# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1935_S124
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

112 Proceedings of Thirty-Sixth Regular Convention,

through correspondence, to Lutheran students who are attending
schools in communities in which we are not represented;

8. Acting as adviser for the Church Extension boards where loans
are asked for by congregations or Districts on the score of Student
Welfare Work;

9. Arranging to have prepared for each District of Synod a list
of all colleges and universities where our Lutheran students ordinarily
are enrolled, together with the names and addresses of pastors either
serving these institutions or stationed in the vicinity, and annually
making these lists available to all pastors of Synod to the extent
needed;

10. Presenting the cause of Student Welfare Work at conferences,
synods, and through the columns of church periodicals as opportunity
is afforded.

In explanation of Suggestion B we would say that this sum
represents, in our opinion, a very modest amount, which is to cover
the salary of the proposed secretary for Student Welfare Work, his
traveling and office expenses, inclusive of postage and mailing, as
well as the expenditures incidental to the publication of the student
periodical and the annual conference of the university pastors, —
If our own Valparaiso University with its present enrolment of 400
Lutheran students deserves the generous financial support of the
entire Church, — as we believe it does, — it would seem to follow that
all other Lutheran students scattered throughout ‘the length. and
breath of our country are entitled to be eared for directly by Synod
at a rate of $.008 a year per communicant member,

In making these recommendations, we are well aware. that the
duties of the parents and the home pastors of our Lutheran students
do not cease while their sons, daughters, and members attend schools
of higher education; neither are we unmindful that the District mis-
sion boards will retain their local supervision and jurisdiction, espe-
cially in cases where Student Welfare Work is made possible only
through a direct subsidy of the District. The proposed secretary for
Student Welfare Work should, in our opinion, occupy relatively the
same position towards the Districts and the congregations with their
pastors as Synod occupies in relation to the Districts and their con-
gregations, namely, that of a friendly and competent adviser who
will be granted a ready hearing. This adviser would concern himself
exclusively with one rather complex phase of church-work and make —
available the result of his observations and experience for the benefit
of the Church at large and her individual members. \

In conclusion we wish to express our conviction that a thoréugh
discussion of the problems and possibilities of Student Welfare Work
will result in an even more sympathetic understanding of the situation