# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S353
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Appeal Matters - 853°

sd. to. in. the Opinion (UI, par. 9) were not sent to further
3” but rather to block arrival at a unanimous action by
Stongrégation.

With regard to paragraph 11 of section In, it is evident from
scords that “the divorce proceedings were not the basis for
é congregation’s final action,” but we do hold that any proposal
ring to. bring this entire case to a full, final, God-pleasing, and
“serving solution must deal with those proceedings which
ly affect the fellowship of faith.

D. We hold that the solution suggested by the Board of Appeals
otitrary to Scriptural and synodical procedure. We hold that
ither Scripture nor the law of love permit a congregation ‘to
‘inate such a case as this simply by striking a name from its
rds.. We hold that it is the congregation’s duty to reopen the
t such time as the accused is ready to appear and co-operate
a'just hearing. This the congregation has expressed its willing-
ss to do. If the accused is willing to “hear,” then he will present
elf before Trinity Church for such hearing.
We hold that other souls — the original complainants, the mem-
rs of Trinity Church, and still others — are involved in this un-
1apPy case. Concern for their spiritual welfare makes the adoption
f the Board of Appeals’ solution impossible. Moreover, if carried
out under synodical: direction, it will prove detrimental to the
church at large and tend to break down all discipline within the
Church. Concern for the accused’s soul demands either that he
be justified or that he be convicted of sin and led to repentance.
Such is Christ’s way.
We hold that a conscience enlightened by God’s Word cannot
resort to the solution proposed in the Opinion.
To summarize, we contend that the Opinion of the Board of
Appeals ignores proper ecclesiastical procedure and order; that it
based on misinterpretation and misapplication of God’s Word;
that it employs a strange mode of procedure leading to a ‘disregard
of: éssential facts; that it proposes a solution which violates con-
. science and is unacceptable to God and to His Church. Therefore
we ‘respectfully petition Synod to withdraw the Decision of its

Board of Appeals. Tue Evcuise Drstarct

: Martin WALKER, President

Hvuco G. Kuerer, First Vice-President
BERNARD H. Hemmeter, Second, Vice-President
Epwin L. Wutson, Third Vice-President
Harotp W. Romoser, Secretary

23