# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S725
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 141

Re Proposed “Synodical Handbook”

Synod appointed a Handbook Revision Committee in 1938 and
ain in 1941 and gave such Committee definite and specific
tructions. “It shall prepare a new, complete, and authoritative
ition of the Synodical Handbook containing all synodical regula-
fons properly arranged, co-ordinated, and in idiomatic English,
which all antiquated rulings are eliminated, all ambiguous and
ntradictory regulations are adjusted, the duties and responsibili-
es of all officials, boards, and faculties are carefully outlined, and
all overlapping of authority removed.” Synod charged this Com-
mittee to submit a complete report of its work to every pastor and
acher one year prior to the convention to permit a thorough
‘discussion in pastors’ and teachers’ conferences, congregational
“and circuit meetings.

-~ The Committee has now submitted a “proposed Synodical
: Handbook,” unfortunately six months late, and in this proposed
Handbook the Committee has not merely co-ordinated and arranged
existing by-laws and rules, but has made a considerable number of
: changes which affect the policy and character of ‘Synod’s boards,
committees, and regulations.

The St.Louis Pastoral Conference, after studying the pro-
posed Handbook, therefore holds:

1. That in making the revision the Committee has exceeded
its authority by depriving Synod of its democratic character by
centralizing power in the President and Board of Directors;

2. That the Committee has made far-reaching changes which
- are not indicated as changes. Significant omissions and additions
’ have been made which have not been brought to the attention of
the reader;

3. That a number of contradictions still are to be found; and
4. That some of the proposals made are unworkable.

Since the adoption of the proposed Handbook at this conven-
tion would have to be done during the first days of the convention,
and since a hurried acceptance of such far-reaching changes is
inadvisable, therefore we recommend:

1. That Synod does not accept the proposed revised Handbook
' in toto, especially because pastors and teachers did not receive
a copy in sufficient time for intensive study and review, and could
not submit it to their congregations and lay delegates;

2. That only a small part of this proposed Handbook be con-
sidered at the convention in Saginaw (we suggest sections 101
to 147); ,