Let’s Not Forget about the Convention Nominations (by Pr. Charles Henrickson)

Right now we’re at the peak of the circuit forum season, with the election of convention delegates to be completed by October 10. But there’s another October 10 deadline we should not forget, and that’s the one for submitting recommendations for nomination to the various offices, boards, and commissions. The names of qualified ordained ministers, commissioned ministers, and laypersons are needed, in order to have a full slate of nominees for next summer’s convention.

Are there persons you know who would be good serving in a synodical position of responsibility? Then get going on looking over the pages linked below, filling out the nomination form(s), and sending the form(s) in to the address indicated.

Nominations 2010 home page

Nomination Form 2010

Positions to Nominate

Desired Qualifications

On a related matter, on September 15 a mass e-mail was sent out by Patricia Bokenkamp, asking for nominations to be submitted. The e-mail was addressed to “Pastors, Boards of Directors, Boards of Regents and Nominating Members.” However, I am a pastor, and I did not receive the e-mail; I only found out about it from another pastor, who forwarded it to me. Also, Patricia Bokenkamp began the e-mail by saying, “I am writing to you as a concerned member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and a member of the 2007-2010 Synodical Committee for Convention Nominations.” And she signed the e-mail as “Secretary, Committee for Convention Nominations 2007-2010.” But Pat Bokenkamp is also known as an active Jesus First supporter, and the e-mail was sent out by URI, the same firm that sends out the Jesus First mass e-mailings.

So this raises several questions: Did Pat Bokenkamp send out this e-mail on her own or was she authorized to do so by the Committee for Convention Nominations? Did all the other committee members know she was sending out this e-mail? Where did she get the list of e-mail addresses that she used? Was the list of recipients skewed in any way? Why some and not others? Perhaps there are simple answers to these questions, but it would have been good if she had explained these things in her e-mail.


Comments

Let’s Not Forget about the Convention Nominations (by Pr. Charles Henrickson) — 6 Comments

  1. I saw that e-mail and wondered about it. Thanks for clarifying. I guess that supports the adage that the left is adept at underhanded and deceptive politics. That is amazing, sending an e-mail out that looks like it is an official comunique from a synod board member requesting nominations. If it had been clearly identified as a Jesus First e-mail that would be another thing – but it wasn’t.

    I don’t mind politics in the synod, but bad politics is another thing.

    TR

  2. Thanks for clarifying.

    But that’s just the problem–the e-mail is in need of clarifying. I’ve just raised some questions that ought to be clarified.

    I guess that supports the adage that the left is adept at underhanded and deceptive politics.

    I’m not prepared to go that far at this point. It could be unintentionally deceptive and unclear, an over-eager, well-intentioned mistake.

    That is amazing, sending an e-mail out that looks like it is an official comunique from a synod board member requesting nominations. If it had been clearly identified as a Jesus First e-mail that would be another thing – but it wasn’t.

    This is what is unclear. Did Pat Bokenkamp have the approval and knowledge of the Committee for Convention Nominations to send out this e-mail in her capacity as secretary? We don’t know. Did she use the Jesus First database to get the e-mail addresses she used? We don’t know. Why did some receive the e-mail and others didn’t? We don’t know. Did Mrs. Bokenkamp send it out in the same way that a Jesus First mass e-mail is sent out? That appears to be the case, but some answers are in order.

  3. In regard to the Nomination pages I linked, the lcms.org website is undergoing maintenance this morning but should be back sometime this afternoon. I found this note there: “September 19, 2009: Thank you for visiting. The requested web site is currently undergoing maintenance which is expected to be complete between 12pm and 4pm CDT. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Thank You.”

  4. Just out of curiosity — have these questions been posed directly to Ms. Bokenkamp and/or the head of the Committee for Convention Nominations? If so, what was the response? I think it’s good to inquire about these things as they certainly, upon first blush, seem quite inappropriate. However, it also seems appropriate to inquire directly of the persons involved and give them at least an opportunity to respond before indirectly insinuating that something devious is afoot.

  5. First off, I have not said that “something devious is afoot.” I am saying that the distribution of this e-mail is at least confusing and unclear. And since it was widely distributed in a mass e-mailing, and since the sender presents herself in her capacity as secretary of a synodical committee, I do think it is appropriate to raise the questions in need of clarification in a public forum. And I certainly would welcome it if Pat Bokenkamp and/or the Committee for Convention Nominations would respond to these questions publicly.

  6. Well since you guys brought it up here, Maybe you should ask her upfront.
    Get it clarified before we ask more questions than can be answered.

    Just a thought…. That’s what you all would tell me.

    I like you guys but sometimes you ask the wrong people.

    John

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.