# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1167
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

636 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL. MATTERS:

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
in the discharge of their duties.” (Handbook, 1945 edition, p. 76,
IV, 2a-b.) In these words Synod has imposed a special obligation
on 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. (Cf. Consti_
tution. Art. XI, B, Handbook, 1945, p.7.) Synod also holds the
president 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
. Whereas, 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

ASS NaNO ee SNA cap.

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 637

‘electors: The Board of Control as a group, with one vote (the
President of the synodical District, not voting with his Board of
Control); the President of the synodical District in which the in-

stitution is located or his official representative; the President of
: ‘Synod or his official representative; the chairman of the Board for

Higher Education or his official representative”; and
”  ‘Waereas, Of the four above-mentioned electoral votes three
are at present in the hands of those officials who in the past have
taken no action in this matter, but have with the Board of Control
“fled” such charges and requests “to await further develop-
ment”; and .

Wuereas, According to the new Handbook (5.81), “The orig-

inal jurisdiction of Synod’s Board of Appeals shall include con-

troversies about membership in Synod and eligibility for service
in a particular field of work or in the Church in general which
arise in connection with activities directly under the control of
Synod. However, the plaintiff in such cases shall first present the
case to the President of Synod, who shall make every effort to
settle it. Only when all administrative efforts have been exhausted
shall the President of Synod refer the case to Synod’s Board of
Appeals”; and .

Wuereas, The President of Synod has during these past years
taken no effective action in this matter and has not referred these
charges to Synod’s Board of Appeals; now therefore be it

Resolved, That we, the undersigned, hereby petition Synod,
in convention assembled, to order the President of Synod imme-
diately to refer all charges which have been raised against any
member of the St. Louis faculty since 1945 to Synod’s Board of
Appeals or to a special committee of six clergymen and five lay-
men, two of whom may be teachers, to be elected by the conven-
tion. Synod’s Board of Appeals or the special committee shall with-
out long and dangerous digressions investigate all the facts and cir-
cumstances. If it finds the accused innocent of the charges brought
against them, it shall publicly exonerate them. If it finds the
accused guilty as charged, it shall then report its findings to the
responsible officials of Synod, who shall then without further delay
carry out the judgment of the Board or Committee and promptly
remove the offenders from office.

(Rev.) F. E. Bartuine, Northlake, Ill.
(REv.) J. Bertram, Fort Dodge, Iowa
(Rev.) Paut H. Bureporr, Clinton, Iowa
(Rev.) A. C. Danms, Chicago, M1.

(Rev.) H. W. Deener, Lewisville, Minn.
(Rev.) Txeo. Dierks, Morrison, Il.

(Rev.) ArrHur Dreviow, Goodhue, Minn.