Proposed Resolutions: Committee 7, Structure and Ecclesiastical Matters (by Pr. Charles Henrickson)

July 12th, 2013 Post by

“I hold in my hand . . . the last envelope.” Audience cheers wildly. Carnac stares at audience.

I now come to the last floor committee. But instead of cheering wildly, I want you to pay close attention. Because while “Structure and Ecclesiastical Matters” may sound like a real snoozefest–and, no doubt, there is much eye-glazing-over material in here–one must not let down one’s guard, lest some significant change for the worse sneak through. And this floor committee does propose a couple of the worst resolutions out of all 116 in Today’s Business.

And so let’s join Ed and Carnac for that last envelope:

Carnac holds envelope to forehead, to divine the answer to the question sealed inside.

“The Creature from the Blue Cocoon.”

Ed repeats answer. Carnac is not pleased. Carnac tears open envelope, blows in it, and pulls out the question.

“What Past Blue Ribbon Fear could emerge to do damage now, if we’re not careful at this convention?”

And with that caution in mind, we now proceed to Committee 7. (Note: My comments on 7-10 through 7-14 have been revised since original posting.)

For reference:

Today’s Business
Convention Workbook
2010 Handbook

7. STRUCTURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL MATTERS (TB, pp. 144-81)

7-01: To Set Forth Clear Mutual Expectations in Carrying Out Office of Visitation

Expectations for visitation of SP (and VPs) to DPs, DPs (and VPs) to CCs, and CCs to pastors/congregations.

7-02: To Return to the Use of Title “Circuit Visitor”

Circuit counselor to be called circuit “visitor,” emphasizing importance of visitation.

7-03: To Establish Visitation Circuits to Best Meet Needs of Congregations

Districts may establish visitation circuits different from electoral circuits. Could this be the return of non-geographical “affinity clusters” in disguise? But that bad idea should be prevented by Bylaw 5.1.2, “Districts shall establish circuits according to geographical criteria.”

7-04: To Adopt General Principles for Judging Viability of Districts

Guidelines for forming, consolidating, or dividing a district of Synod. Each district to evaluate itself by 2016.

7-05: To Allow E-Meetings for Voting by Circuits, Districts, and Synod Agencies

To avoid traveling long distances for a brief voting meeting, e.g., a circuit forum to select circuit counselor or elect convention delegates. But face-to-face is better. And the circuit forum could be planned to include other aspects, so as to make the trip worthwhile.

7-06: To Provide Process for Placement of Candidates

COP to help place the 217 ordained ministers without calls. Don’t hold your breath, though, expecting all the DPs to actually follow through on this.

7-07: To Respond to 2010 Res 8-05B, To Change Process for Electing Delegates to Synod Conventions

The Creature from the Blue Cocoon! The Past Blue Ribbon Fear! The Return of 8-05B! No, no, no! This was a bad Blue Ribbon idea in 2010. It is a bad idea now. At the 2010 convention we managed to get this bad resolution shunted off to the Commission on Handbook, where we hoped it would die. But now it has been brought back, in slightly modified form, to this convention. Let’s hope it never makes it to the floor, but if it does, just vote NO. As I wrote in 2010: “Delegates to national conventions would no longer be elected at the circuit forums, but rather at the district conventions. Power is being moved away from the grassroots level of congregations and circuits and moved up the ladder to the district level. Your circuit might not get any delegates. NO.”

7-08: To Respond to 2010 Res 8-05B, To Establish Number of Delegates to Synod Conventions

The Return of 8-05B continues! Again, no, no, no! This is the companion piece to the previous resolution; they’re joined at the hip. Both need to be voted down. Delegates to national conventions would be elected at district conventions, not by circuit forums. Bad Blue Ribbon idea in 2010. Bad idea now. NO.

7-09: To Resolve Bylaw Issues Remaining from 2010 Convention Restructuring Decisions

Clarify language in bylaws.

7-10: To Adopt Four-Year Convention Cycle

There’s too much to do to wait that long between conventions! Many important issues at this convention are being deferred to the 2016 convention, and that convention may not get to them all. It will take several conventions to get to all the important business that is needed to be done, so let’s not stretch out the convention cycle. This resolution is the return of another bad Blue Ribbon idea. NO.

7-11: To Address Handbook Issues re Expulsion Process (Bylaws 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17)

I am wary of anything coming from this committee in conjunction with the Commission on Handbook. Default mode on 7-11 through 7-14 should be “No,” unless satisfied that there are no hidden problems.

7-12: To Address Handbook Issues re Dispute Resolution Process (Bylaw Section 1.10)

I am wary of anything coming from this committee in conjunction with the Commission on Handbook. Default mode on 7-11 through 7-14 should be “No,” unless satisfied that there are no hidden problems.

