# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S94
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

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

come to the firm conviction that Mr. Lehnigk has become so fixed in his
wrongheadedness that he can no longer be reached by instruction, and
that it would therefore be of no use to undertake a further on-the-spot
investigation; and its unanimous opinion and judgment is accordingly
that the Synod should decline this, as causing needless cost and
trouble." (The signatures of the (5) committee members follow.)

    After the foregoing report had been read out, the Synod did not
adopt it at once, but itself entered into lengthy negotiations with
teacher Lehnigk. Above all, Lehnigk wished that his letter of appeal
addressed to the Synod be heard by it in person. His wish was granted.
The Synod then endeavored to convince Lehnigk that he had done
wrong in withdrawing from the congregation, which he himself
declared to be one erring out of weakness; but all effort was in vain. At
last the Synod resolved to put the following three questions to
Lehnigk: 1. Is it right to separate from a congregation that errs out of
weakness in a matter of church discipline? 2. Does one who does this
commit a wrong? 3. Do you recognize that you committed a wrong by
your separation from the congregation in the case named? — After the
first question had been put to Lehnigk, he answered: "In this case I
hold a separation from the congregation to be right, and I request an
on-the-spot investigation." This answer given by Lehnigk led the Synod
to refrain from putting the remaining two questions to him, and

    it resolved to accept the committee's advice and to decline the
request for an on-the-spot investigation, since it was to be foreseen
that what the whole Synod had here failed to accomplish — convincing
Lehnigk of his wrongdoing — a commission appointed by the Synod
would succeed in doing on the spot even less.

    It was further resolved that the letter addressed to the Synod by
some members of the congregation concerned, who supported
Lehnigk's cause, be sent on to the congregation itself, and that the
latter be asked to deal personally with the signers in this matter.

    Shortly before the close of the final session, the Lehnigk matter,
after a motion to reconsider it had been adopted, came up once more
for deliberation. On the ground that Lehnigk, when he gave the
answer, "In this case I hold a separation from the congregation to be
right," had, by his own explanation, meant to say: quite special
circumstances are present here which made separation from the
congregation a duty for me — a separation which, under other
circumstances, would indeed have been wrong — circumstances which
would only come to light in an on-the-spot investigation ordered by the
General Synod — a motion was made to set aside the resolution
previously adopted