# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1935_S70
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

70 Proceedings of Thirty-Sixth Regular Convention,

determined during the present triennium by a committee that Synod
was asked to appoint especially. We feel that it will not do to decide’
this matter without a very careful examination of all the pros and
cons that play into this question. We feel that it is a question of
the greatest importance. We also feel that Conover ought to be con-
tinued until such time as this question of another location, if any,
can be determined. We wish to state that under the present economic
conditions there is no disposition on the part of our representatives
jn Conover to ask for extensive investments. The memorial sent by
your local Board to the last session of the Delegate Synod shows that
we already then for the time being relinquished our request for what
you refer to as the ‘physical rehabilitation of the institution’ and
asked Synod to maintain the institution with the most necessary
repairs.

“g, Your committee admits: ‘There is no doubt that Conover has
been a focal point for the mission-work of our Synod in the South-
east’ It has been this, and it is this now. Every professor of this
institution, in addition to his college duties, has served at all times
wherever it was possible to aid missionary expansion. They are all
doing so now. Your committee, however, also states that this mis-
sionary importance of the college ‘must not be overestimated” With
reference to this latter statement we feel it our duty to call your
attention to the fact that whenever at various Delegate Synods the
appropriations for a new building at Conover were recommended
and favorably voted upon by Synod (though the resolutions were
never carried out), the members of Committee No. 1 and Synod’s
Board of Directors have always insisted on impressing upon our local
Board of Control and upon others their firm conviction that the mis-
gionary importance of the institution was its chief claim for con-
tinuance. If the conclusions of these leaders of Synod in the past
were correct, and we believe they were, then the statement of your
committee would seem to challenge the conclusions of these numerous
bodies of our men which have passed upon the same subject after
extended deliberation and which have considered the missionary im-
portance of the college of sufficient magnitude not only to maintain
the school, but to justify the spending of large sums of money for
the purpose of improving it.

“Of course, if the missionary endeavor in the Southeast could
have received the financial support which it so often called for and
which was invariably endorsed by the authorities of Synod concerned
in such matters, then there might be a different tale to tell at this
time, and then the importance of the college for missionary expansion
might not be to-day what it has been in the past and what it now
still remains. But the fact is that the financial assistance needed
was. not forthcoming, and that especially during the last two trien.