7-13: To Address Handbook Issues re Bylaws Pertaining to District

Problem in A: By striking “fellow,” it would open up the circuit counselors coming from outside the circuit. That is not good. Problem in B: This resolution would let DPs appoint circuit counselors at the district convention, if a circuit selection has not been made previously, whereas currently the circuit could caucus there to elect their circuit counselor. There may be other problems with this resolution as well.

7-14: To Address Handbook Issues re Synod Conventions

Problem: On p. 175, lines 53-55, clarify “individual members,” so as not to exclude lay members of LCMS congregations.

7-15: To Address District Membership/Ecclesiastical Supervision Issues (Bylaw 2.12 et al.)

Ecclesiastical supervision of workers outside U.S. International congregations seeking district membership.

7-16: To Strengthen District Boards of Directors

District BODs could appoint up to three voting lay members, for added skills. But should non-elected appointed members be able to vote?

7-17: To Amend Bylaw 3.1.4 to Include All Officers of the Synod

Appointed officers’ expenses covered to attend convention.

7-18: To Study Doctrinal Training for Reconcilers

Referred to COP, CCM, and Secretary of Synod for study and recommendations.

7-19: To Respectfully Decline Overtures

Declines rescinding regional VPs. I was opposed to the regionalization of VPs and BOD, but maybe we can get to this next time. Declines restoring pre-1992 adjudication process. We do need to fix the Dispute Resolution Process, but, again, maybe down the road.

– – – – – – – – – –

So now we have taken a brief look at all 116 proposed resolutions from the seven floor committees. Here are three ways you can give your feedback on any of them, before the convention begins:

First, write to the chairmen (and members) of the floor committees. They are listed on page 11 of Today’s Business and page xvii of the Convention Workbook. They would like your input ASAP–preferably even by today–so you might try e-mail as well as snail mail. For DPs, ordained ministers, and commissioned ministers, you should be able to find e-mail addresses and postal addresses at the lcms.org church worker directory.

Floor Committee Chairmen, with their e-mail addresses (as listed at lcms.org)
1. Witness: James Baneck, ndlcmspres@gmail.com
2. Mercy: David Benke, dhbad@aol.com
3. Life Together: Donald Fondow, don.fondow@mnnlcms.org
4. Theology and Church Relations: Scott Murray, smurray@mlchouston.org
5. Seminary and University Education: Dale Sattgast, sdpres@midco.net
6. Administration and Finance: John Wille, wille@swd.lcms.org
7. Structure and Ecclesiastical Matters: Richard Boche, wypres@aol.com

Second, talk to your circuit’s two convention delegates, one ordained and one lay. They’re supposed to listen to your input. Or talk to any other delegates you may know. They’re all listed in the Convention Workbook, pp. iv-xiv.

Third, you can speak at the open hearings of the floor committees, Saturday morning, July 20, 8:30-noon, at the locations listed on page 10 in Today’s Business.

So that’s it for now on the resolutions. Click on my blog from the side menu to see the preceding columns on the proposed resolutions from the other floor committees. I may write one more column on resolutions next week, recapping and highlighting just the most important ones that need to be passed, amended, or defeated. And I do plan to write next week about the elections, which in some ways are even more important than the resolutions.






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. Carl Vehse
    July 12th, 2013 at 14:00 | #1

    Floor Committee 7 members:

    Chairman: Richard Boche (WY);
    District Presidents: Vice chair: Paul Sieveking (IW); Anthony Steinbronn (NJ); Larry Stoterau (PSW);
    Voting Ordained Members: Arthur Casci (OH); Peter Lange (KS); Paul Nielsen (NE); David Totsky (SW);
    Voting Laymen: Myron Buss (SW); Doug Meyer (SI); Roy Schmidt (MI);
    Advisory Ordained Members: Dien Taylor (AT); Michael Walther (SI);
    Advisory Commissioned Members: Martha Milas (CI).

  2. Carl Vehse
    July 12th, 2013 at 14:14 | #2

    At the 2010 convention we managed to get this bad resolution shunted off to the Commission on Handbook, where we hoped it would die.

    Commission on Handbook members:
    Hartwig, Raymond L., St. Louis, MO
    Marcis, Albert M., Parma, OH
    Nuffer, Richard T., Fort Wayne, IN
    Rosin, Walter L., Shawano, WI
    Schultz, Ronald, St. Louis, MO
    Sohns, Wilbert J. Gatesville, TX
    Temme, Marvin, Torrington, WY
    Tresch, Gordon D., Kenmore, NY

    The Commission on Handbook brought this dung heap of Resolutions 7-07 and 7-08 back with the help of Pacific Hills, Omaha, NE and the Texas District Board of Directors (2013 Convention representatives: Braunersreuther, Jon M., Tomball, TX; Lammert, Ron, Helotes, TX).

