# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1855_S181
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Gleanings from the Periodicals of the Old Homeland. 181

Denial of the Reformation. It matters little that Münchmeyer consoles himself by saying that an attempt to reform Lutheran church doctrine “is not contrary to the Confessions, even if it does not have the letter of the Confessions on its side.” From earlier times, decades and centuries ago, we know what games have been played with the spirit of Scripture as opposed to its letter; we therefore certainly cannot expect very much good from such attempts, which have more regard for the spirit of the Confessions than for their letter. And whether one is led beyond the Confessions or fails to attain to them seems to be entirely the same. I say that it seems the same, but it is not. For not yet possessing the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, as is often the case with more recent theology, and no longer wishing or being able to possess the Lutheran outlook are two different things. If believing scholarship has not yet advanced as far as the Confessions, if the Göttingen faculty is still essentially Unionist, that is greatly to be regretted; but even more to be regretted is a hyper-Lutheran zeal that has grown weary of the Confessions and casts them behind it.”

“But the word conscientiousness reminds us of another passage in Münchmeyer’s book. It is found on p. 170 and reads as follows: ‘Now, if the Church were indeed to insist emphatically upon the words of its confession in the matter at issue, that would be serious. In that case, in light of what was noted in § 19, withdrawal might become necessary.’ But surely no one can believe that the Church will now immediately cast away its confession; rather, now as before, it will stand by its confession. Where does Münchmeyer intend to withdraw to? Into which church? And what are people called who withdraw from the Church if it ‘were to insist emphatically upon the words of its confession’?” — —

As gratifying as it is, on the one hand, that Superintendent Münchmeyer has acknowledged the conflict in which his doctrine of church and ministry stands with the Church’s confession—for only through such honesty on the part of opponents will it become possible to reach the goal—it is all the more disheartening that a man such as Dr. Petri has undertaken to demonstrate to him that he was mistaken in his concessions and that the Confessions really do teach what the Romanizing Lutherans now desire. Dr. Petri does this in this year’s already cited preface to his “Zeitblatt für die Angelegenheiten der lutherischen Kirche.” In the same manner, W. Flörke, pastor at Lübz in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, also reviews Münchmeyer’s work in the Guericke-Rudelbach journal.