Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1929 · 34th Convention, River Forest › Page 75
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1929, Page 75
front matter 1
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1929. 75
Districts, as presented by their representatives, were carefully con-
sidered, first by a special subcommittee and then by the whole Mission
Conference, and sanctioned. This sum is divided as follows: —
Districts Manitoba-Saskatchewan. ... $30,000
“Alberta-British Columbia. $44,000 Ontario ..............00. 4,500
i Atlantic 20.0... 15,000 Oregon-Washington ....... 25,000
California-Nevada ....... 35,000 Oklahoma ............... 9,000
Colorado ..............,. 20,000 North Dakota-Montana.... 18,000
Southern ............... *20,000 Alaska .............., 3,000
» Texas .............0000, $27,000 Emergency Fund ...... 3,500
* Plus $2,000 for Cuba. t+ Including $3,000 for Mexico City.
“These sums may seem large, but they represent only the most
urgent needs and allow for but very little expansion. As to the
Canadian provinces, Synod should Yemember that any members we
gain there represent a net gain, not merely a transfer from one con-
gregation to another, as is often the case with our work in the United
States; furthermore, that there is a great stream of immigration
pouring into Western Canada right now and that our Synod is in
a peculiarly fortunate position to gather them in, or rather, to divert
these streams into our parishes. The tremendous distances to be
covered, the many places the individual missionary must serve, the
consequent small number of services each place receives, the poverty
» of the people, — all this combines to make the work expensive. But
fF it is work for the future and under God’s blessing has brought
; splendid results. In the California and Nevada District, for instance,
$6,000 of the subsidy is intended for parochial schools, while about
$5,000 must be applied to the deficit caused by the cut in the subsidy
last year. Other details could be supplied. We repeat our recommen-
dation that Synod should by all means allow this sum of $256,000.”
After thorough discussion this request for $256,000 was granted.
The committee advocated a “vigorous advancement of our Home
Mission work”; and since the $256,000 granted does not provide for
such expansion as is planned by the Mission Board, the additional sum
of $48,000 for Home Mission work in 1980 was requested. Since this
.sum is not included in the proposed “attainable” budget submitted by
__ the Committee on Appropriations, Synod declined the request.
Executive Secretary for Home Missions.
Memorial 315 advocated the establishment of a Central Depart-
ment of Missions for all missions, except Foreign and Negro Missions,
Ancluding the calling of a full-time executive secretary. Pursuant to
this request and referring to the statements in the Proceedings of
1926, page 165, Committee No. 8 recommended the adding of an
executive secretary to the Home Mission Board.
This recommendation was not adopted by Synod.