# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1938_S323
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Miscellaneous Matters 323

and that the South Wisconsin District erred in sustaining its Presi-
dent in his refusal to uphold my eligibility.’

“September 16. It was resolved by the Board to refer Dr.
Brux’s letter and Dr. Arndt’s ‘Memorandum’ to the Executive Com-
mittee ‘for examination and report to the Board.’”

Before the Executive Committee could meet and consider Dr.
Brux’s letter of September 8, and before the Board could hear and
act on the requested “report” of the Executive Committee, Dr. Brux
appealed to Dr. J. W. Behnken, President of Synod, September
30, 1935.

It needs to be stated that there was additional correspondence
between Dr. Brux and the Board. The foregoing narrative is intro-
duced merely to show that the Board for Foreign Missions made
earnest and uninterrupted efforts to carry out the synodical reso-
lution “to return Dr. Brux to India.”

We hold that the resolution of the Cleveland Convention re-
instated Dr. Brux as a missionary in statu quo and that he should
have received the monthly salary of a missionary on furlough. We
therefore recommend that Synod in brotherly love take care of Dr.
Brux in financial matters as far as he is entitled to remuneration,
which means that his salary be paid from December 1, 1932, to
July 31, 1935.

In accepting this recommendation, Synod resolved that this
action does not in any way pass judgment on the action of the
Mission Board or the South Wisconsin District.

The second part of Dr. Brux’s appeal reads as follows:

“I request furthermore that Synod take appropriate action with
respect to Dr. W. Arndt of Concordia Theological Seminary for his
refusal to substantiate or to withdraw a charge made against me to
another brother and myself in private correspondence, likewise for
his refusal to make proper Christian amends to another brother
and myself for misrepresenting facts with regard to me, though
repeated representations to him were made both by that brother
and myself.

The Committee recommends that Synod adopt the following
resolution:

Wuereas, The matter referred to in the second part of Dr.
Brux’s appeal is a personal one between Dr. Brux and Dr.
Arndt; and

Wuereas, This matter has not been carried through the grades
of admonition laid down by our Lord in Matt. 18 and therefore can-
not be the basis of an appeal to the General Synod; and

Wuereas, Dr. Brux has erred in making this matter public be-
fore Matt.18 had been fully complied with; therefore be it -