# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S925
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

3840 APPEAL MATTERS

scope of action required by these passages is not determined by: ’
geographical factors, as contended by the Board of Appeals in its
interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 5:1, “en humin,” but by the,
desire to be recognized as a brother. Although we hold that
steps I and II were not essential in this case (Walther, Pastorale,
p. 325, Anm.3; Fritz, Pastoral Theology, pp. 235, 237; Homiletical
Magazine, May, 1906, p.160; Central District Report, 1904, pp. 56
and 57), we contend that the first step had been taken by the
complaining party, that the second step had been made impossible
by the accused (cf. English District Findings, p. 15), and that action
by the congregation had been made imperative by the act of the
accused in seeking membership in a sister congregation (cf. Opinion ,
of the official committee of the Southern District). Christian order,
as embodied in the Objects of Synod, Art. III, made it necessary
that the accused’s name: be cleared before Trinity Congregation
could issue a transfer.

C. With regard to Section III of the Board of Appeals’ Opinion
we hold that the quotation from Dr. Walther’s Pastorale in para-
graph 8 supports the action of the congregation. . Inasmuch as this
authority distinguishes between the declaration that.a person “has
excluded himself” and “has excommunicated himself,’ we draw
attention to the fact that the congregation’s resolution (“has thereby
placed himself outside the communicant membership of Trinity
Church until such time as, of his own accord, he shall appear
and shall re-establish himself in good standing”) is in harmony ~
with the authority quoted. Cp. also Mezger, Magazin fuer Homi-
letik, 1906, pp. 91, 92.

We hold that the hypothetical possibilities for non-appearance
cited by the Board of Appeals in paragraph 7 are not pertinent
in this case.

We find that the Board of Appeals’ assumptions in paragraph 9°
do not reflect a proper evaluation of all the facts in the case;
e.g.: (1) The accused advanced as his major reason for non-
appearance the fact that he was a member of a sister congregation
(accordingly, outside the jurisdiction of the citing congregation).
This means that he did not recognize membership in Trinity Con-
gregation and evidently shows, regardless of the other reasons
advanced, that he was unwilling to “hear” this congregation, though _
its jurisdiction had been affirmed also by the official committee of .
the Southern District in its Opinion of January 11, 1938; (2) It
can be shown from documentary evidence that the representatives
referred to in the Opinion (III, par.9) were not sent to further
a “hearing,” but rather to block arrival at a unanimous action by
the congregation.