# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S359
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

500 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 501

of Control is to ask the Board of Electors to weigh the finding of
the Board of Control and decide whether the charges have been
proved, same edition, p. 82, 11.

“Accordingly the Board of Control must prove to the
of Electors that the accused are guilty of the accusations
against them. If the Board of Electors, then, upholds the findings
as sufficient cause for the removal of one or all, the Board of
Electors proceeds to do so.

“In speaking for the Board of Control may I state that at no
time has an OFFICIAL document been addressed to the Board of
Control, making charges against any of these five members of the
faculty. The Board of Control has been apprised of the fact that
charges have been lodged against five men to other officials of
Synod and has filed these to await further development.

“Should the signers decide to address themselves to the Board
of Control, the accusers will be asked to prepare a brief in which
their charges are fully and clearly stated and in which proof for
these charges has been furnished. The accusers must furnish the
proof so that the Board of Control may examine the same io
determine whether or not sufficient evidence has been submitted
to call a meeting of the Board of Electors and to ask said Board
to remove those who are accused. It is therefore evident that the
Board of Control must present proof to the Board of Electors of
the guilt of those accused.

“May I also state that I have also consulted the President of
Syned as well as Synod’s Committee on Constitutional Matters, to
make sure that the above outlined procedure is the correct one.

“The President as well as the Committee on Constitutional
Matters, consisting of Doctors ——- and —— agree that
this is the proper procedure.

“The Constitutional Committee even holds that the protest
ought first be addressed to the president of the Seminary, who is
responsible for all. matters pertaining to the institution. See Syn-
odical Handbook, same edition, p.74, ‘Il. The President of Fac-
ulties’ ”;. and ae

Waereas, The synodical procedure outlined above is not in
harmony with Synod’s Handbook (neither on p. 76, IV, 2 a, nor any-
where else in the 1945 Handbook is it prescribed that “the signers
must address themselves to the Board of Control of the Seminary
before they approach the Board of Electors,” or that protests “ought
first be addressed to the President of the Seminary”). SYNOD HAS
MADE NO SUCH RULE OF PROCEDURE. It is purely an inven-
tion which effectually evades and eventually stifles all synodical
discipline. Synod, however, has decreed: “The Board of Control
of an institution shall diligently observe a) Whether the doctrine

taught in the institution be that of the Word of God and therefore
in accordance with the Confessions of our Church (Book of Con-
cord of 1580); b) Whether the instructors are found to be faithful
«, the discharge of their duties.” (Handbook, 1945 edition, p. 76,
Vv. 2a-b.) In these words Synod has imposed a special obligation
ir the Board of Control. Synod has given the President of Synod
the obligation of supervising the doctrine and administration of all
officers of Synod and of all those employed by Synod. (C£. Consti-
tution. Art. XI, B, Handbook, 1945, p.7.) Synod also holds the
ident of an institution “first of all” responsible as to all mat-
ters pertaining to an institution. (Cf. Handbook, 1945, p. 7411, 1.)
But in the above-quoted words Synod has specifically and expressly
charged the Board of Control diligently to observe that all instruc-
tion is according to the Word of God. The Board of Control is
therefore in a special sense the guardian of the truth of God in
the institution under its control. It is to keep a close watch that
no false doctrine is taught at any time. To this end it must con-
tinually investigate conditions within the institution: “The Board
shall ask at least one of its members annually to visit a few of
the classes of the various instructors.” Handbook, 1945, p. 77, IV, 9;
and that even without a formal request for such investigation, and
even without receiving “an OFFICIAL document addressed to the
Board of Control.” For a Board of Control to take no action what-
soever, but to “file” charges “to await further development,” after
it “has been apprised of the fact that charges have been lodged .. .
to other officials of Synod,” can by no stretch of the imagination
be regarded as diligently observing “whether the doctrine taught
in the institution be that of the Word of God” and “whether the
instructors are found to be faithful in the discharge of their
duties.” It must be condemned as a flagrant evasion of a volun-
tarily accepted obligation. For a chairman of the Board of Electors
to reject a request of 127 pastors because such request was ad-
dressed to him as chairman of the Board of Electors, when accord-
ing to his own ruling, which is in no wise supported by the Hand-
book, it should have been addressed to him as chairman of the
Board of Control—such action can only be repudiated as. an -
evasion of the issue and legalism of the worst kind); and .
Wnereas, According to the new Handbook (6.83), “the Board
of Control shall duly investigate all the facts and circumstances
and shall refer its findings to the electors when a member of the
administration or teaching staff of an institution appears to be
guilty ... of promulgation of and adherence to false doctrine”; and
Wuereas, According to the new Handbook (6.101), “for the
Purpose of considering final action relevant to the suspension or
the removal from office . . . there shall be present and voting as