# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S53
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Fourth Delegate Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1884.   53

at least equally questionable. The institution would then become two-headed. And since, in this case, the Director, who has to control the house order and discipline (at least in his capacity as a teacher), would also have to stand under the control of this [other] teacher, conflicts of authority would be almost unavoidable. Since, finally, outstanding scholarly ability is only rarely found united with practical talent for governing in one and the same person, what would become of things altogether if, on top of that, a man who lacked the latter gift, or who held entirely different principles about discipline, wished to control the Director's rule?

"As to 3. It thus seems, especially under present circumstances, that nothing remains but the third option, namely, to transfer the functions of the presidents to the Director — whether one gives him the title 'president of the institution' (which has already been chosen by the Synod and corresponds to local usage), or 'Director,' or both together, or whatever one wishes to call him. This is also the only natural and logically consistent course. And that for the following reasons:

"1. In any case there must be one person present who represents the institution to the Synod and to everyone else, and to whom one can turn and hold in the first instance. This position is already given, where there is no president, to the Director. But the Director cannot, in truth, stand up for the whole institution unless he also has oversight of the institution as a whole and in all things, and consequently also over its teachers.

"2. The office of a president and that of a Director do not require different gifts and qualities, but essentially precisely the very same ones — above all, practical talent for governing.

"3. According to the determination of the last General Synod, the Director is to watch over the spiritual welfare of his pupils and be their educator. But he cannot do this truly and completely unless he is permitted to observe them everywhere, including in his colleagues' lessons. If, for instance, a teacher complains to him about a pupil, the fault may possibly lie, in part or wholly, with the teacher concerned himself — for example, that he is of uneven temperament, quick-tempered, distrustful, petty, that his teaching is too advanced, too obscure, or confused, etc. And the Director ought by rights to have the opportunity to know this from his own observation; otherwise he cannot treat the pupil correctly nor help his colleague.

"4. The Director, who obviously has to settle many matters summarily, must necessarily have a certain measure of authority. This, however, is thoroughly undermined if he is nothing but the executive of the faculty — and that only in matters in which the faculty is pleased to make him so — if he must always first ask the faculty