Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1979 · 53rd Convention › Page 68
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1979, Page 68
front matter 1
front matter 2
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 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 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 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
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 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
68 PRESIDENT’S REPORT
words, the increase retained in the congregation has
exceeded inflation while the increase shared with Dis-
trict and the Synod has been about one-third of infla-
tion. Thus work you have requested in your District and
the Synod convention has been curtailed or not imple-
mented at all.
To try to maintain current synodical programs, the
1977 Dallas convention authorized deficit spending up
to 5 percent of the spending budgets for the years 1977
through 1979, with the hope that during that time
receipts from congregations and Districts would in-
crease at least as much as inflation. This didn’t happen,
and at the end of 1978 accumulated operating deficits
totaled $2.9 million. The Board of Directors and Com-
mmittee 12 propose ending deficit spending after 1979. I
support this.
But in order to continue to do the work requested by
past conventions and implement work authorized by
this convention, we all will have to grow in the grace of
giving, and we also will need to look at personal and
congregational priorities, as well as District and Synod
priorities. I would certainly urge each congregation to
study its priorities and ask the question whether cush-
ioned pews, new light fixtures, air-conditioning, and a
host of other luxuries really ought to take priority over
some of the pleas that are made to our congregations for
money to help in spreading the Gospel, feeding the poor,
educating church workers, and the many other needs of
the overall church.
This is a good place in my report to speak of the work
of Floor Committee 12. This committee noted that the
challenges in the Board for Missions report, the Board
for Higher Education proposals for a system-wide model
of higher education, and the proposals of other boards
and commissions had been developed independent of
each other and of the Districts, and it recognized the
need for coordinated planning.
I support the committee’s request in Resolution 12-06
that the Synod assembled in convention commit itself to
developing methods for joint planning of work of the
Synod and its Districts, so that new work can begin on a
priority basis, that present programs which may not
meet the needs of the Synod can be revised or termi-
nated, that duplication between the Synod and its
Districts can be minimized, and that resources can be
shared in such a way that cutbacks of needed programs
will not be required and the challenge of the ’80s can be
met.
I support the committee’s proposal in Resolution 12-
04 that this convention authorize the development of a
long-term (10-year) integrated master plan for the Synod
and its Districts to define and describe the impact of the
challenge for the ’80s, including the program and
resource requirements. I think it is essential to have this
kind of master planning by the Board of Directors, the
Council of Presidents, and the Council of Adminis-
trators if the actions you take at this convention are to
bear fruit.
Higher Education
Work has been going forward at our synodical
colleges and seminaries. We are extremely heartened by
the record enrollment of our two seminaries at St. Louis
and Fort Wayne. Particularly the almost miraculous
recovery of the St. Louis seminary from the events of
1974 should be brought to your special attention. It is
now the second-largest Lutheran seminary in the
United States and soon should be the largest. Also Iam
happy to report that two of our colleges received a four-
year status during the past biennium—Portland and
Milwaukee. Christ College Irvine is progressing, and all
of our colleges have good news to report on their
activities in the past biennium.
However, the forgotten people seem to be the mem-
bers of our college faculties. I hear of professors who are
offered positions in secular colleges with considerable
salary increases. For example, one professor whose
present total salary is $14,000, including housing and
utilities, has been offered $25,000 at a nonsynodical
school. This is an increase of not just two to three
thousand but of $11,000.
Parish pastors who are called to our colleges in
virtually all cases take a cut in salary if they accept. In
one instance a man with but few years of parish
experience took a cut of $3,500 when he accepted a
college position. Professors’ wives are forced to take
outside jobs, and their husbands must moonlight in
order to make ends meet. If there are small children and
the wives cannot work, the family lives on a poverty
level.
Resolution 4-14 speaks to this matter, but there is
little value in authorizing the Board of Directors and the
Board for Higher Education to make salary adjust-
ments when funds for this area are not available. I
repeat: we must look at our priorities when congregation
budgets are drawn up.
I wish to call particular attention to the proposed
systemwide model suggested by the Board for Higher
Education regarding our schools. The resolution pro-
posed by Committee 6 is excellent, and I urge that it be
passed. We need to support our schools with students,
with our money, and with our prayers. We should not
continually subject our schools to harassment and
uncertainty as to whether they will stay open, as to
whether they are doing an adequate job. Let’s get
behind them and support them and help them.
The Synod has an investment of over $100 million in
its higher-education properties. The combined operating
budgets of the Synod’s 15 North American colleges and
seminaries exceds $40 million. The schools, however,
are operating at about two-thirds of their student capa-
city. This excess capacity requires some action. The
Synod has only two alternatives to eliminate this costly
excess capacity—it can close schools or it can fill
schools.
The Board of Directors and the Board for Higher
Education have tried for years to close schools. In most
cases the Synod in convention has not agreed—in fact it
has authorized opening additional schools. Where
schools have been closed, it has been very difficult to sell
the facilities. Years of negotiations on Oakland and
Springfield still have not resulted in selling the proper-