# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1929_S174
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ow a A76 Proceedings of Thirty-Fourth Regular Convention
All Mission Building Funds.
ae A-%. That all receipts (as heretofore
a funds for which they are received.
A-8. That the total offerin

gs for the Budget Trea
tributed that the necessary disbursements of Group “ a” . y be 8° dis.
their respective budgets be fully met. moms within

A-4. That the balance of receipts in the Bud
apportioned among the items in Group “B”
- to the Synodical Debt.

7 . (In this manner operating expenses would be met fi

expansion is undertaken, with the result that distres

Synod’s treasuries would be avoided.)

B. That the mazimum, or largest, amount that sho

) be credited to the respect;
‘tire

get Treasury be so
that preference be given

rst before any
Sing debts in

uld be appro.

priated by Synod for the three-year period — 1930—1932 — shahi
exceed $8,250,000.00. The distribution of this budget should be nt
proximately. as follows: —> “p
. ¢ For the Three Years.
roup “A”? oe,
Group “BPs ¥9,000,000.00
| Debt ....... $ 600
Synodical Buildings ||... “1,000°000.00
All Mission Buildings... "350,000.00
; General Church Extension ........... 300,000.00
i ——————— _ 2,250,000.00
! . : . Total for the three-year period ............. $8,250,000.00
For Each Year.
Gro cA 1930.
up KAP ee -
Group “B?s— satiated
Debt ...
SN 600,000.
Synod’s Building Fund .............. ¥120,000.00
— 750,000.00
Total 2.0. cee cee ee $2,750,000.00
1931
a4 Group “A” ooo. eee
S Group pe: Tatts eee ee eee eee e tere e eee eas $2,000,000.00
“. Synodical Buildings ............. 42
: Mission Buildings .................. +e 000.08
; Church Extension ................... 150,000.00
750,000.00
Total 2.0... eee ee. $2,750,000.00
1932.
Group “A” 260 ee
Group “Br nnn $2,000,000.00
Synodical Buildings .............. 4.2
Mission Buildings... +175°000.00
Church Extension .................. 150,000.00
750,000.00
“ Total 2262... ewee. ett dees wees $2,750,000.00

effort on the P

for the needs 0

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1929. 1477

“¢. That the Fiscal Office, the Fiscal Conference collaborating,
mploy such ways and means as will induce an intensive
art of all Districts, circuits, and congregations, during
3 fall of the year, to bring about a thorough’every-member canvass
“a f the congregation, District, and Synod, calling es-

to the indebtedness of Synod, which has been in-

welop and ¢

sal attention

cluded in the budget. .
" D, That a, rising vote be taken on all resolutions of Synod in-

or pertaining to, appropriations of moneys. A two-thirds

yolving,
f all the votes cast shall be necessary to pass such a reso-

majority 0

lution. et
E. That we authorize the Board of Directors to erect the neces-

sary professors’ residences, borrowing the money to pay for these and
then paying the interest and principal with the moneys ordinarily
expended for rentals, wherever this is practical and feasible.

II. Arguments Favorable to the Recommendations.
a. Budget.

1. In studying the financial status of Synod, we were aided by
numerous facts and statistics. A few of these will be adduced in
order to substantiate our conclusions. To begin with, we found that
the receipts from Districts for all budgeted purposes (including build-
ings and church extension funds) were: —

Average per Year.

1918—20 .. 0... ces $ 524,000.00
192I—23 20 eee 1,138,000.00
1924—26 .. 002 cee 2,389,000.00
WQ2T le cee 1,843,479.00
W928 ce eee 1,832,083.00

To these figures must be added the receipts from other sources,
averaging about $250,000 a year, making total receipts in excess of
$2,100,000 for 1927 and 1928. During the years 1927 and 1928 the
disbursements for the so-called “A” Budget, including the operating
expenses of all missions, the Synodical Treasury,.and the Board of
Support, were, respectively, $1,572,525.83 and 1,607,436.63. Hence it
is apparent that our receipts exceeded the Group “A” disbursements
by more than $500,000 each year. This fact directed attention to
Memorials 606, 607, and 608, which advocate that the Church Ex-
tension Fund and the Building Fund be separated from the budget.
If this were done, the budgets of congregations for District and
Synod would be reduced below the amounts which are now raised by
them for these purposes. Furthermore, many of our congregations
have adapted themselves very successfully to Synod’s present budget
arrangement, finding it a very convenient method to make their
synodical and District contributions. Finally, the present scheme

12 ue