# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S352
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

352 | . Appeal Matters

Appeals’ interpretation and limitation of Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.. Th
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: J, “en humin,” but by th )
desire to be recognized as a brother. Although we hold’ ‘that’
steps I and II were not essential in this case (Walther, Pastarale,
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 impossiblé:
by the accused (cf. English District Findings, p. 15), and that action
by the congregation had been made imperative ‘by the act of the 8
accused in seeking membership in a sister congregation (cf. Opinion «7
of the official committee of the Southern District). Christian order, , 3%
as embodied in the Objects of Synod, Art, TY, m
that the accused’s name be cleared before Trini
could issue a transfer, ,

ade it necessary.
ty Congregation

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 4
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:

4