# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_M rz 1862_S80
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

80    Critique of the Report of the Seventh Synod of the Emigrants from Prussia, etc.

stage, to be held as banned. — The admonishing of the congregation, and the being held "as a publican and heathen" by the congregation, shall, according to Jesus' will, be both the last, most emphatic attempt at admonition, and also the last, severest punishment of the church for the sinner, so that he may still, if possible, come to his senses and be converted. For that is meant to lay hold of the sinner, if possible, so deeply that he sees that it is not merely the pastor and some of his adherents who judge and condemn him — for then he might perhaps suspect only private affections — but that his whole congregation judges and condemns him. Grabau evidently holds the third stage to be superfluous, only for the sake, perhaps, of "new sins," indeed he hates it from the bottom of his heart. And why? Because it makes "lording it over others" so tremendously difficult for him; because through this ordinance the Lord Jesus has put so sharp a bit into the mouth of all tyrannical priests; because the despised "heads," the congregation, are thereby raised from a maidservant to a mistress, and from a bailiff to a co-judge. —

What a reckless devastator of congregations Grabau is with his mania for banning comes out quite plainly when one hears the reason why he actually dislikes the third stage and wants to hear nothing of the congregation's scruples of conscience. He says: "With so-called (are there not also real ones?) scruples of conscience, immature, erring, and even insincere church elders or church members may well, in human fashion, raise objections — such as look, say, at the sinner's person, especially if he is well-to-do, or such as simply harbor a secret aversion to the carrying out of a ban. Such people then want to excuse and protect the sinner out of partisanship, so that he not be banned." — "It is also idle talk about the congregation's scruples of conscience, when the case of the impenitent sinner has already been submitted to the judgment of the church ministerium after due process, and the excommunication has been declared, as was decided in the Lettow case in July 1859. Is the so-called (?) congregation (now, in the majority, partisans of the sinner) then to hinder, forgive, or reverse the excommunication that has been adjudged?" — So the ban shall and must be executed, even if many church elders and church members are against it, indeed even if "the majority" of a congregation are partisans of the sinner. We wish to put a quite simple question to the Senior: What does the kingdom of God gain by it, when a ban is pronounced upon someone against the will (be it a right will or a perverse one) of a large part, or even "the majority," of a congregation? What benefit does the congregation derive from it, and what influence will it have upon the sinner? Are the scruples of conscience of the immature, erring, and insincere church elders or church members thereby removed? Do the immature thereby become mature, the erring right, the insincere sincere? Will they now look less at the sinner's person, and will the