# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S56
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 56 —

he sent his protest in writing to Prof. Schmidt, the latter came all the same and forced his way into the congregation against the pastor's will. He did not come as a brother, otherwise he would of course first have had to negotiate with the congregation's pastor and refer the congregation to its synod; but he came as an enemy, to teach publicly against the protest of the called pastor and to tear the congregation apart, in which he has only too well succeeded.

Thus Prof. Schmidt acts against us as an open enemy. Even when a delegate at the Conference put the question to him whether he had come to sit among us as a brother, he would give no definite answer. Nevertheless Prof. Schmidt wants to sit among us in order to deliberate with us on church peace, which he himself has broken in so injurious a manner; he wants fellowship with those from whom he himself has already publicly and most spitefully withdrawn all fellowship.

Truly, we would make ourselves guilty of the grossest unionism before the whole world if, under such circumstances, as though nothing had happened, we sat with him in this assembly. We could therefore do nothing else than refuse to the person of Prof. Schmidt the exercise of the rights conferred on him. But we ask that this course of action, commanded us by God through His Word, not be regarded as directed against the Hon. Synod of the Norwegian Lutheran Church. For we are convinced that, had the Hon. Synod known the facts as they stand, it would not have elected Prof. Schmidt. After all, the worst attacks of Prof. Schmidt took place only after his election.

Had we had time, we would gladly have first laid our grievances before the Hon. Synod itself and asked it to annul its election. But it was too late. So nothing remained for us, in order not to make ourselves guilty of the sin of hypocrisy, but to turn Prof. Schmidt away. But even that was not done unconditionally. We gave him himself the opportunity to remove the cause, brought about by him, of our possible rejection. We declared, namely, that if, without first retracting his doctrine, which was to be examined later, he would recognize his polemics as sinful and repent that he had broken into our congregations, we would recognize him on the spot. But he was unwilling to accede even to these fair conditions, required by our conscience, which is bound in God's Word. And thereby he himself made our conditionally framed resolution effective.

This is the exceedingly sad event that we have to report. And now we ask the dear brethren to recognize with us that, according to all church order, indeed according to God's Word, we as conscientious Lutherans could not have acted otherwise. Yes, we ask,