# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S44
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 44 —

Christian stand who has recognized the truth of the divine Word. — They also evidently have no right insight into the status [state of affairs] which Schmidt has brought about, otherwise it would be incomprehensible and inexplicable how they could speak so. The whole historical course proves that he has brought about this situation. We wanted to deal with him as brethren; but all attempts, all colloquies were in vain. And now we are reproached with acting so hostilely. Schmidt wanted it so, he wanted war and not peace, and yet we are to recognize him here as a brother! Any well-instructed catechism pupil must be able to see this: that if a member of a congregation took a stand against his pastor and his congregation in such a way as Schmidt, he can neither be nor remain a member of the congregation. If Schmidt had been honest, he should have said in his synodical district: You cannot elect me; for I will and must, according to my conscience, destroy the Synodical Conference. This he did not do, but let himself be elected quietly. In that he was dishonest and insincere. The dear Norwegian brethren have evidently had no clear insight into how Schmidt has acted against us in word and deed. This we should like to try to make clear to them. — When it is now said: Dr. Walther began the controversy, we say: Yes, in so far as he set forth the pure doctrine of election he was indeed the beginner, and, thank God! that he did it and did it as it was done. This was needed on account of the synergism ruling everywhere in the world. — And when it is said: various hints and allusions to Schmidt in the Missouri reports are to blame for the controversy, one may indeed have different opinions as to whether such hints were wise and fitting. But whoever puts these hints on one line with Prof. Schmidt's utterances and statements against our doctrine and its representatives, his understanding must have been totally darkened by the false doctrine. — And finally, many a man is no friend but an enemy of such articles in which individual personalities of congregations etc. are exposed; and when we are called out to there: Be sparing with such articles! we accept that gratefully. But consider also this: the so-called soft-treading [*Leiſetreterei*], where one does not wish to appear sharply against error and sin, is a dangerous thing. If that were the right kind of polemic, if the Apostles had practised such soft-treading, then, as far as it depends on the work of the Apostles, there would be no Christian church; and if Luther had not practised a sharp polemic, there would be no Lutheran church; and if Dr. Walther had not appeared so sharply against error, there would be no Synodical Conference. Were we now to treat Prof. Schmidt here like a brother in spite of his speeches and actions, the Synodical Conference would be a pure swindle. Therefore let it be well noted: the chief