# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S133
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

$Hence the ‘Church may not subject its’ teaching program to the
pervision, control, and direction of the State.

: ‘The State, when authorized by law, has the right to subsidize
¢ -the teaching program of church schools without prescribing the
: “philosophy of education. if all the churches are given equal priv-
‘ileges. When, however, the State contributes tax money, it has
' the right to control the expenditures, sanctioning both the purpose
for which and the manner in which the money is expended. _How-
ever, the Church should not ask the State for a subsidy for the

“unfaithful to the charge and commission given it, permit its teach-
ing program to be subjected to the supervision, direction,, and
ontrol of the State, because this would inevitably open the way

“the philosophy of education of the State. Here we would have all
“the evils which follow when the divine ordinance of the separation
f Church and State is violated.

- If by law the authorities of the State would be empowered to
offer and actually do offer such subsidy, and with’ it relinquishes
“the - rights of supervision, direction, and control, as is done, for

‘form of tax exemptions, the Church might under conditions accept
_this subsidy without becoming guilty of wrongdoing. However, we
point to the following facts which might well give pause:

a. The State has the right at any time to exercise the control
' of the expenditures of tax money;
b. The State has a right at any time to withdraw its subsidy.

. In either case disastrous results may follow. If the State

should suddenly demand the right to direct, control, and supervise
the expenditures of tax money, our Church will be forced to forfeit
: all further support for ‘reasons stated above, and the result would
« be the same as if ‘the State would have withdrawn its subsidy.

state aid, may sudderily find themselves unable to carry on upon
the withdrawal of state funds, This has in the early history of our

* of the country.

The argument that. the State is not being asked to subsidize
~ the religious teaching of sectarian schools, but only the ‘teaching
of the secular branches is specious. and invalid, for all teaching in
‘church schools—also the teaching of the secular branches —
becomes a part of the teaching program: (curriculum, teaching,
a and philosophy of education of the Church). Secular branches
, _are ‘taught in the light of the religious tenets of the Church.

Elementary Education - : 183 |

“driving force in - the underlying philosophy. of. education.

teaching program ,of its schools, for it cannot, without becoming —

or demands that the teaching in the church schools ‘accord with —

“instance, in the granting of a subsidy to churches and schools in the .

Our congregations, having expanded their school system under °

- country caused the collapse of church schools in some sections’

|

a