The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-07-07
Communicated.

EDITORS VALLEY VIRGINIAN,
Gentlemen "A communication "of 80 extra0rd1na
ry cnaraGLer unoer tne neaung ~ ,'a ~ ~ y
16th that deserves at least passing notice as th
same language be applied to 1t which the write
applied to my card that there is an "utter want O.
foundation for the statements contained In 1T" q
least In the heading of the communication and tht
language used in reference to the card Hhis commu
PASTOR" but its real object is to show up some in
consistency want Of harmony in which 1t stgnally
falls In the of language in my correspondence
with Mr. H and the councilman and that used In the
card But unfortunately for the writer he is guilty
| HIS production is headed vtndication of Absen
Pastor. This is simply not true for how could the
Pastor be absent when he carried the communication
thus headed the Office Of publication and solicited
| its publication, IL have been rightly informed
One charitable construction can put on the matter
is that he meant to say Gbsent-mtnded Pastor, and
| that by some means minded was left out. The Pas
tor would hardly solicit the publication of thing
In which he was interested without examining thai
| thing, and hence should have seen the inappropri
ateness OF its heading Those who criticize others
| for want of consistency in the use OF language
sheuld consistent language themselves, and moi
fall into the trap which they set for Others But II
is to the manner In which the writer has presented
the subject that we s ae ef
| least not correctly, whose fault know not, and
twice so limited as to be hardly Ineligible
Why did he publish the letters the other side
| and give the whole correspondence as it was, and
| thus show the reason why wrote as did? But the
worst feature about the whole matter Is this and
| and which we think shows up the writer as not
wishing to deal fairly. 1t was inttmated to me that
unless retracted or explained away the card the
correspondence would be published. wrote to the
| Councilman" with whom had the correspondence
for had only sent to Mr.. H. postal card Of three
| or four lines, the only correspondence have had
| with him since the meeting of Synod) explaining
! the whole matter, and giving him permission to
publish, otherwise regarded 1T private, but If he
did publish publish the letter Of explanation and
permission with the correspondence. This was not
| done. That the writer had this letter. copy Of
which will form the conclusion of this communities
ton, is evident for he gives its date, June and
quotes from 1t twice, showing that he had read IL
and knew Of my request. Why did he not publish
take all the little point his communication had out
of it, and that 1t would be refutaon Of the charges
he would bring. Was 1t right and fair to take pr
vate correspondence, give sgarbled extracts" and
then not publish the letter requested, giving that
permission and explanation? Was 1t in accor-
dance with the Golden Rule think not. 1 am not
surprised that he failed to sign his name to the ar
cle But what 1s the truth Of the whole matter. On
the 18th of April received letter from Mr.. ]. B.
HASKELL asking us to do "kindness for him and
his people, VIZ, "Preach for them" during his alb
sence, May It'll. Knowing his relation to synod and
the church, hestated what reply to give. My first
impression was to decline but remembering that all
men need the Gospel, and Christs commission said,
"Presch the gospel to every creature" thought
might do good by bringing about better state of
things among Lutheran Christians in Staunton.
concluded to accept IL 1t could be done without vo
lating any rule of the body to which belr nged.
could not recognize Mr.. 81. as a minister, but
could take his statement as q man Just as l could
people. So replied 1899 nothing in the way of
my preaching In Staunton on the 7th OF May, II my
services will be acceptable to the people,. This re-
ply was made as general as possible on purpose.
The writer quotes me as saying your people, If 80
wrote 1t was mistake in transcribing Intended
and supposed had written the people until his
communication appeared. simply meant in writ
ing thus to accept conditonally and that condition
that If 1t the wish Of the people or the tnvi
tation came from the people, though in an informal
way, would preach. supposed Mr.. 81. so under
warmly and gladly" This view of the wish Of the
people was confirmed subsequently by the council
yitation to enoy their hospitality. hsd no reason
to doubt his knowledge Of the wishes OF the people,
AS to the other portion Of the congregation belonging
to synod, they had nothing to say In the matter as
1t not their duty, but belonged to the synod
supposed they would attend so that the first part
of the card literally true that did not accept
Mr.. HIS invitation, but xpected to preach ito and
for the cOngrsQdtloa" as stated In the card AS to
the second part of the card recognizing Mr. H. as
minister reason why those who ad-
here to Mr. H. should object to this as to think 9TH
erwise would reflect either upon their Intelligence
or christian character; first on their Intelligence
as 1t would imply that they did not know was a
member of the Virginia synod present at Its last
meetlng) which had depOsed Mr.. 81. from the minis
try and OF course take for granted that was true
to the body to which belonged, or II they supposed
was not true it reflected on their christian charac
ter to suppose that they would ask man who was
dtsloyal and rebelou5 to his church to minister to
them in holy things. did not ask to preach In
Staunton but was asked with q full knowledge of
my connection with synod. As to some expressions
We used In the correspondence 1t does not amount
to much: first the term brother, applied to Mr.. H.
