LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 228

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

228 UNPUBLISHED REPORTS AND OVERTURES

that, if it is deemed advisable to publish an abbreviated
Handbook, said congregations, pastors, and called teach-
ers be given a choice of receiving the abbreviated or
complete editions of the Handbook.

St. Mark Luts. Conc.
Brooklyn, N. Y.

Erwin E. PraNnce, Pastor
Frep N. Soitoc, President

Identical overture sent in by Trinity Lutheran Con-
gregation, New York, N.Y., Felix Drevon, Secretary.

[5-43 Un]
To Clarify Alleged Confusion in Sections 5.25
and 5.87 of Synodical “Handbook,” ete.

Because of human frailty there arise from time to
time distressing instances in which pastors and teachers
are charged with action subject to discipline by the
Synod or District. Christian love demands that an
evangelical and fair procedure be observed in such
eases which excludes, insofar as it is humanly possible,
arbitrary actions which may be injurious to the individ-
ual’s reputation or ministry.

Amendments made in 1962 to the Handbook, espe-
cially in Sections 5.25 and 5.87, have occasioned con-
siderable confusion regarding the exercise of suspen-
sion by synodical and/or District Presidents. This
amended procedure appears to conflict with the pro-
cedure spelled out in Sections 5.53, 5.81, and 5.93 on the
question of whether suspension is to precede or follow
a hearing by the Board of Appeals. There appears also
to be confusion within the Handbook about the terms
“suspend,” “expel,” and “depose.” In addition, there
appears to be considerable ambiguity regarding the
offenses for which a pastor or teacher is subject to dis-
cipline (see “Study of Developing Polity at the Cleve-
land Convention,” by Richard J. Neuhaus, American
Lutheran, June 1963). Lacking clear guidelines on these
several questions, the situation has been further con-
fused by a variety of procedures now followed by Dis-
trict and synodical officials.

We therefore memorialize The Lutheran Church —
Missouri Synod in convention in 1965 to take the fol-
lowing actions:

1. To make clear that any suspension by the District
President or other authorized official before a case
has been heard by the Board of Appeals does not
affect the livelihood of or exercise of duties by the
pastor or teacher charged. Such livelihood and ex-
ercise of duties is terminated only when said pastor
or teacher is deposed, in accord with Article XIII of
the Constitution, by action of the congregation by
which he is called. The congregation can and must
depose said pastor or teacher only when the decision
of the Board of Appeals has been upheld by the District
convention (Handbook 5.41);

2. To make clear the reasons for which proceedings
may be initiated against a pastor or teacher. The

reasons given in Articles II and VI of the Constitution
are clear. Article XUI, however, includes the ambigu-
ous reason: “. . . or persist in an offensive conduct.”
Other sections of the Constitution and Bylaws refer in
passing to reasons for discipline (for instance, Ar-
ticle XII, Paragraph 8, says that pastors, professors,
and teachers are subject to discipline for “persistently
adhering to false doctrine or for having given public
offense by an ungodly life”). The term “offensive con-
duct” should be clarified in the Bylaws as including
only (a) persistently adhering to false doctrine; (b) giv-
ing public offense by an ungodly life.

Sr. Mark Lutu. Cone.
Brooklyn, N. Y.

ERwin E. Prance, Pastor
Frep N. Sotioc, President

Identical overture sent in by Trinity Lutheran Con-
gregation, New York, N.Y., Felix Drevon, Secretary.

[5-44 Un]

To Take More Effective Steps to Bring About
a Satisfying and God-pleasing Solution
of the Present Offensive Situation
in the Synod with Respect to Doctrine

We, the undersigned, members of the clergy of The
Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, respectfully sub-
mit this overture to the 1965 Detroit convention of The
Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod for the purpose
of making the earnest plea that the Synod take more
effective steps, and this without any further delay, to
bring about a satisfying and God-pleasing solution of
the present offensive situation in the Synod with respect
to doctrine.

We cite following items as examples of the doctrinal
offense being given today in our church:

1. A large number of Scriptural doctrines are being
attacked by pastors, professors, and members of our
Synod, and no effective countermeasures are being taken
either to refute and reject the error in clear and concise
language or to discipline the errorist.

2. In the name of “scholarship and exploratory es-
says” practically any doctrinal aberration can be pre-
sented, and none dare call it heresy.

3. A great many of our Scriptural doctrines which
are clearly taught in Scripture are now being attacked,
and when this takes place, a clear, Scriptural doctrine
suddenly becomes a “doctrinal problem.”

4. Many of the clergy members of our Synod are
affiliated with religious organizations of a hetrodox na-
ture and other members of our Synod are affiliated with
publications of the same bent and therefore violate our
Constitution, Article VI. Furthermore, these persons are
not being disciplined for their unionistic and syncretistic
practices.

5. Secretism is being carried on within our Synod
as evidenced by the “closed meetings” conducted with