# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_M rz 1855_S68
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

68 A Declaration by Pastor Löhe, etc.

we would thereby also surrender our character as Lutherans and place ourselves more or less in the ranks of the rationalists, who insist on the quatenus; yet this form of acknowledgment may properly be applied to the decrees of the Council of Trent, the Reformed Synod of Dort, and the like, but not to our confession.

May God grant us the grace first to sit in true childlike humility at the feet of our fathers, who certainly possessed a far greater measure of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit concerning the doctrine of the Gospel than we do, and to learn from them and penetrate the coherence of their doctrine before we undertake to teach others and twist isolated, cherry-picked passages of Scripture against this coherence to support whatever favorite notions we may have about true Lutheranism and churchmanship; for by doing so, we ourselves may easily be inwardly led away from the simplicity that is in Christ and, in spreading such little discoveries supposedly drawn from Scripture, resort to all kinds of human means.

What follows in the paper is less relevant here, but it is in part very sad, since it contains a death notice. The faithful Pastor Otto Eißfeldt, who carried the banner of Christ and of the Missouri Synod even into the territory of the Missouri Synod, has died.

Issue No. 26 is also, for the most part, a very sad issue. Alongside other articles that testify to and demonstrate the great vitality of the Missouri Synod, it contains the funeral sermon for the blessed Pastor Eisfeldt and a still sadder report about the defection of the Indian congregation at Shebahyonk, not only from the Missouri Synod but also from Christ. We cannot refrain from having this sad article reprinted in our next issue. It can truly lead us into reflection and prayer.

But as for the principal matter for which we have given this review of the latest issues of Der Lutheraner—namely, the difference between the American-Lutheran and the German-Lutheran tendency—we do not at all wish to deny, before offering our few remarks, which may nevertheless be sufficient for the matter, that the designations “American-Lutheran” and “German-Lutheran” may also be challenged, in order to avoid an unprofitable dispute. We do indeed consider it German, besides considering it Christian, to proceed in the manner of what we call this tendency; but we will not begin a dispute if anyone wishes to take exception to the expression and demonstrate that the opposite tendency, which we have called “American-Lutheran,” is genuinely German.

If we were now to characterize the two tendencies here and there briefly and simply, it could be done quite plainly as follows: here the Symbols are read in light of Scripture; there Scripture is read in light of the Symbols—if even that does not already say a little too much, for the American brethren in turn read the Symbols in light of their authorities. This can