# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S92
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

92   Proceedings of the 19th General [Synod], or

as well as in writing. This father has now handed over the property
across which the said road runs to his son, W. M. The latter took the
view that, under the written contract he holds, he was entitled to have
two so-called swing gates in the road, but P. maintains that only "one
gate" was granted him, since the contract reads roughly: "there shall be
a swing gate inside of this road at a convenient place." And the
court's subsequent decision found in P.'s favor on this point.

    "Before the matter went to court, however, the congregation had
dealt with this affair often and at length. The elder father, B. M.,
recognized and admitted his wrongdoing but could not make it right
again, since he had already given up the property; his son, W. M.,
however, was unwilling to make it right and was supported in this by
his brother, C. M. The congregation recognized their wrongdoing and
admonished them often and urgently to set it right, but could not bring
itself to excommunicate them over it, as Lehnigk held to be required,
because it believed it had cause to doubt whether the brothers were
even fully aware of their wrongdoing.

    "In order to gain greater clarity in the matter, the congregation, in
1882, addressed a letter to its district synod of Wisconsin and asked for
an answer to two questions: 1. Can the Synod advise that the M.
brothers be excommunicated on account of the matter at hand? 2. Can
the Synod advise that the disputed matter be settled by way of a
lawsuit before the civil authorities?

    "The Synod decided for the congregation and against Lehnigk. To
the first question it answered: 'The congregation cannot be advised to
excommunicate the members named on account of the matter at
hand.' To the second question it answered: 'Under the particular
circumstances prevailing here, the Synod does not consider it wrong to
let the disputed matter, once the contending parties have reconciled,
be decided by the civil court.*)' (Wisconsin Report 1882, p. 86.)
District President Strasen presented this opinion to the congregation
and justified it so thoroughly that, apart from Lehnigk, only two
members remained in their protest.

    "Since 1882 there have been two further on-the-spot investigations.
The first was conducted by Vice-President Löber and Visitor
Sprengeler; in the course of it, a settlement was reached between the
contending parties, which Lehnigk, however, felt bound to reject as
un-Christian. — The second was carried out by Pastors Herzer, Nützel,
and Wesemann, a commission sent by the Synod. Pastor Sprengeler was
also present and presided, along with Pastors Walker and Müller, who
served as secretaries. In four long congregational meetings

*) On this point, the Synod states in the following year's report that, in its
opinion, the civil court should have acted here as an arbitration tribunal
[*Schiedsgericht*].