# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Februar 1858_S42
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

42 "Luther or Arndt!"

for fourteen years now. Even had he erred somewhat here too in churchly diplomacy, such a small blemish would still give him no other face — certainly not the un-Reformation "physiognomy" that Str. professes to have discerned; for, let the gracious reader now note this: five years before Str. discerns this blackened "physiognomy," the Lutheraner testifies decisively against the Arndtian tendency. It reads thus in Volume 7, No. 3, pages 17 and 18:

"Now if it must be granted that, especially soon after the age of the Reformation, the whole manner of preaching and of the practice of catechesis became a different one, the reason for this is nevertheless to be sought not so much in the incompleteness of the old church and school orders, and still less in a certain one-sidedness of the Reformation procedure — for excellent models were indeed present in sufficient number; the fault lay with those who did not follow this model. A different manner of teaching arose, which resembled more the cumbersome armor of Saul than the light but sure sling of David; the whole design of sermons was made artificial and forced into certain scholastic rules; the historical foundation was forgotten, and in its place there arose a dry handing-down of doctrinal articles; over the necessary contest against every kind of false doctrine, edification along the right path was neglected; one sought to forestall the increasing weariness with the simple Word of God by all manner of little stories and other additions; the language, too, became more halting and ever more unlike the powerful, characteristic church-language of Luther.

The influence which J. Arndt's tendency had upon the treatment of preaching and of the catechism, and which is to be dated already from the year 1605, in which the first book of his True Christianity appeared — this influence is not touched upon at all in that valuable essay (Dr. Kliefoth's, on preaching and catechesis in the past and present of the Lutheran Church), even though it was from this very tendency that the Spenerian one emerged; the latter, however, has been portrayed so aptly and so candidly that one must wish soon to obtain a similar portrayal of the Arndtian tendency, and in particular of our own most recent times as well. How the times do change, though, with respect to the judgment passed upon the age! Whoever ten years ago had expressed himself thus about the Spenerian tendency would doubtless have been declared, by Lutherans of pietistic mind, a blindly zealous Antipietist and therefore also an anti-Lutheran. God grant that in the two other respects as well the time may soon come when one finally speaks out freely." A similar testimony against the Spenerian, and of course thereby also against the Arndtian, tendency is likewise already found in the 5th volume of the "Lutheraner," page 189, although Arndt's name was not specifically mentioned there. — In sum: our second battle against Str. is just as victorious as the first. Our boast is this, that we have always