# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S39
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MISSIONS 39

The original ad hoc committee consisted of Pastors
Louis Jasper, Norbert Borchardt, Walter Westermann,
George Ring, Martin Kosche, and Rodney Rynearson,
regional counselors; Pastors Clark Bailey and E. Theo.
DeLaney, officers of the Ephphatha Conference; and
Secretary for Deaf Missions H. W. Rohe and Pastors
O. H. Reinboth and Reuben Schmidt of the Board for
Missions staff. Several changes have taken place: Jasper
accepted a call to the Hong Kong area deaf missions and
was replaced by Pastor Earl Thaler; new officers of the
Ephphatha Conference added were Frank Wagenknecht
(later William Lange) and Robert Blakely. Jasper,
DeLaney, and Wagenknecht are no longer members
of the committee.

1. The first meeting of the committee was held in
St. Louis Oct. 31 to Nov. 2, 1966. Prior to this meeting,
as part of the preparation for the discussion, each man
was assigned a specific area of deaf missions which he
was to study in the light of this proposal and on which
he was to report. The seven areas were: (a) deaf con-
gregations; (b) educational centers; (c) scattered deaf;
(d) evangelism and outreach; (e) recruitment; (f) train-
ing; and (g) overall philosophy and long-range objectives
of deaf missions. The last-mentioned area received the
most attention.

2. The second meeting was held Feb. 1 and 2, 1967,
after the North American Missions Conference in Saint
Louis. The committee prepared a consensus statement
and study guide for presentation to the Board for Mis-
sions, the missionaries to the deaf, the regional deaf lay
conferences, and —

3. Ephphatha Conference, which met at Mill Neck
Manor in July 1967. The gist of the consensus statement
was that deaf missions should not be transferred to the
Districts at this time, so that further study might be
carried out. It was recommended that the Synod meeting
in convention at New York (1967) delay any decisions
in order to allow more time for careful consideration
of this matter. The 1967 New York convention (Resolu-
tion 1-22) instructed the ad hoc committee to continue
its study and to report to the Denver convention in 1969.

4. On Nov. 8, 1967, during the LCUSA Mission Con-
ference held at Chicago, the ad hoc committee met again.
Executive Secretary Dr. Wm. Kohn of the Board for
Missions and Mr. Eugene Debenport of Business Ser-
vices, Board for Missions, also attended. The meeting
resulted in the narrowing of the study to two alterna-
tives: (a) an Ephphatha District, i. e., a nongeographical
subsidized deaf District; (b) the ‘‘multi-District plan,” i. e.,
the mission to the deaf being administered by the respec-
tive geographical Districts. Two subcommittees were ap-
pointed by the chairman, one for each of the alternatives,
to produce detailed documents for the next meeting.

5. The next meeting was held in St. Louis, July 10,
1968, and the two subcommittees presented their re-
ports. The reports were then presented to the members
of the Ephphatha Conference during their meeting,
July 11—16, and were discussed at length.

6. The sixth meeting, Sept. 4 and 5, 1968, in St. Louis
again heard the reports of the subcommittees and dis-
cussed the matters thoroughly. At this meeting the ad hoc
committee prepared this report and recommendations
for the convention of the Synod to be held in Denver in
1969. It submits its concerns and recommendations to the
Synod for its consideration and action with the prayer
that the Lord of the church will continue to bless and
prosper the mission to the deaf.

Basic Concerns in the Administration of the Work
Among the Deaf

In developing a program for administration of deaf
missions through Districts the committee felt that ade-
quate consideration be given the following concerns:

1. That there be continued Board for Missions sup-
port for the development of the ministry to the deaf in
terms of adequate personnel and their esprit de corps;
in terms of overall work for mission outreach through
expansion fields, intensification of work within a field;
in terms of adequate financing and the procurement of
items of equipment peculiar to deaf work;

2. That the identity and visibility of deaf work be
maintained and increased on the local, national, and
international levels;

3. That the deaf have a voice in their own affairs
locally, nationally, and internationally;

4. That the voice of the deaf be heard in District
planning (e. g., a subcommittee on ministry to the deaf);

5. That a program be developed that will nurture
spiritual growth in stewardship of life individually and
corporately;

6. That policy provide an optimum degree of uni-
formity of administration of deaf missions across District
lines, so that the work will not suffer in its geographic
expansion across District lines;

7. That the deaf congregation and its pastor be free
to exercise individual creativity and initiative in experi-
mental projects indicated by local needs and pecu-
liarities;

8. That certain aspects of deaf mission work, e.g.,
programs for deaf religious education, services for the
deaf in hospitals and other institutions, facilities to serve
deaf youth and the aged, counseling and social services
for small scattered groups, etc., will require compara-
tively heavy, continuous subsidy;

9. That factors peculiar to the deaf be taken into
account when Districts make their annual budget “‘pro-
posals”’ to congregations;

10. That the highly specialized nature of ministry to
the deaf ordinarily requires full-time missionaries whose
time shall not be divided with another phase of ministry;

11. That the recruitment and training of full-time per-
sonnel shall remain the primary responsibility of the
synodical Board for Missions;

12. That a spirit of unity among workers and congre-
gations be nurtured;