Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1932 · 35th Convention, Milwaukee › Page 47

LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1932, Page 47

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 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 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 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 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 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 137 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 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Ev Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1932. AT

an known as Division B, made necessary because of our present
= ngition period, which very materially. affects this branch of study.
ey It has. pleased our Lord to take to His heavenly home the late
pees Hink, for many years a member of the local board of control.
Jp Bink died on the 28th of June, 1929, just a few days after he had
. in been reelected by Synod to serve another term. May the memory
¢ his faith and Christian virtues, of his modesty, energy, and faithful
° vice, stimulate us to continue steadfastly as faithful workers in the
reyard of our Lord! The vacancy thus caused was filled by the
weal board; with the sanction of the President of Synod it selected
Mr. L. Pinkepank of Emma, Mo., in whom we have found a val-

yable man.
The enrolment for the last three years was as follows: —
1929—1930 1930—19381 1931—1982
Totals ......... 160 163 163
Prima ......... 15 24 _ 26
Secunda ....... 28° 30 18
Tertia ......... 30 18 31
Quarta ........ 22 _ 30 28
Quinta ........ 29 . 24 32
Sexta ......... 35 37 . 28

Having duly made our report, we now come to you with our
requests for improvements and appropriations, which, we feel, are
needed at Concordia at this time.

Administration Building. — Once more we come before you with
our request for an administration building. We are firmly convinced
that the same reasons which we mentioned in our overture of 1926
and 1929 are as valid as ever, perhaps even more so to-day. 1) We
need more classrooms. 2) Most classrooms in the present administra-
tion building are without proper ventilation facilities and lack the
proper lighting, permitting the light to enter the classroom from two
sides. 3) The laboratory is inadequate. 4) Our library quarters are
crowded, making impossible the desired access to the many volumes on
hand. 5) The faculty-room is inadequate. 6) The chapel (aula) is
not large enough.

All these reasons made a new administration building very
desirable, while we candidly admitted that it could not thereby be
presented as an absolute necessity. Hence we gladly agreed to wait
another three years, seeing that Synod’s finances would not warrant
this improvement, especially in the faee of other, more urgent requests.

However, at this time we must add another reason to those men-
tioned above, which makes it imperative for Synod to grant our
request. The local Board of Control no longer wishes to carry the
responsibility placed upon it by a further use of this building. As.
already stated, it répeatedly became necessary during the past trien-
nium to make repdirs, but without permanent results. In the fall
of 1930 we called in experts, who advocated the removal of the but-