then the synod heard the refutation of the second blasphemous letter by Krause, "The Discovered Secret of Evil," which Pastor von Rohr had composed as instructed by the senior minister. It was read to the synod and upon deliberation it was unanimously acknowledged by the synod that through this refutation Krause's deceitfulness and revengeful emnity had been meaningfully and irrefutably brought to light. This refutation should be taken up in the synodal letter as fully as possible. (Supplement 9.)
in 1848, and his Preaching
The dissolute Missouri Synod allowed the statement of the rebel Kaufung to be printed in its synodal report in Chicago in 1847. Krause declared that the physical prosperity of his congregation depended upon his spiritual intercession; in particular, "if he did not pray for his congregation, it would get maggots and straw instead of wheat, scorpions instead of calves, snakes instead of swine."
Krause was asked under oath by our synod in 1848 whether he had preached such a thing or something similar and his answer was, as published in our Second Synodal Letter on page 26, no. 2, that those living in greed, etc. would be punished by God and that the toll for greed could easily be that they would get worms and maggots instead of wheat and empty stalks instead of corn. He may also have preached that God may often forgive an entire district based on the true intercession of a pious minister, however stubborn refusal of God's word might bring down punishment.
He recalled nothing concerning scorpions and snakes. The deputy Friedr. Lüdke testified that he had not heard of such things in the sermon.
However now there is the following information concerning the matter. This was not preached in the church in 1846 but rather 4 years earlier in the old schoolhouse, as testified to by Aug. Radue, Fr. Schössow, Benj. Schön, Mich. Heuer. Deputy Lüdtke however had not heard this sermon because in 1846 he had moved from Buffalo to Wisconsin. The synod was of the opinion that this would have been preached in 1846 because it was contended that Krause declared and believed himself perfectly justified in considering the charges false because Kaufung and others had found nothing in its public investigation of Krause in 1846 even though the entire congregation had been questioned to see what could be discovered about Pastor Krause's conduct and his teachings. No one reported anything concerning this charge.
Further information came forth. The above-named witnesses stated that Krause had preached about the aforementioned snakes and scorpions. Radue and Schössow's father went to him after the sermon and asked him about it. Krause did not deny it. He merely explained what he meant and cited text to support his explanation. The men were happy with this and the matter rested for 4 years. When Kaufung became the leader of a mutiny in Freistadt in 1846, he [Krause] managed to get a similar verdict from the Missouri Synod in Chicago with his declaration. A man by the name of Pöschke, a minister of this Missouri Synod, brought a written copy of this verdict to Krause in Freistadt. Krause turned the paper over to the administrators of the congregation, who read it before an assembly of the congregation. They gave Pastor Krause their opinion on points, where they believed they had an opinion to give. On this point, however, with regard to the sermon on snakes and scorpions they had nothing to discuss; they merely said that he himself must answer questions concerning this matter since he would know best what he had preached and what he meant. Thus it came about because the congregation had no testimony to deliver, that Krause was questioned under oath in the synod about it and he gave the above answers.
After investigation the synod decided:
"There should and must be a schism here."
Based on our decision in the Second Synodal Letter, page 34, no. 6, the following historical facts come to light:
with evil intent: "There should and must be a schism here."
The congregation members in good Christian standing maintained that he had spoken of schism but they did not grasp the sense and meaning as the mutineers had.
2) Krause submitted a written copy of the sermon, which he gave on July 25, 1845, however this conveyed the sense that schism was represented as the result of sin, as St. Paul had discussed it - "There must be gang members among us."
3) Krause himself declared at the time that he had not said, "There should and must be a schism." He also stated that he did not intend schism.
At the time the warning was issued, he told Pastor Kindermann that if he had recalled saying it, he would have owned up to preaching "there should and must be a schism."
5) Eventually in 1850, when he traveled to Milwaukee to the mutineers, it was known by them that "he had so preached."
6) More testimony has come forth from the two congregation members, Christian Eggert and Fibranz, the father, who currently declare that Krause had so preached. This was after Eggert abandoned the Keyl gang in Milwaukee and returned to the church. Eggert adds, "he does not believe that Krause intended to create schism; he merely considered it prophecy."
After deliberation the synod rendered a verdict that the church court of 1846 and the synod of 1848 could not have decided differently and that both decisions were correct. However Krause himself now declares that he had preached in that unchristian manner, saying, "there should and must, etc." He deceived the church court and his confessor, Pastor Kindermann, and the synod and he had done it while under oath. Or perhaps he is deceiving the people of Missouri to gain their love. We must add that we are inclined to believe the testimony of Eggert and Fibranz.
In regard to the perjury (See page 33 of the Second Synodal Letter), the current synod can find no real false declaration or contradiction. When he was asked, "Who had the keys to the church?" he answered truthfully that he did not know the name of the person, who had the church keys. He also could not have known who held the keys to the sexton's house and when he was further questioned on the matter he added, "the administrators must have had the keys." This testimony is not contradictory because it clearly establishes who had the keys but not the name of the individual among the administrators, who had them. Furthermore, to the question, "from whom had he received his appointment to office?" Krause responded, "From the synod." This can only be regarded as a mistake in which he did not understand what he was saying. Our congregation members here in American were tightly tied together then as they are now, and Krause was sent to his post in Wisconsin through synodal channels,
Go on to pages 33 - 37
Copy of text provided by the A. R. Wentz Library, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, PA
Imaging and Translation by Susan Kriegbaum-Hanks