# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1848_S58
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 58 —

The Geyer Affair.

The synod had the unpleasant task of having to take up and reopen this
year the previous year's proceedings with the Reverend Pastor Geyer of
Watertown, Wisc., since he had sent in a document, signed by himself and
several members of a congregation, in which he not only repeated the
objections he had earlier raised against our constitution, but also accused
the synod of having "dealt falsely," in that the synodical report of the
previous year stated that Pastor Geyer had rejected annual synodical
conventions, while Mr. Hökendorf, his companion, had later withdrawn
this same objection raised against our constitution — although the
secretary had done nothing more than faithfully summarize, on page 8 of
the synodical report under sub a., b., c., the relevant committee report
that had been presented to the synod in the eighth session of the previous
year's convention (and indeed, if I am not mistaken, in the presence of
one or both of them, without their having raised any objection to the
content of the report). There the expression "sub 1." under c. refers back
to the claim made under sub a. 1., as any intelligent reader must see, while
Pastor Geyer relates it to the first paragraph of his own submission — and
on the strength of this distortion accuses the synodical report of
falsehood.

The committee charged this year with examining Geyer's submission says
in its report: Upon careful examination of it, we cannot judge otherwise
than that the Reverend Pastor Geyer and his co-signers proceed from the
false assumption that we equate our synodical constitution with the means
of grace; for:

1. He says: "should a human ordinance be able to accomplish this, that
the church thereby thrive and be preserved, and that it serve not merely
for outward order and well-being, then there must indeed be a definite
word of God present, of command and of promise."

Apart from the contradiction inherent in the claim that a human
ordinance, if it is to serve the thriving of the church, must have God's
command and promise — for whatever has God's command and promise
is no longer a merely human ordinance, but a divine one — it is quite
unmistakably clear from the words cited that the senders hold the view
that we regard our synodical constitution as a means of grace, in that they
represent it as our opinion that the church is preserved by the synodical
constitution; whereas the expression "to be preserved" is found neither in
the constitution nor in the synodical report, but rather it is expressly
stated in the introduction to the constitution that the church is preserved
only through the pure and unadulterated preaching of the holy gospel and
the right administration of the holy sacraments.

2. Although the senders concede that the words of the apostle in 1 Cor.
14:40 rightly apply when the matter concerns ordinances that may be
changed or dropped according to circumstances — and nevertheless call
our synodical constitution error and sin — it follows from this that they
saddle us with the opinion that we hold our synodical constitution to be
absolutely necessary and unchangeable, and therefore a divine ordinance;
against which, however, we need only point to Chapter VII of our
constitution.

3. They accuse us of placing our trust in the synodical constitution as a
means by which we might contribute something toward the preservation
of the church...