Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1935 · 36th Convention, Cleveland › Page 197
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1935, Page 197
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
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 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 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 5
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Sheet 106
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 108
Sheet 111
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
Sheet 125
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Sheet 137
Page 181
Page 132
Page 188
Page 134
Page 188
Page 136
Page 187
Sheet 145
Page 189
Page 140
Sheet 148
Sheet 149
Page 148
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 149
Page 148
Page 151
Page 150
Page 158
Page 152
Page 155
Page 164
Page 157
Page 156
Page 159
Page 158
Page 161
Page 160
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Sheet 172
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Sheet 180
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Sheet 184
Page 179
Page 178
Page 181
Page 180
Page 183
Sheet 190
Page 185
Sheet 192
Page 187
Sheet 194
Page 189
Page 188
Page 191
Page 190
Page 193
Page 192
Page 195
Page 194
Page 197
Page 196
Page 499
Sheet 206
Sheet 207
Page 200
Sheet 209
Page 202
Page 905
Sheet 212
Page 207
Page 206
Page 209
Sheet 216
Page 211
Page 210
Page 213
Page 212
Page 915
Page 214
Page 217
Page 216
Page 218
Page 919
Sheet 227
Page 991
Page 999
Sheet 230
Page 224
Page 995
Page 296
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 284
Page 935
Page 236
Sheet 244
Page 238
Sheet 246
Page 240
Sheet 248
Page 242
Page 248
Page 244
Page 945
Page 246
Sheet 254
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 264
Page 256
Sheet 263
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Sheet 272
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 969
Page 270
Sheet 278
Page 272
Sheet 280
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Sheet 284
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 981
Page 282
Page 288
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 989
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 800
Page 801
Page 802
Page 308
Page 804
Page 805
Page 306
Page 807
Page 308
Sheet 316
Page 310
Page 811
Sheet 319
Sheet 320
Page 314
Sheet 322
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1935. 197
“5) For a more unified general missionary policy. A unified policy
is made difficult and might even be hindered by the presence of
a second District in the field. In this connection it might be pointed
out that at its last convention, Synod transferred all missions in
America, except the Deaf-mute Missions, to the boards of local
Districts. This was done for. the obvious reason that the work can
be done more effectively under the supervision of men who are familiar
with the field than by the creation of a few subboards to cover a-na-
tional territory. The English District now stands alone in its en-
deavor to do work from coast to coast through a board that must find
it humanly impossible to familiarize itself sufficiently with the
vast field.
“The Committee’s Proposal.
“The historical reason for the existence of the English District
is the language. As this reason for a separate organization is becom-
ing steadily weaker, the demands for an amalgamation are becoming
stronger. Every fair-minded person will appreciate that the dissolu-
tion of the English District would involve for its constituents the
giving up of many things that have become dear to them. It is only
right and fair that the advocates of an amalgamation be willing also
to make concessions and sacrifices that may be necessary to make such
an amalgamation practical and possible. We therefore submit to the
English District the following proposal: —
“That the English District give careful consideration to the
reasons for an amalgamation and advantages growing therefrom;
that the English District state the conditions which it deems necessary
for an amalgamation, these conditions to set forth what are the re-
quirements of its congregations as to the use of the English language
in the conduct of conventions and other intercongregational func-
tions; that these conditions be submitted to every District in whose
geographical boundaries congregations of. the English District are
located at its next convention, in 1933 if possible, should the District
not have met, otherwise in 1984. Having ascertained the sentiment of
the other Districts, the English District is to take action at its 1934
convention, for report to Synod in 1935;
“That the English District appoint a standing committee with
which.the undersigned could deal further in this. matter. -— —
“Your Committee believes that it is acting in full harmony with
the principles established by Synod. In 1911, when the English Synod
became the English District, the first point of the articles of agreement
read: ‘Resolved that we regard it as most expedient and as most salu-
tary for both parties to this union if individual congregations of the
English Synod join the respective District of our Synod and that we
entertain the hope that this end may. be reached in the very near
future’ In 1923 Synod passed the following resolutions: ‘Since all