Proposed Resolutions: Committee 8, Structure and Governance, 8-13 through 8-26 (by Pr. Charles Henrickson)

July 8th, 2010 Post by

We’re nearing the end of our look at the 106 proposed resolutions from the eight floor committees, as found in “Today’s Business.” To see the previous articles in this series, go to Henrickson’s blog at (Note that in my previous entry, I have just now changed my comments on 8-06.)

We continue with the 34 resolutions proposed by Floor Committee 8, Synod Structure and Governance, this time covering 8-13 through 8-26:

8-13: To Elect the First Vice-President

Should the synod president select the five nominees for first vice-president? This moves power away from the Synod in convention and into the hands of the president. NO.

8-14: To Elect Five Vice-Presidents by Geographic Region

This would unnecessarily limit the choice of the Synod in convention to choose the vice-presidents it desires. And it would increase the likelihood of putting more liberal VPs on the praesidium. NO.

8-15: To Enable Regional Elections at 2010 Convention

This is a huge rush job, to spring unknown names on this convention at the last minute. And it is tied to resolutions 8-08 and 8-16, which likewise ought to be defeated. NO.

8-16: To Ensure Regional Representation on the Board of Directors

See 8-14 and 8-15 above. Limits the convention and increases the chance of liberals on the BOD. NO.

8-17: To Elect the Synod President

Elect the president before the convention? But that’s why we have a convention–to elect officers and to act on resolutions. And according to this resolution, it would be the previous district convention delegates who would cast the votes, not the congregations. NO.

8-18: To Amend Article VIII of the Constitution

This constitutional amendment would move us from a three-year to a four-year convention cycle. The appeal will be made that this would save money. Well, maybe, maybe not. It might save some money on conventions. But it would add a whole new event in year two: district convocations. Those will cost money, and it will come out of the same people’s pockets. Also, increasing the time between conventions reduces the opportunity for accountability and action. The Synod has never gone four years between conventions before. NO.

8-19: To Amend Bylaws 4.9.1,– to Create Four-Year Convention Cycle

See above, 8-18. This would change the bylaws to reflect the constitutional amendment. NO.

8-20: To Implement Four-Year Cycle

See above, 8-18 and 8-19. This resolution hinges on two-thirds passage of 8-18 at this convention and then two-thirds congregational ratification afterward–both of which should not take place. NO.

8-21: To Establish Consistency in Terms of Office

I am not against “consistency in terms of office,” but I am against moving to a four-year cycle (see 8-18). NO.

8-22: To Amend Article VIII C of the Constitution

I don’t like demoting the opening sentence, “All matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided only by the Word of God,” to a subordinate clause in the new section 2. And I am wary of how “disagreement,” “collective understanding,” and “certain doctrinal resolutions of special significance” could be used. At best I could give this resolution a cautious “Maybe,” but I would not be disappointed if it fails to get the two-thirds amendment vote needed. MAYBE.

8-23: To Amend 1.6.1–1.7.2, 3.1.1 re Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements

This would change the bylaws to fit the constitutional amendment above, 8-22. But it goes beyond that. Notice that the resolution title includes 1.6.1-1.7.2, but the “Resolved” only goes as far as 1.6.4 for that section. But buried in the back of the book, in Bylaw 1.7.2, there is this troubling change in regard to “binding resolutions”: The phrase “if they are in accordance with the Word of God” is changed to “on the assumption that they are in accordance with the Word of God.” From “if” to “on the assumption that”! Also, “if they appear applicable” is changed to “on the assumption that they are.” But neither of these things should be assumed! NO.

8-24: To Amend Article IX of the Synod’s Constitution

This would amend Article IX to reflect amended Article V (see 8-01), which I have previously said should be defeated. NO.

8-25: To Amend Article XII of the Constitution

Same thing as above (8-24). It depends on amending Article V (8-01), which ought to be defeated. NO.

8-26: To Determine the Number of Delegates at National Conventions

This would drastically reduce the number of delegates to national conventions. The appeal will be cost-savings. But it would diminish the grassroots voice of the congregations through their representatives. And it is tied to taking the vote away from electoral circuits and moving the power up the ladder to the districts. See 8-02 and 8-05. NO,

Next: 8-27 through 8-34, plus a Conclusion.

Rules for comments on this site:

Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.

Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.

Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.

If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.

Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.

Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.

We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. July 8th, 2010 at 14:18 | #1

    I have just changed my comments on 8-23, moving from a “Maybe” to a “No.” The reason is in the revision, which see. I caught this one right after I posted it.

  2. VincentL
    July 8th, 2010 at 16:41 | #2

    “But it would add a whole new event in year two: district convocations. ”

    So if I understand this right…. and i probably don’t……

    This would enable district convocations to formally vote on controversial issues, something which isn’t done now, in advance of the next national convention.

    With the new geographical districts this, to me, would result in the liberal regions of the US approving liberal ideas at the district level. Open and public division likely existing then going into the next convention in 2014.

    Do I misunderstand ?

  3. Matt
    July 8th, 2010 at 17:50 | #3

    Thank you Charles, You have helped me a bunch. Pastor Mark Eddy also was a big help with his letter in CN. I think I am prepaired for the most part to be a desent layman for this convention. I at least have a clue :), packing bags now let’s see do I need 10 days or just 7 we shall see.

    Thanks to everyone at BJS, IE, and all the letters/mail I have recived.

    Matt Putnam CID layman

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.

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