We have no apology to make for the card did not
reflect on his christian character but his minister
ial character. Even the action of Synod had refer
his ministerial and did not effect his chris
tan character except far as 1t was affected by the
loss Of ministerial character AS he professed be
christian, though not recognized as minister by
synod hope he is such and can call him Bro. We
should be sorry to think otherwise the Bible
some fearful things in reference to those not In
Christ, occupying the position he processes
py AS to the application of the term Rev. that Is
not IN the copy Of me VIII the
used only In the used the term your pastor
and Rev. to H. in accommodation to their views of
his position, and not that we recognized the relation
implied thereby. We have the highest authority |
for the use of language In this way We attach no |
sacredness the term Rev. any more than DR..
Hon. 1t is OF human origin and s'title Of respect
given to ecclesiastics" But usage may have CIV
On some kind of seeming sacredness to the term |
perhaps did wrong in applying 1t even in this |
accommodating sense to one who has not only no au
thority but who exercises the functions OF the min
sterial office in opposition to ecclesiastical author
ty There may be some little seeming discrepancies
in the language used in the correspondence made
OF the card, and II the writer and absent pas
tor fail to that did not intend doing as stated
in the card, the fault is theirs not mine.
We will conclude by giving the letter mentioned |
above, emitting only the names, which letter, II 1t
had appeared 1t should have done, and as was re-
qaested, we would not now write this communtca-
ton. This letter prepared with great care and
contains all we shall say upon the subject:
MOFFETTS CREEK, AUGUSTA Co., VA. June B 1881
Mr..
Dear Sir and Bro Your letter of date May 18th has
been received and answered. since which time have
been visited at my home by you and
on same matter referred to in your letter above
have given due thought to my card as
published in the StauEtOn papers, some weeks ago.
While the body of that card was not in my own hand
writing yet the substance thereof had been agreed
upon before 1t was reduced to writing, and 1t was
only written by another for the sake of convenience
and because preferred it. After 1t was written
particulars, signed it myself. thus making it as
much my own as II 1t had been entirely In my own
handwriting. After having given the substance OF
that card mature consideration, do not how my
views could have been more concisely and accurate
y expressed than as contained therein The an
of my agreeing to fill the pulpit for
Rev. J. B. Haskell" was mfstake because did
not intend to recognize Mr. Haskell minister of
the gospel contrary the action of the Va. Synod
10 which belong and the decisions Of which rec
ognize and obey. agreed to preach for the people
Of the whole Staunton congregation and did not In
tend thereby to recognize either OF the parties.
thought and hoped that the whole congregation
would attend my services, and that the cemminging
to preach in the church, only prompted by the
purest motives for doing good and am truly sorry
that a mistaken announcement found It's way into
position in the way did and which has begotten
this, to me, disagreeable correspondence. 1t has
been tnt1mated to me that unless retracted or ex-
planned away the card above referred to, that my
correspondence in agreeing to preach would be pub
lished, If had understood the true situation of
things in all kindness would have respectfully de-
clined the invitation cannot retract the card be-
cause 1t very concsely and accurately expresses my
sentiments 1 entertain nothing but the kindest I
feeling for you and Mr. Haskell. would feel sorry |
for Mr.. Haskelps sake to have his errors and mis-
claim to be among his best friends and if you choose
publish the correspondence referred to, the mat
ter Is entirely in your hands. II you conclude |
will you please publish this letter along with my
others. Deeply deploring the condition Of things in
Staunton and praying that God may soon bring |
peace, am Truly your Bro in Christ,
j. M. SCHRECKHISE.
I'VE publish the above in reply to communication
which appeared in this paper several weeks ago.
Each side has now had an opportunity to present
It's respective thro' the public prints. All fu
ture communications upon this subject must be
paid for at advertising rates.-EDIToRs VIRGINIAN.]