Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1969 · 48th Convention › Page 381
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1969, Page 381

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

SOCIAL ACTION AND WELFARE 381

Increasing attention must be given to the rapidly
developing comprehensive community mental health
centers. By 1970 there will be 1,000 and by 1975, 3,000.
It is hoped that parish pastors in the communities in
which these centers are located will assume an active
role in providing the spiritual ministry. Our depart-
ment is watching these developments.

While we stress competence and clinical qualification
of our chaplains for effective ministry with troubled
people, we are mindful that it is the Word of the living
God that provides the healing. The messenger must
communicate it in the most effective way possible, but
it is still the message of the reconciling, healing Christ
that produces the results that last.

The Word That Leads to Action

In the months that followed the New York conven-
tion administrative machinery was established through
which the housing resolutions were to be analyzed and
discussed and from which a program of action began
to emerge. The first step in this direction was the
appointment of the Committee on Housing Concerns,
a subcommittee advisory to the Board of Social Minis-
try. Appointed to this committee were: Mr. Walter
Christopher, Dr. Robert Miller, Dr. Eugene Linse, Rev.
Ruben Spannaus (chairman), Mr. William Wyatt (sec-
retary), Mr. Howard Woods, Mr. Franz Vidor, Mr.
Galen Gockel, Rev. Erwin Paul, Mr. Arthur Himmler,
and Mr. Thomas Noon.

The two major problems facing this committee were
that it lacked resources and it lacked staff. A slow
trickle of funds began to reach the Board of Social Min-
istry, but resources were inadequate to undertake any
significant projects. This lack of resources was brought
to the attention of the Synod’s Board of Directors. Sub-
sequently the board advanced $15,000 against antici-
pated receipts in order to initiate efforts in housing
projects. Steps were taken early in 1968 to find staff.
When it became apparent that staffing alone could con-
sume a year or more — valuable time in the current
housing crisis — one of the members of the Committee
on Housing Concerns, Dr. Eugene W. Linse Jr. of Saint
Paul, agreed to serve as staff member on the Board of
Social Ministry until such a time as a permanent ap-
pointment could be made.

Additional problems confronting the Committee on
Housing Concerns related to definitions of scope and
function: What did the New York resolutions mean?
What did they infer? Where should the emphasis of
the church’s efforts be placed —on open housing? on
construction and rehabilitation projects? on attitudinal
aspects of race and related issues? In short, how should
the effort in housing be conceptualized?

Meanwhile other questions remained to be solved.
Would the Districts of the church concur in the New
York action? Would District Committees of Social Min-
istry feel any obligation to accept responsibility for any
of the options for action that the Committee on Housing
Concerns envisioned? What about resources?

Early in the summer of 1968, at a number of District
conventions, the opportunities facing the church were
placed on the agenda. Without fail the resolutions
emanating from these conventions were precise and
encouraging. They came from Districts least affected
by housing problems and from those with serious hous-
ing conditions alike. A resolution from the Minnesota
South District urged “leadership in every congregation
of the District that will address itself to the problem
of equitable housing.” The Northern Illinois District
urged its Board of Social Ministry to “make use of
available local funds to implement the diversity of
housing programs possible within our District.” District
conventions from every part of the U. S. adopted resolu-
tions involving housing and social justice. At least one
important question seemed answered: Districts of the
church were in agreement with the New York resolu-
tions, perhaps even more emphatically than expected.

The Committee on Housing Concerns broached an-
other difficult question when it deliberated at length
how funds might be raised to make the church’s effort
a responsible one — more than mere tokenism. At its
suggestion the Board of Social Ministry sought approval
of the Board of Directors of the Synod for a campaign
to raise $1,000,000. In spite of its announced objection
to any further fund campaigns, the Board of Directors
gave its approval. With the assistance of a St. Louis
advertising agency plans were developed to bring the
issue of housing to every member of every congregation
of the church.

Throughout our programs we have placed great
emphasis on the Christian’s response to those in need.
Because the Christian belongs to the household of God,
he has a strong social responsibility to use his resources
in service to his fellowman. In this setting — that of
a strong theological background — programmatic details
were cast.

Housing — substandard, inadequate, unsafe housing
—jis a problem for 41,600,000 Americans, according to
the United States Advisory Commission on Intergovern-
mental Relations in late fall of 1968. Twenty percent
of American housing is substandard. As a problem, it
grows year after year with housing starts falling at least
500,000 units per year short of need. In the next 20
years 20,000,000 new households must be added to those
that exist now. The church has always claimed that its
purpose is to minister to the whole man in whatever
circumstances it finds him. Where inadequate shelter
is the issue, housing becomes the response just as surely
as it has always been in the past in terms of food and
clothing. Shelter represents the third ingredient of
man’s essential needs.

No church of and by itself can solve the housing
problem for all Americans. Yet churches have the obli-
gation to do what they can. Federal legislation has
made it possible and desirable for churches to become
sponsors of housing projects. Churches can undertake
new construction and rehabilitation projects; they can
work with neighborhood groups that are already in-