# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1863_S315
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Contemporary Church History. 315

the customary view, that the synods are merely "deliberative bodies," be the "very heart of anarchy." Hence complaints are raised that they "suffer at once, from lack of a little sound government, both from the evils of a general anarchy and from a tyranny in particular;" that "under the present state of their church government their very growth increases their danger;" that the theory on which they have hitherto practiced is false, or that their practice has not corresponded to this theory, for it cannot "be denied that the function of government hitherto exercised, under which most of their churches have placed themselves, is a miscarriage;" "never has such confusion, such strife, such distress, such uselessness appeared in the operations of our church as in the manner in which it is governed in the United States — not merely tolerated, but even called forth;" as for the government, their "church has nothing to sustain it; it lies in the dust, while its gardeners keep telling of the dangers of a propping stake." — And now the remedy for all these evils of the present and the future. On this the writer lets himself be heard in the section: "The True Theory concerning the Synods," as follows:

„We maintain that synods duly founded by our congregations (people and pastors) are as truly divine institutions as the civil „„powers, which are ordained by God““ and, admittedly, „„are ordained.““ For while it is true of civil government in general that it is ordained by God, it is no less true of church government in general that it is ordained by God. And as we may maintain that synods are not of direct divine institution, so we may maintain of every particular form of civil government, as, for example, of monarchy or republic, that it is not directly of God. But as any form of civil government, while it actually performs the general functions entrusted to civil government by God, has a right to the civil obedience of the subject, so to every form of church government, and accordingly also to the synodical, God has entrusted the general functions belonging to church government, and it has a right to the ecclesiastical obedience of those who are its voluntary subjects. While God has left it free to his church, within certain limits, in what manner it will be governed, it is not included in this freedom to wish to have no government at all. To preserve the purity of doctrine and the right administration of the sacraments, to check immorality by discipline, to extend the efficacy of the church and to promote its unity, are duties of the church — and when the church has decided what form of government it will have and how it will administer the same to these ends — then this form of government binds the individual who is voluntarily in the church, as truly, to say the least, as divinely, as the Constitution of the United States binds its citizens and as the laws of the British realm restrict the subjects of the Queen. We do not mean thereby to maintain that the church is bound to have synods, or cannot exist without them, but we mean this, that it may have them, and that, when it has them as its government, it possesses a right to exercise through them as much authority as the congregations entrust to the synods in which they are represented; and that, if it deems it fitting, it may make an absolute loyalty (printed "Loyal.tät," sic!) to the decisions of the synod a condition of recognition and of connection with the synod. We mean by this, that they may resolve to have a synod with which no congregation shall be connected that does not acknowledge the authority of the synod in the manner in which it is laid down in its constitution, and that they may accordingly decline formally to acknowledge any such congregation as duly accredited according to its Lutheran character. (!)"

We believe that the church has a right to possess such a synodical authority, and hope that it will yet once more have such authority. "That this hope is neither contrary to Scripture nor unlutheran, we shall perhaps attempt to prove in no distant time." — Indeed, we should be curious about this proof. But of course — if