# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S476
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

‘ties. And the history of our Synod gives ample proof that thes,

476 . Report of Board for Higher Education

maintain a second theological seminary and faculty, irrespective ¢
educational need or cost, Specifically applied to ‘Springfield, { hi
argument runs thus: Granted that St. Louis can Prepare all the met
we need for our Ministry; granted that it is better that hencefortt
all our ministers be trained according to one educational and theolog
ical pattern, nevertheless the Springfield Seminary should be co
tinued in order that we may have two theological faculties,
pendent of each Other, so that the one faculty may watch over, ¢
lenge, and, if need be, correct the other. Such is the argument,
Your Board has examined this Proposal and the arguments sut
mitted in’ support thereof. . We have sought the correct answer LO:
three questions that underlie this proposition: First, is the Proposed
atrangement necessary? Second, is it feasible? Third, is it desirab.
First, then: Is 4 second theological faculty needed to stand sen
over the other? It is granted that even theological Professors, bei

‘human, may fall into error and may misuse their position for the’

spread of unscriptural teaching, But Synod has long since wi 2
adopted other devices for checking against such dangerous Possibj

devices are Sufficient. The President and the Vice-Presidents
Synod, the Presidents of Synod’s Districts,. and in particular

whereas the seminary authorities, being on the ground, ¢
would receive earlier knowledge and also are clothed with respon,
sibility and authority to act. If, on the other hand, a doctrinal ab

response,
Thirdly: We ask whether the Proposed plan is desirable.