# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1874_S35
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 35 —
wants to have a pastor of its own, although it could be served as a branch or be parished into a neighboring congregation. In such cases, therefore, small congregations lying near each other should give up their independence, especially since there is such a great lack of pastors here.

A request was then made for an explanation of the words of the thesis: "The parochial boundaries were not originally determined by God, and are therefore not of divine right in themselves." How is this to be understood? Perhaps thus, as if there were nevertheless a divine determination in it, if not in itself, or only so that, once such an order has been introduced, one must keep to it for the sake of love and peace?

Answer: Had God in any way revealed to a newly arising congregation: you are to confine your parish to such and such streets, later changes in the boundary line would be impossible. But at the origin of this order only human wisdom, experience and love drew the boundaries; therefore they can also be changed at any time. Thus only orders that are of human right are abolished.

Thesis 9.

Ground for the alteration of parochial relations cannot be, first, offense at *Adiaphora* [matters indifferent]; the acknowledgment of such would be a denial of Christian freedom (Gal. 2:4, 5); 2. not difference in non-fundamental convictions (Rom. 14:1–9); in this, as in the first case, the alteration would be a division, a schism, a separation, and the schismatics who separate, the separatists, would set up altar against altar (1 Cor. 1:10, 11, 18, 19). (Such *schismata* are to be well distinguished from the factions, sects, αἱρέσεις [heresies], which involve a separation on account of the foundation of faith); 3. not preference for a particular gift of a preacher (1 Cor. 1:11–13; 3:3–23), for that, for all the appearance of spirituality, is something fleshly; finally 4. not the growth of weeds in a congregation in which the means of grace are still current unadulterated (Matt. 13:24 ff.), for which reason the Apostle does not call upon the upright Christians in the corrupted congregation at Corinth to leave it, but rather to hold together all the more firmly and not to let division arise among themselves (1 Cor. 1:10; cf. 5:1, 2, 6; 6:1–8; 11:17–22, 30; 15:12, 34; 2 Cor. 12:20, 21).

Of this thesis only the first paragraph could be discussed, namely the words: "Ground for the alteration of parochial relations cannot be, first, offense at *Adiaphora*; the acknowledgment of such would be a denial of Christian freedom.