Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1938 · 37th Convention, St. Louis › Page 152
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1938, Page 152

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

152 Missions in. General

Balance of Amount

District Loans Delinquent
Oklahoma ow 25,110.00 8,100.00
Ontario cc cece 11,275.00 8,775.00
Oregon and Washington 60,402.18 15,192.18
South Dakota 00. a 23,579.62 12,079.62

Southern ow.
Southern California ..
Southern Nebraska

32,377.76 7,587.76
61,587.87 22,207.87
16,582.47 12,382.47

South Wisconsin _... 36,100.00 8,200.00
Texas oe 25,105.22 21,255.22
Western oo 71,879.05 15,359.05
Miscellaneous 22,510.18 5,035.18

$1,141,601.21 $546,552.90

These figures reflect the combined accounts in the various Dis-
tricts. The accounts are kept in the office of the Church Extension
Board and at the Fiscal Office of Synod, and an annual audit of
each account is made by the Synodical Auditor, whose report is
on file at the Fiscal Office and may be consulted by members
of Synod.

Synod resolved three years ago that the Church Extension
Board should ordinarily make its loans to Districts and not directly
to the congregations. This mandate has been followed in all but
about half a dozen cases where circumstances seemed to require
some other procedure. The Church Extension Board interpreted
Synod’s resolution to mean that the security for a loan is to be
given by a District, but that the Church Extension Board still has
the duty to investigate every application and to determine whether
or not the application merits a loan. We believe that it would be
wrong to interpret the resolution to mean that an application from
a District makes the granting of a loan mandatory. If this course
were followed, there would be no need for a Church Extension
Board or a General Church Extension Fund. The money could
be divided among the Districts. Furthermore, a project that seems
to one District Board of paramount importance might appear of
considerably less importance when compared with projects coming
at the same time from other Districts. For this reason the Church
Extension Board has taken the position that it is to be the judge
of the merits of all applications, to determine whether or not they

should be granted; and if they are granted, then the loans are

made to the Districts, which have the responsibility of repayment.
In order that the Church Extension Board may be certain that this
interpretation is in accordance with the will of Synod, we are
asking for a resolution to that effect among our recommendations.

In some quarters of Synod it has been felt that the work of the
Church Extension Board now requires the attention of an official

ee Pee ee