# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1862_S219
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Church News of the Day. 219

the others, namely Senior Grabau, of false doctrine and improper practice. Among those belonging to the opposition were Pastor Kühn in Canada and Pastor Habel in Kirchhayn, Wisconsin. The former has already had to atone for his opposition with removal from office and excommunication. The latter, it is well known, was formerly a member of the Missouri Synod, from which he declared he had to separate specifically because the Missouri Synod was doing Grabau and his synod an injustice in accusing them of false doctrine and tyrannical practice, and accordingly in not disavowing those unjustly banned by the Buffalo party. Pastor Habel now seems compelled, through his own observation on the spot, to recognize what he had not been willing to believe from his brethren. He must even learn from experience that the proceedings against him at the last convention of the Buffalo Synod are misrepresented in the report edited by Pastor Grabau (the Seventh Synodical Letter). He has therefore issued through the press an "Open Declaration to the Members of the Synod of Buffalo, and to all Christians who read or have read the 'Seventh Synodical Letter of the Synod of the Lutheran Church Immigrated from Prussia,'" which lies before us. We content ourselves with extracting from it one passage and another and communicating them to our readers. The declaration begins with the words: "If I come forward publicly before Christendom with this declaration, in this form, it happens 1. because it concerns a printed synodical letter, publicly circulated in Christendom, containing inaccuracies; — 2. because Mr. Pastor Grabau has refused his consistory a fitting explanation; but I, 3. am obligated as a Christian to remove, by public declaration as well, public inaccuracies that went out under my own signature, along with the offense thereby occasioned by me." On page 2 of the declaration it says: "What is further said in the judgment of the Senior Ministerium, p. 18 (of the synodical letter), down to No. 3, is all incorrect, and has often been proven incorrect, both in writing and orally, privately and publicly. Pastor Grabau also promised, at his public confrontation both in Cedarburg and before the synod, after he had vainly sought proof for his assertion, to change the passage. But the synodical letter shows that he has not done this!" On p. 4 it is even demonstrated that the synodical letter was issued in variously worded recensions. On p. 6 the declaration reports that "it was repeatedly testified to the Herr Senior, both in writing and orally, that the main point in our dispute was not Lettow (who was banned), but the offended sense of justice of the congregation, which, in our judgment, certainly also has a word to say in the matter of the ban." In the same place it says that Pastor Schulze had preached: "Let everyone beware of disobedience where he does not have God's clear Word for himself, whenever something other than what parents, teachers, and authority demand is commanded him." When Lettow spoke against this, he received in the next sermon as an answer: "Then the Lord Jesus also lets one draw water (John 2:8). He says: Draw out now, etc. The servants are not self-important people. Had they been such, they would have said: Prove to us first that we must do this. But they know well that the Lord is a Teacher, and that one ought to obey and follow teachers even when they do not always allege a clear passage of Scripture." Pastor Habel adds on p. 7: "Where there is dispute over whether a preacher or ministerium may command outward temporal things, and may ban those disobedient to such commands, such passages as mentioned above ring uncanny!" In the same place it says the Senior had stated: "He had given no judicial decision, but only his personal opinion or personal judgment," and that this was a matter "concerning which he first wished to come to an investigation, whether it was so, etc. That is, first pass judgment, and then come and see whether such a preconceived judgment can be justified." This does not surprise us Missourians. Has not Pastor Gr. repeatedly made us the proposal that we should first confess that we were in the wrong, and that he would then also enter with us into a colloquy about it! First hang, then prosecute — that is Grabau's practice toward his opponents. On p. 8 it is related that Grabau, when Pastor Müller wished to raise objections,