Because of our explanation you might have felt that the testimony of the righteous faith, old Lutheran church was on our side and not on yours. This concession which you hinted at gives us hope, if only remote one, that you still hold back some of your threatening and banning, that in other points you become confused about your declarations denying apodictic status and are willing to hear more from us.
In this hope we briefly answer the 12 points of your last letter as follows: Concerning 1 and 2. If, as you say, you do not know how many church orders we drafted when we first got here and that you only heard about this drafting after it had occurred, then we do not understand how you could warn us without further delay to retract them. — You could adequately gather from our elucidation of your anticritique that the fundamentals of our church order have remained; you only had to go to that and not each draft to refute our last letter before you could have warned us in this text. To 3. That we have not committed error in the critique of your pastoral letter is fundamentally proven in your own anticritique; we consider all things concerning your opinions on vocation to the preaching office, ordination, the spiritual priesthood, evangelical freedom, etc. open to question. You have maintained everything more intensely and have posited it as irrefutable truth. At the start we did not reproach you for any errors, as you correctly noticed; we presented to you mere "considerations" in opposition to certain sentences of your pastoral letter and intimated in fraternal admonition the conclusions one could draw from them. However since you have declared our fraternal admonition "sinful censorship," have confirmed all conclusions of our cited refutation, whose 17 errors attributed to us have us quite speechless, and concerning your authoritative twisting and slandering of our words nothing is known, nor taken back nor ameliorated. Moreover things are put as though you had merely to warn and to punish while we were duty bound to hear and obey; we no longer speak of mere considerations, rather we are charged to the utmost for errors, which you yourself proved yet would not allow to be refuted and it will exist this way until you have actually and publically cleansed yourself in teaching and profession. — Incidentally, while producing our evidence we have not asked your congregation whether they say "yes" or "no" to it and in our letters we have let things be known to none of your congregational members. If things turned out otherwise it is not because of us. Your anticritique arrived to us through your brothers in office, Krause and Kindermann; we sent out refutation to you and the pastors in Wisconsin through our brothers in office, Brohm and Geier. If these men made further use of it in their congregation, it was done without our prompting. However we also cannot find anything wrong with that since you yourself directed your pastoral letter to the congregations and thus made it public knowledge; why shouldn't they be able to hear a decision from our side in such important matters of faith, which is grounded in the word of God and the symbols of the church? To 4. Here it is primarily stated to us that we should let go of our lax teaching concerning vocation, etc., and hereafter we should maintain it. How should we make sense of this? Furthermore you declare once more to the utmost that ordination is divinely commanded, and afterwards you warn us that we might call upon God with you for further enlightenment on these matters. |
Photocopy of text provided by Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, Gettysburg, PA
Susan Kriegbaum-Hanks