| Summary: | 292 29 NOETH DAKOTA REPORTS an faith, to promulgate which this church was organized in 1889. It joined the Icelandic Lutheran Synod. Both synod and church had written Constitu tions and confessional documents, none of which mentioned any dictrine of inspiration of Scripture. A schism arose in the congregation over the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the Bible. Plaintiffs adhered to that doctrine, alleg ing it to have been presupposed, and therefore understood to have been a fun damental doctrine, in 1889, of the Icelandic Lutheran faith. This defendants deny, and assert that neither the parent church of Iceland nor their own church has ever been bound to any specific doctrine of inspiration of Scrip ture. In 1910 plaintiffs, a minority, withdrew from the congregation, and refused to participate with the majority in congregational matters. The ma jority, the defendants as a congregation on June 5, 1910, withdrew Thingvalla Church from the synod, which body had, by resolution in 1909, for the first time placed itself on record as accepting the doctrine of plenary inspiration. The president of the synod was notified thereof June 5, 1910, by written notice. He deferred action thereon, submitting the withdrawal to the synod, which body, on the protest of the minority, these plaintiffs, disapproved of the with drawal, and passed a resolution holding that the majority had departed from the original faith, and had violated its constitution in so doing, finding them guilty of heresy toward the Lutheran faith and holding the minority to be the true Thingvalla Congregation. All this was without notice to the ma jority, or any participation by them in the synod, they having treated their withdrawal as effectual from the date notice thereof was given, and had re fused to send a delegate to or participate in the proceedings of the synod. This action is brought by the minority for the recovery of the church property, on the grounds that the plaintiffs are the true Thingvalla Congregation, and charging that the defendants are heretical because they disavow the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the Bible. The trial court received in evidence the record of proceedings had at the synod with its findings, and on that, with other testimony, found that the charge was true, and that the plaintiffs were the true congregation, and entitled as such to recover the church property. Defendants appealed, claiming the synodical proceedings not to be binding upon them, and incompetent as evidence; that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the trial court's findings that the doctrine of plenary inspiration, though not mentioned in the constitutions, confessions, or written creeds of the Lutheran Church of Iceland and this church, was, however, presupposed. Held: Church government — Lutheran form of — synod — withdrawal of con gregation from — synodical convention — jurisdiction of. 1. That the withdrawal of the congregation from the synod was complete under the Lutheran congregational form of church government, upon the pas sage of the resolution and notice thereof to the president; and that the subse quent proceedings of the synodical convention were had without jurisdiction by it over the defendant congregation, and its ex parte action thus taken was void as to the defendant congregation, over whom it had no authority.
|
|---|