# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1953_S209
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PARISH EDUCATION 209

siprogram can advance the cause of parish education wherever
eiused.

‘One special feature of Lutheran Education Week that we feel
cularly significant is the study of the strengths and weak-
‘of the local educational program. Where the leaders take
to assess the program of Christian education that is provided
eport to the congregation on the ways in which the program
be improved, this occasion can be much more than a celebra-
t can be a definite step forward in the improvement of the
gational educational program.

I. The Status of the Teacher

4 ¢: status of our Lutheran male teachers in relation to the
riment has required some attention by our synodical officials
Board for Parish Education during the past triennium.

applicable to all regular male Lutheran teachers. The ruling
that Lutheran teachers would be classified as ministers of the
within the purview of Section 22 (b) (6) of the Internal
e Code. The ruling held, therefore, that the rental value
g quarters furnished to Lutheran teachers was not includ-
in the gross income of the teachers for Federal income tax
s. This information was immediately forwarded to the male
ichers of Synod on October 26, 1950, and copies of the ruling
: ovided for the Praesidium of Synod, the District Presidents
d, the Committee on Parish Education of the Board of
tors, the chairmen of District Boards of Education, and Dis-
t’ Superintendents of Schools.

subject of the draft status of our Lutheran teachers also
tired attention with the outbreak of hostilities in Korea.
en, through the Department of Public Relations, con-
ed:‘with members of the staff of General Lewis B. Hershey,
lor of Selective Service, about the status of our teachers. It
steported that General Hershey did not expect to publish doc-
nts listing the many categories established under the law and.
ations governing deferment. Ina special letter to the male
rs of our schools, under date of October 5, 1950, Dr. Behnken
ed the approach that teachers should make to their local
boards in requesting deferred status because they were “reg-
isters of religion” in the area of religious education. We are
that our teachers have been ‘given this deferred status
é, as Dr. Behnken pointed out in his letter, irreparable harm
‘come to the Church if such deferment were not granted.
“Synodical officials took the same position on two other