# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1956_S424
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

424 MISSIONS

occasional inaction of the Board of Directors, all members of the
Board were convinced that we could no longer carry the respon-
sibilities of executing Synod’s work in Europe when the means
to do so effectively and efficiently had been denied us for such
a long time;

2) Because ineffective liaison between our Board with its seat
in New York and the leadership of Synod with its headquarters
in St. Louis could not be overcome under the present constijutional
setup of the Board for European Affairs, the policies and particu-
larly the day-by-day decisions regarding European affairs devel-
oped a “bifocal” trend (it was sometimes spoken of as “dual
control”) which was confusing not only to the Board and the
leadership of Synod but also translated its confusion to the work
in Europe.

In order that these two summary sentences may be properly
understood, it will be necessary to discuss them in greater detail.

I

Our charge was to carry out Synod’s work in Europe, involving
mission work, fraternal support, Christian charity, public relations,
and doctrinal discussions with groups of independent but fra-
ternally related independent churches there. Synod expected the
responsible Board to supervise at a distance of 3,000 miles the
expenditure of an annual budget of over $100,000 in an efficient
and effective way. It would not make good sense for Synod to
say to the Board: “You can do the job expected of you by mail,
by occasional visits of short duration by Board members, and by
using occasional visitors from the United States who are not mem-
bers of the Board but who happen to be in Europe on other
business.”

The conventions of Synod have never acted in this way. When
the Board for Home Missions in Europe was reactivated imme-
diately after World War II, it appointed a field representative who
worked for the Board full time from 1946 to 1949 until he accepted
a call into the parish ministry. No objection to this action of the
Board was raised by the convention of Synod in Chicago in 1947,
which had an opportunity to do so. However, when our Board,
now called the Board for European Affairs, attempted to call
a successor, the Board of Directors declared it to be beyond the
authorized powers of a board of Synod to establish a permanent
and full-time office without the consent of the Board of Directors.
Because of this the Board for European Affairs appealed to the
convention of Synod in Milwaukee in 1950 for the establishment
of such an office: Synod made no decision in the matter but

recomr.
a study
and pr:
vey Cc
to the
overrot
adopte:
“C
tion 36
OK
ingly d
missior
“A
duty it
several
existin:
“R
with tk
for Eu
as isn
Th
by the
rant it
of the
lution.
able ci
Board
Direct«
of a pe
the me
as coni
bilities
develo:
behind
offered
and efi
resolve
Direct
respon
the Bo
meetin
the Bc
and el
Dr. Be.
action