# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S923
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

8388 APPEAL MATTERS

decisions in the official organs of Synod. This was done in the
Detroit case. Subsequently, however, the editorial committees of -
The Lutheran Witness and Der Lutheraner, acting on the advice
of the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, refused to publish
the decision in the Western District case, on the ground that Synod
had not specifically granted this right to the Board of Appeals,
The Board feels that the members of Synod are entitled to be in-
formed of the action of the Board and that the church papers are
the proper vehicles to convey this information. The memorial of
our Board, which is being presented to Synod for consideration,

rovides that this be done. 3
P Synop’s Boarp or APPEALS

Pau F. KorHnexe, Chairman
ERWIN ScHNEDLER, Secretary

[902]
Appeal of the English District from the Decision

of the Board of Appeals

Having considered the Opinion of the Board of Appeals in the
case of Dr. O. H. P. against the English District with the desire that
this unhappy situation might have been brought to a just and God-
pleasing conclusion, the English District in convention assembled
has found for reasons hereinafter set forth that it cannot accept
the Opinion of the Board of Appeals and herewith humbly petitions
Synod to have the same set aside. We find that the Opinion is
not in agreement with the accepted principles of the Christian
Church, based on the Word of God.

I

We call attention to the fact, nowhere referred to in any way
in the Opinion of the Board of Appeals, that Dr. O. H. P. was re-
ceived into membership in a sister congregation of Synod, Grace
Church, Jacksonville, Florida, in 1937 without a transfer from, and
over the protest of, Trinity Church of Oak Park. We call attention
to the Opinion of the officers of the Southern District (Jan. 11,
1938), likewise unmentioned by the Opinion of the Board of Ap-
peals, which ruled that Dr. O. H. P. was a member of Trinity
Church, directed Grace Church to terminate the “membership”
granted, and advised Trinity Church to deal with Dr.O.H.P. in-
the matter. We call attention to the fact that this “membership”
has nonetheless been permitted to continue and has evoked no
expression, ruling, or rebuke from the Board of Appeals, in spite
of the Opinions of the Southern and English Districts and in spite