# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S922
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPEAL MATTERS - 889

of the repeated protests of Trinity Congregation and the officers
of the English District against tolerance of such a situation. -

In harmony with Scripture’s presentation of the fellowship of
faith and Synod’s established practice, we hold that the disciplinary
proceedings of a member congregation of Synod (not to mention
a District’s supporting decision) must be respected by every sister
congregation, even though appeal be entered, until the proceedings
reach their conclusion and thereafter until any disciplinary verdict
is properly recalled or rescinded. Any other procedure disrupts
the fellowship and provokes anarchy and chaos in the Church.
We assert that by its failure to heed the information and protests
advanced on this point and by its silence on this primary considera-
tion of ecclesiastical order the Opinion of the Board of Appeals
nullifies the Constitution of Synod, Art. II, Sec. 8, and commits
Synod to a rule of ungovernable disorder.

II

A. In Section I the Opinion states that “the absolutely essential
starting point for church discipline proceedings which may lead
to excommunication is the establishment, the proof of a mortal
sin.” We hold that the Board of Appeals has failed to distinguish
between “church discipline proceedings” and essential “church
discipline,” that is, admonition and declaration of a verdict. We
grant that proof of mortal sin must be established in order to
proceed to admonition and excommunication. But the congrega-
tion, first of all, must investigate the charge which the complaining
member brings against the accused. Cf. C. F. W. Walther, Theo-
logical Quarterly, I, 411, par. 30; A. L. Graebner, Theological
Quarterly, VI, 4, pp. 216—231. In order to accomplish this, the
congregation must arrange for hearings to receive the charge of
the complainant, to hear the defense of the accused, and thereby
to establish the facts in the case. Toward this end both parties
must co-operate with the congregation. This is the essential pre-
requisite for church discipline and the starting point for such
proceedings. To refuse such co-operation is tantamount to sever-
ing the bond of fellowship. The congregation is compelled to
recognize such refusal as self-exclusion from the congregation.

Cf. Mezger, Magazin fuer Homiletik, March, 1906, pp. 91, 92; June, -

1906, p.192. By demanding the establishment of proof of mortal
sin as the absolutely essential starting point for church discipline
proceedings, the Board of Appeals ignores this prerequisite and
in doing so does violence to the principles of justice and to Scrip-
tural order for church discipline.

B. With regard to Section II, we cannot accept the Board of
Appeals’ interpretation and limitation of Matt. 18 and 1Cor.5. The

arene