# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S78
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

78 THE CONVENTION ESSAY

the laity were widening. Up to this time questions of
doctrine had been decided by the clergy alone. But
now several of the lay leaders began to exert them-
selves in putting forth solutions. Notable among them
were two brothers-in-law, C. E. Vehse and F. A. Mar-
bach. Marbach argued that the entire immigration had
been built on false premises and that the immigrants
had only one alternative, to repent, pack up their be-
longings, and return to Germany. Vehse, on the other
hand, emphasized the “priesthood of all believers” and
maintained that the responsibility for the work of the
church rested in the laymen, who in turn exercised
their responsibilities publicly via a clergy called to the
office of the public ministry by them. When no one
accepted his principles, Vehse returned to Germany.
Marbach, however, continued his agitation for a
complete restudy of the doctrine of church and ministry.
This finally culminated in the famous Altenburg Debate,
April 1841. In the debate Marbach contended that the
colonists were a disorderly mob, lacking both the power
and the authority of a church. Walther, who debated
these issues with him, presented a systematic, logical
progression of theses and convinced the audience that
the colonists did, indeed, have all the rights and pre-
rogatives of a church — though an erring church. His
fifth thesis clinched the matter: “Even heterodox socie-
ties (or churches) are not to be dissolved, but re-
formed.” The colonies were saved. The debate became
one of the great turning points in their history.
Already before this debate took place, a little known
episode occurred among the immigrants. It points out
that the immigrants were interested in joining an exist-
ing synod. George Albert Schieferdecker, one of the
immigrant pastors, wrote to the president of the Penn-
sylvania Ministerium, applying for membership in that
body. Was he merely requesting such membership for
himself, or was he asking for others as well? (Manu-
script Letter of G. A. Schieferdecker to “the Honorable
Dr. Demme” postmarked August 1840, three pages, in
C, II. 1). In his response the president, instead, encour-
aged Schieferdecker to join one of the western synods.
As stated earlier, the initiative to form the Missouri
Synod did not come from the Saxons. Instead, it came
from a group of pastors who were dissatisfied with the
theological and linguistic position of the synod of which
they were members. In decisive action in September
1845, these men met in Cleveland to protest, among
other things, their synod’s formula for the administra-
tion of Holy Communion and other un-Lutheran ten-
dencies. They also called for a more extensive use of
the German language at the seminary. Deliberately
they allied themselves with the rising confessional trend.
When their demands were rejected, they adopted
the “Document of Separation” which declared:
It is certainly true that the undersigned bear a heartfelt
displeasure toward every willful and factious separation;
moreover, the misgivings, yes, the possible dangers con-
nected with a just separation from a synodical organiza-
tion are not concealed from them. However, there are

two reasons which make it a matter of conscience with us,
even though our spirits are reluctant and troubled, to

separate ourselves from the existing Evangelical Lutheran
Synod of Ohio. ... The first of these two reasons is
clearly ecclesiastical and confessional. . . . The integrity
and determination of the Synod appears doubtful with
reference to its ecclesiastical position and tendency and
its lack of decided resistance against the false union of
our time. [Kirchliche Mitteilungen, IV (1846), No. 2,
Column 4. Translation by ARS in Moving Frontiers,
p. 144, (St. Louis: CPH, 1964) ]

The nine who had met in Cleveland next invited
the Saxons in Missouri to work towards the organiza-
tion of a new Synod. As a result, a meeting was held
with them in early May 1846. At this conference the
first draft of the constitution was adopted. A third pre-
liminary conference was held shortly thereafter, in
July 1846, in Fort Wayne, to which Michigan represen-
tatives also came. The groundwork was laid for the
constituting convention held in Chicago in April 1847.
Some 12 congregations were represented at the Chicago
meeting, firmly committed to one another in the unity
of faith asd confession. Certainly a small, inauspicious
beginning! Missouri, in 1847, was one of 32 separate
Lutheran synods active in America. Besides Missouri,
the Central Virginia and the Wittenberg Synods were
also formed in 1847. Anyone present ever hear of them?

What did the other Lutherans say about the found-
ing of Missouri? An interesting editorial appeared in
the Lutheran Observer:

This new Synod is composed of genuine “old Luther-
ans” — the real, untainted, orthodox, whose theology is
as straight as the Symbolical Books. . . .

The principal new measure introduced by this body
will strike your readers with surprise. If it had been
first adopted by any of our American Lutheran Synods,
what a hue and cry there would have been from many
quarters! The President must visit all the churches in
the bounds of the Synod and report on their condition.
Every minister must preach before him at least once, and
the President is to judge whether the preacher is ortho-
dox and whether, in a word, he knows how to preach —
He is to judge whether the minister is capable of impart-
ing proper catechetical instruction — whether the liturgi-
cal services are rightly conducted — whether church dis-
cipline is observed, in short, he is to perform the duties
of a diocesan bishop, excepting ordination and confirma-
tion. What is this but the entering wedge of episcopacy!
We tell these brethren that this new measure, however
well meant, will not succeed in this country. They will
have to abandon it before the presidential term of three
years expires. ...

We believe that the members of this new Synod are
honest men and anxious to do good. They hold on most
pertinaciously to the ancient landmarks. . . . (Signed
Hermann.) [Lutheran Observer, XV (2 Sept. 1847), p. 1]

In view of the historical developments, particularly
the merger of various groups into a confessional body,
the Synod, at this juncture, may properly remind itself
of this statement in the Letter to the Hebrews (10:32-
39):

Remember those early days, how after you received
the light you successfully came through a hard and pain-
ful struggle. Mocked and mistreated, you were made a
public show, or you shared the life of those who were
treated that way. You sympathized with the prisoners,
and when you were robbed of your property, you took it
cheerfully because you knew you had something better
that is permanent.

Then don’t lose your courage. There’s a great reward
for it. You need endurance to do what God wants and
so to get what He promised. Soon, very soon, He who is
coming will come and will not delay, and by faith my