# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S91
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Fourth Delegate Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1884.   91

meeting both verbally and in writing, but had stated in a letter to the
congregation that he was only willing to negotiate with the
congregation if it withdrew the "disgraceful lie" that he was incapable
of administering his office because of his morbid state of mind.

    "Concerning this meeting, the 1882 synodical report of the Southern
District states, p. 63: 'The Synod became convinced that the
congregation had acted in this whole affair according to God's Word
and Christian love.'

    "That is also the judgment of your committee. The St. Johannis
congregation had not only the right to dismiss Pastor Döscher but also
the sacred duty to do so; it would have sinned gravely had it kept such
a destroyer of the church any longer as its shepherd of souls. Likewise,
everything that the synodical officers and the Synod of the Southern
District did in this distressing matter with Pastor Döscher is, in your
committee's judgment, entirely correct and in accordance with the
Gospel, and Pastor Döscher's complaint that he was unlawfully removed
from office and driven out is thus without foundation." (The
signatures of the committee members follow.)

                2. In the Matter of Teacher Lehnigk.

    "The committee finds that this matter concerns a dispute between
the congregation in Zittau, Winnebago Co., Wis., on the one hand, and
its teacher, Mr. G. Lehnigk, on the other. This dispute finally
culminated in teacher Lehnigk renouncing his connection with the
congregation for reasons of conscience, whereupon he was suspended
from his office by a majority of the congregation.

    "Recently, teacher Lehnigk has been called as teacher by Pastor
Köstering's congregation, on the condition that his dispute with the
[Zittau] congregation be settled and his suspension by it lifted.
However, Lehnigk believes he was fully within his rights to renounce his
connection with the congregation, and the congregation believes it was
not wrong to suspend him for it. Lehnigk therefore turns to the Synod
with the request that it investigate his case on the spot, a request in
which he is supported in writing by a small minority of the
congregation. Regarding his conduct in office or his manner of life, the
committee finds no complaint whatsoever in the minutes. The
suspension occurred solely because he could not agree with his
congregation's practice and, as he sees it, did not wish to become party
to its sins.

    "The dispute originally arose over the following case of church
discipline in the congregation. A father, named B. M., had contractually
guaranteed his neighbor P. a right of way, first verbally before
witnesses and then