# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1859_S304
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

304 Correspondence to Germany.

That you are really hindered, by the unconscious influence of such views, from rightly understanding us and our manner of acting, is given striking proof by your interpretation of our conduct toward the pastors Gruber and Schieferdecker. You think that there, after all, we had in fact once shown that our Synod is something essentially other than a merely advisory body, not only as a whole in itself — for that, of course, goes without saying — but also over against the congregations; only that, out of a regrettable reticence, we do not say so publicly enough, so that it is not sufficiently acknowledged, while on the other hand the rights of the individual congregations are so sharply emphasized. But in this case too we have done as we always are accustomed to do: we have acted entirely in accordance with our polity and our principles. The matter originally came before the Western District Synod, in that the congregation at Altenburg, disturbed by certain chiliastic utterances of its pastor and guided by a spirit of Christian humility, requested an opinion from the Synod. After much dealing, with varying success, had followed with the Rev. Pastor Schieferdecker, the dispute was brought before the General Synod by a letter of protest from some members of the congregations of Altenburg and Frohna, and by a letter from the likewise chiliastically minded Rev. P. Gruber. Pastor Schieferdecker was himself present at the Synod; with him, therefore, the matter was dealt with at once — as afterward with the Rev. Pastor Gruber, through committees — in the most thorough manner, and since, despite all diligence applied, it did not succeed in bringing him back from the error of his way, synodical fellowship was withdrawn from him. In doing so, however, it never occurred to us to want first to decide judicially whether his chiliasm was compatible with Article XVII of the Augsburg Confession or not, since it is our firm conviction that this article condemns every form of chiliasm on the basis of Scripture, so that all faithful Lutherans who take the Augsburg Confession as it reads do the same. No — because his departure from Lutheran doctrine had become evident to us and he stubbornly remained in his error, we simply declared ourselves separated from him as from a false teacher. With his congregation it then had to show itself whether it was really of the same faith with us and would act accordingly, or not. For by that procedure of ours his removal had by no means yet been decreed for the congregation, such that it would have had to obey the decree because the church standing over it, the Synod, had so decided. No, such things are unheard of among us. It remained for the congregation itself to impose the removal, and it could have been foolish or godless enough to keep a manifestly stubborn, obstinate chiliast as its preacher, and so in the end to be excluded from the Synod itself, in case it did not immediately, on its own authority, tear itself loose from him. But, it will be objected, is it not always the case with stubbornly resistant elements that the final remedy is separation, and that this is as bad as the evil itself? We ask in reply: what, after all,