Church Visitation and Division of Church Districts
The most effective means of integrating the parishes of Upper Lusatia into the Prussian administration proved to be the provision in the Instruction for the Superintendents that a visitation of the parishes by the Superintendent had to be carried out every two years¹, which can also be demonstrated in the parish records for the years 1818, 1820, 1824, and 1826. Worbs had drawn up the scheme for this 2. It was divided into 7 sections: 1. the church system with its age, size, and patronage system; 2. the church's economy, i.e., its income and property; 3. church buildings; 4. the worship service, agenda, and hymnal, including religious instruction; 5. church registers, library, and archives; 6. church employees, their conduct, and their salaries; 7. the moral condition of the congregation, i.e., church-
Such matters included church discipline and disputes within the parish. All 94 parishes in Upper Lusatia were recorded according to this scheme, a very useful source of information to this day, provided these records have survived. – In 1827, a uniform visitation ordinance for Prussia was issued, so that Upper Lusatia was no longer subject to any special supervision.
The visitation report from Worbs also raised the question of how to divide the area into church districts. Politically, Upper Lusatia was divided into the districts of Lauban, Görlitz, and Rothenburg. Wouldn't it have been simplest to apply this division to the church as well? The consistory in Breslau was indeed of this opinion, especially since Worbs was to be appointed full-time as a kind of general superintendent for the entire Lusatia region in 1817. Even if the number of parishes would then be very high for each district, the consistory believed that this could be remedied by appointing separate school inspectors for each district. 21
Quite different was the government in Liegnitz, which rejected Worbs's idea of placing the entire Upper Lusatia under a full-time general superintendent. The government wanted to maintain the usual practice in Silesia, whereby a pastor of the church district also administered the superintendency, and advocated for smaller "spiritual supervisory districts" with only a moderate number of churches and schools to oversee, so that the superintendent would not be overburdened and "so that pastoral care would not suffer." 22 Accordingly, the government proposed dividing the Görlitz district, as the largest, into three church districts, and the Lauban and Rothenburg districts into two. And so it was decided by the Ministry of Culture-
The government in Liegnitz took a completely different stance, rejecting Worb's idea of placing the entire Upper Lusatia region under a single full-time general superintendent. The government wanted to maintain the common practice in Silesia of a pastor from the church district also administering the superintendency and advocated for smaller "ecclesiastical supervisory districts" with only a moderate number of churches and schools to oversee, so that the superintendent would not be overburdened and "pastoral care would not suffer." Accordingly, the government proposed dividing the Görlitz district, the largest, into three church districts, and the Lauban and Rothenburg districts into two. This was decided by the Ministry of Culture. The final division can be found in the official gazette and the Görlitz Advertiser in 1819 (see Appendix 2). One gets the impression that the consistory in Breslau was too far removed from Lusatia to gain a clearer understanding of the region's size. The government in Liegnitz was certainly the better-informed and more realistically minded authority; the division of the church districts, with some modifications, remained in place throughout the 19th century.
In connection with the visitation of the Upper Lusatian parishes, Worbs had become acquainted with the clergy and was able to submit to the government suggestions for the superintendents to be appointed, along with brief descriptions of their qualifications. He characterized Pastor Gottlieb Busch in Rothenburg as follows: “He possesses good knowledge and oratorical skills, has an impeccable reputation, and although he is 63 years old, still has lively mental and physical powers, and thus appears highly recommendable.” Similarly, regarding the superintendent of Görlitz I, Johann Christian Janke, he was described as an “archdeacon in Görlitz, a skillful, active, and business-minded man who enjoys general respect for his morality and sensible conduct.” The government in Liegnitz pointed out, as a precaution, that “according to the law,” the potential candidates for the office of superintendent had to be selected through a colloquium.
The Upper Lusatian church districts and their superintendents in the year 1818/19
Lauban I
Friedersdorf, Lauban (3 churches), Haugsdorf, Schreibersdorf, Lichtenau, Geibsdorf, Hermsdorf, Schönbrunn, Schönberg, Holzkirche, Wingendorf. Superintendent from 1819 is Pastor Johann August Dehmel in Friedersdorf (1777-1864).
Lauban II
Meffersdorf, Marklissa, Rengersdorf am Queis, Ober-Wiesa, Gebhardsdorf, Volkersdorf, Schwerta, Goldentraum, Gerlachshayn, Linda, Küpper, Bellmannsdorf. Superintendent from 1819 is Pastor Elias Lehmann in Meffersdorf (1772-1849).
Introduction § 1
The office of a superintendent must be considered from a twofold perspective. He is a servant of the Christian Church, himself a teacher and superior to other teachers in a particular district, but he is also a servant of a Christian state.
§ 2
Just as the purpose of the Christian teaching office is to guide the members of the Church to the enlightenment of the mind regarding the most important matters for humankind, to a religious sense, to a morally good life, and through all this to true happiness, so the Christian state has the same purpose. The superintendent may therefore be regarded as a servant of the Church or of the State; in both respects, he should strive to promote enlightenment of the mind, religious sense, and a morally good life. As a teacher, he must exemplify this in his own congregation; as a superintendent, his endeavor must always be to ensure that the clergy subordinate to him do this as well as possible.
§ 3
The difference between church and state in this respect is that the former acts only through the word on the inner being, on the mind and heart of man, while the state deals only with external institutions and establishments. Since, however, the church cannot do without external institutions and the state cannot do without effects on the inner being of man, both stand in an inseparable connection with one another. Therefore, the effects of a superintendent as a servant of the state also flow into one another. He can never be regarded merely as a servant of the church and never merely as a servant of the state
Before these official duties of a superintendent are explained in more detail, it must first be mentioned that superintendents are expected to be enlightened, religiously and morally irreproachable men. Their very election as ecclesiastical superiors is a public testament to their being regarded as such and an invitation to continually grow in these intellectual and moral perfections. Furthermore, they are expected to carry out their duties with the seriousness and zeal it demands, and with candor towards superiors and inferiors, but also dispassionately and with the humanity that is appropriate to the spirit of the religion they serve and which the state, which appointed them, demands of all its servants, but especially of them.
§8
If the main purpose of the office of a superintendent is to promote enlightenment of the mind in religious matters, religious sense, morality, and thereby true happiness among all confessors of the religion of Jesus, and if these purposes must be achieved through the clergy and schoolteachers, and if churches and schools are the external means to this end, then a superintendent will have to work towards ensuring that
1. the clergy
2. the church institutions
3. the schoolteachers
4. the school institutions
may be entirely what they are meant to be
Source: THE INTEGRATION OF LUSATIA INTO THE CHURCH PROVINCE OF SILESIA. Band 93 Jahrbuch Schlesische Kirchengeschicht.