# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_M rz 1863_S91
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

91

Church and Contemporary History.

I. America.

Many now want to be "political papers, edited from a Christian standpoint" that are anything but that. It almost seems as though some editors were thinking: Christians are honest, paying subscribers, so let us announce our paper as "edited on Christian principles"; even if that brings us a little disgrace, it still brings us money — for Christians are simple people; if one does not mock the Bible directly, but rather even praises it now and then, one can sell them whatever Christian politics one pleases, and they swallow it not merely patiently, but in the end even relish the most unchristian matter thoroughly; and so, without noticing it, they are won over for the new world-religion. From some similar reasoning the "American Watchman" seems to have set out when it weighed anchor with the motto "on Christian principles" on its pennants. To cite just one proof among many for this claim, it writes in its number of Feb. 6: "This is a war of ideas — the idea of humanity's Christianity, which is finally breaking its path after 1900 years!" Anyone can see from this that the "Watchman" gentleman, too, belongs to the humanistic treadmill-and-progress party.

Abolitionism. The notorious abolitionist Senator Sumner declared, in a speech recently delivered in the Senate calling for immediate emancipation: "The Ten Commandments are not to be observed gradually, but unconditionally." The gentleman seems not yet to have read the Ten Commandments at all, let alone to have thought of "unconditional observance" of them, for the tenth commandment famously reads: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

New Orleans. The "Evangelist" of Jan. 24 reports the following: "The Episcopal ministers in New Orleans, who were forbidden to preach by General Butler because they omitted the prayer for the President of the United States from their liturgy, have received permission from his successor, Gen. Banks, to resume their office."

On writing about the union of the Lutheran churches in America, Mr. Dr. Harkey shows himself indefatigable. The Lutheran Observer of Jan. 30 already contains the sixth article on this subject. If only the writer showed the right way to a true union, then indeed too much would not have been made of the matter. Unfortunately, however, that is exactly what is entirely lacking. According to Dr. Harkey the fundamental doctrines of Christianity are to serve as the basis of union, namely those regarding which all so-called "evangelical," that is, not openly rationalistic, "Protestants" agree with one another. Does Mr. Dr. H. not see that by this he is proposing to the Lutheran churches in America the very same basis as the Union Church? What would become of the Lutheran Church here, were this bond of ecclesiastical unity recognized by all Lutherans, other than a motley mixture of Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, and so on? For all of these decidedly acknowledge, in form, the ten so-called fundamental doctrines listed. If all these are, as Mr. Harkey says, thereby Lutherans, then the Reformed, Methodist, and Baptist bodies, etc., are just as much so many Lutheran churches, and to want to erect or maintain a separate Lutheran church alongside them would be nothing but the sin of separatism. How wretchedly that union project of Mr. Dr. Harkey's is arranged comes out at last also from the fact that he lists, as a fundamental doctrine of all evangelical Protestants, a doctrine which all true Lutherans reject! Namely the doctrine that the Christian observance of Sunday (for he doubtless understands the "Sabbath" to mean this) is of divine institution. Has