# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1862_S254
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

254 Church and Contemporary Affairs.

It is a fact, moreover, that Pastor v. Rohr, in the oral proceedings with
Pastor Habel, when the latter substantiated his assertions with passages
from Luther's writings, in the heat of the moment let slip, incautiously
enough, his true thoughts regarding Luther, declaring: "Luther was, in
this case too, a crypto-Missourian!"

The General Synod. As the "Luth. Kirchenbote" reports on the 18th of
July, a lawsuit was recently decided in Luthersburg, Pa., concerning the
claim of some members of a congregation to that congregation's church
building, in a most remarkable manner. "Pastor Grönmiller was called about
a year ago as preacher of the Evangelical Lutheran congregation near
Luthersburg. For him were 39 members of the congregation, but 8 were in
favor of their former preacher, Pastor Engers. Mr. Pastor Bierdemann, a
prominent member of the Ohio Synod, testified under oath before the
court that the General Synod is not Lutheran, and that consequently, of
course, all preachers connected with it could not be Lutheran either. It
was then asserted by the plaintiffs that they had built a genuinely
Lutheran church, and that those who had called Mr. Pastor Grönmiller, a
member of the General Synod, had fallen away from the genuinely Lutheran
church. On this testimony the court rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs, and Pastor Grönmiller and his congregation had to vacate the
church building." That this decision struck the General Synod people, and
likewise the editor of the "Kirchenbote," like a thunderclap is quite
understandable. For with this, all at once, all the church property of
the General Synod, which it claims under the Lutheran name, is called into
question. The first faction that comes along in any congregation of this
body, provided it truly wishes to be Lutheran, now has the prospect of
exclusive possession of the congregation's property. With great
indignation the editor of the Kirchenbote, Mr. Anstädt, therefore writes:
"We regard this sworn testimony in court, that a preacher, merely from the
circumstance of his being connected with the General Synod, is not
Lutheran, as a terrible perjury, which will certainly be punished by God
sooner or later. But the Church here should not let this case rest; for if
this decision is established as a precedent for the future, very bad
consequences may flow from it. Any congregation stands in danger of losing
its property if Mr. Bierdemann, or anyone else, testifies under oath in
court that it is not genuinely Lutheran. The case should therefore be
brought before the highest court, the Supreme Court, for final decision,
so that in the future, under similar circumstances, we may know exactly
what we have to expect." Mr. Anstädt does indeed add: "It is not the value
of the church property in question, but the principle, which is here
being established for the first time" — but we believe that with the dear
General Synod the matter stands the other way round. It is not the
principle but the material property that is really at stake with them.
They no longer acknowledge the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as laid
down in its confession, yet still call themselves Lutheran — why? In
order to keep the people who wish to be Lutheran, and their church
property.

Truth or Lie? In the Wahrheitsfreund of the 23rd of July we read: "Mr.
Randall, the envoy of the United States in Rome, said during an audience
he had with His Holiness, that he was instructed by the President to
assure His Holiness of his deep sympathy and to express his earnest wish
that the Pope might succeed in attaining his aims and that his throne
might stand firm."

The Lutheran Observer has recently given a testimony for our church
confession that could hardly have been expected of it. After it had
declared its wish to keep itself free from polemics, a remonstrant
appeared in the paper itself who nonetheless called himself an Observer
man, and among other things rose up against this with the following
words: "Is the rejection of the divine institution of the Sabbath an
unimportant matter? Let one look at the manner in which God's holy
Sabbaths are observed in Germany, where the teachings of this gross error
(blunder) of the Reformers are still current. Let one also look at the
fruits in our