# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1166
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 635

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 Board
of Electors that the accused are guilty of the accusations made
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 to
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
Synod 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, ‘II. The President of Fac-
ulties’”; and . ;

Wnereas, The synodical procedure outlined above is not in
harmony with Synod’s Handbook (neither on p. 76, IV, 2a, 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