# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1956_S260
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

bt cr Ph VI

os 2 &

SEMINARIES AND COLLEGES 259

In the United States the rise of consumer debt for ten years
past at the rate of 20 per cent a year indicates that the credit
mechanism of our society is now at its point of greatest use. Repeat-
edly the Federal Government has acted to decelerate the unprece-
dented expansion of commercial credit.

In the years for which data have been reported (see Table 8),
the indebtedness of Synod’s member congregations has been
mounting rapidly. Some of Synod’s Districts have not felt them-
selves bound to the traditional practice of the parent organization
but have committed themselves to the borrowing of capital funds,
primarily to increase their Church Extension funds.

Table 8— Reported Congregational Indebtedness

Year Year
1934 _..-----— _ $ 15,133,000 1945 ow 7,576,000
1935 _... 15,248,000 1946 _.. —_ 9,177,000
1936 .... 14,815,000 1947 _.. __.. (not reported)
1937 .... 14,663,000 1948 29,493,000
1938 15,669,000 1949 _. 25,318,000
1939 .... 16,182,000 1950 _..-.---—.--------- (not reported)
1940 _... 16,229,000 1951 ..... _... (not reported)
1941 _... 15,612,000 1952 _... es 51,328,000
1942 _... 14,556,000 1953 _..-..------.- —---- 57,679,000
1943 __.. 10,815,000 1954 —— 68,107,000
1944 9,809,000 1955 ene - 81,000,000

What shall Synod itself do? Shall it assume that there are
no critical differences in particular applications of financial prin-
ciples under which business and industry are controlled and
directed and those which are not only permissible but wise in
synodical finance? Recognizing that the sustained procurement of
capital funds in significant amounts never has been easy, shall
Synod sooner or later commit itself to the incurring of indebted-
ness to meet apparent need or opportunity? Would this be the
engendering of an unconscionable and destructive capital burden,
or would it be prudential foresight to make easy and attractive
the responsibility of the next generation?

Specifically, what shall be Synod’s policy and practice in
regard to its colleges and seminaries and their plant needs in the
next period of years? Are sporadic major collections the only
alternative as a source of capital funds? Or can intermittent
inclusion of capital funds in Synod’s annual budget be expected
to meet the continuing problem? Should long-range capital debt
be incurred in times of peak and expanding national economic
activity?

In April’ 1956 Synod’s Board of Directors invited the Board
for Higher Education to study anew the problem of capital pro-
curement, particularly as it applies to the area of the latter’s
responsibility and to be prepared to report to the synodical con-