# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1956_S426
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MISSIONS

II

The second reason for our resignation is more difficult to ex-
press in detailed and concrete terms; in fact, if actual concrete
examples are cited, they might give the impression of disagree-
ment about petty incidents which are not worth discussing. Yet
the multiplication of these instances of “bifocal” action eventually
leads to frustration and confusion.

It is an accepted fact that the over-all policies of Synod are
decided upon by the leadership of Synod which has its head-
quarters in St.Louis. Yet the day-by-day application to specific
problems must be made by the board charged with the respon-
sibility. Lack of liaison between the leadership of Synod and the
responsible boards leads to frustration and confusion. It has hap-
pened that our Board has labored all day in a meeting to hammer
out a problem, and then an incidental telephone call from St. Louis
brings information which makes the whole day’s work in vain.
Specific instances of such lack of liaison are not difficult to find:
our Board was not consulted with regard to the programs at the
“Bad Boll” conferences; conferences with pastors of the Lutheran
Free Churches in Europe were arranged without prior consulta-
tion with the Board; steps were taken to send a representative
to Europe to consult with brethren there on matters under the
jurisdiction of our Board without the knowledge of our Board.
Instances such as these made the work of our Board difficult and
impossible. Most of these instances could have been brought to an
acceptable solution by proper liaison through a permanent and
full-time Executive Secretary with an office in St. Louis.

Til

It is not the purpose of this report to be merely negative. We
have sent to the interim Board for European Affairs our sugges-
tions for changes, based on our past experience, which we feel
will make for a more effective and efficient Board for European
Affairs. We leave it to them as the responsible board to make
such recommendations to Synod as their experience calls for.

The statement that the entire program of our Synod in Europe
is small and ineffective is true. But the size and effectiveness
of the program is commensurate with the means which have been
made available to carry it out. We are convinced that there is an
increasingly important work to be done in Europe by our Synod.
To conduct it properly and effectively a full-time executive secre-
tary is more imperative than ever. We are certain that not only
the undersigned but also former members of our Board on the

ra

ns