    Maybe the best thing is to tell the convention delegates if the Resolution begins with “7-“, just vote “NO!”

  3. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 12th, 2013 at 14:17 | #3

    “7. STRUCTURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL MATTERS”

    It’s always been difficult to maintain our correct practice. It still is. Maybe it’s more difficult than ever, but I don’t see that we have any choice in the matter. The Scripture principles are clear. They were annunciated 150 years ago by our founding fathers and by the Lutheran Confessions.

    I think that open communion is probably one of the ways in which we can lose our Lutheran identity quicker than any other bad practice.

    Robert D. Preus
    Public Forum of Presidential Candidates
    Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
    May 6, 1989

  4. John Rixe
    July 12th, 2013 at 14:20 | #4

    7.04  It’s disappointing after all the discussions and meetings that nothing has been/will be done about district restructuring.  Consolidation of districts could have cleaned up a lot of redundancy, inefficiencies and financial waste.  Remember that most of your unrestricted mission donations are spent by the districts – not St Louis.  I don’t question the dedication of district employees, but in the age of computers and instant communication why do we need 35 district offices?

    The district viability task force dodged the issue, and the convention won’t deal with it.

  5. July 12th, 2013 at 16:25 | #5

    Pr. Henrickson:

    I know that reading through the Committee 7 Resolutions can cause the eyes to glaze over. Most people do not enjoy reading through bylaws that deal with church polity. (I kinda enjoy it, but that probably explains why I took a Public Administration major in college, but I digress.)

    I want to point out a provision in Res 7-13 that I believe many people will want to be aware of. Take a look at the proposed bylaw language for Bylaw 5.2.3.2 concerning Circuit Counselor Nominations and Elections (Today’s Business, p. 171). Pay close attention to the rationale section and then look at the proposed change: striking one word (“fellow”).

    But this proposed one-word change would codify the ability for Circuit Counselors to be selected from outside the Circuit. No longer would there be any requirement that a Circuit Counselor be a rostered ordained minister who holds membership in a congregation of that Circuit. Instead of the congregations of a Circuit selecting one of the ordained ministers from within the Circuit to be the Counselor, they would have the ability to choose an ordained minister from outside the Circuit, potentially from the far reaches of the District.

    While the rationale section notes that the Council of Presidents is happy with this possibility that was potentially established in 2010, I believe that many of our pastors and laity would not be so pleased. However, that part of the Res 7-13 proposal would officially change what the Circuit Counselor is understood to be: a pastoral peer of that Circuit who is chosen to be an assistant to the District President.

    Perhaps some delegates may not only want to defeat the Res 7-13 proposal, but also revive some of the language from the 2007 Handbook (p. 195) to remove this possibility altogether.

  6. July 12th, 2013 at 16:58 | #6

    @Rev. Luke Zimmerman #5

    Luke, you bring up some points worthy of investigation. In fact, your comment is causing me to take a closer look at that resolution, also in other parts of it. Indeed, in all of the Committee 7 resolutions, I am seeing that we need to be careful that the multitude of strike-through lines and bylaw changes do not cause us to let bad changes slip through.

    Your question is a good one: Could a circuit counselor even now come from outside the circuit? I myself am a circuit counselor, and I’m not sure of the answer. I’ve only always seen the CC come from within the circuit, which is at it should be.

    Also, I think there’s a change included in this proposed resolution that would enable the DP to select the CC at the convention, if one has not yet been selected. That’s not good. In that case, the circuit should caucus at the convention, which they could do, rather than have the DP pick one.

    It looks like we need to be careful with Committee 7, especially when the Commission on Handbook has been involved.

  7. Joshua
    July 12th, 2013 at 19:47 | #7

    Wait, there are only 217 pastors on CRM status? As of May 1, 2013, there are 440 calling vacancies in the parish (324 Sole Pastors, 33 Senior Pastors, and 83 Assistant Pastors). Of course, this doesn’t count the seminary graduates who received their first call into the equation, but even counting them, that includes about 300 calling vacancies within the parish. This can be solved overnight, and if it wasn’t for the incompetence of some in the LCMS, it wouldn’t need a resolution.

    Note: I only looked at the report showing vacancies within the parish and then subtracted the churches in the U.S. that seminary graduates received a call in (thereby removing that vacancy). It takes only basic math skills to determine that if that could be solved quickly. I didn’t add vacancies that occurred since in the parishes that I know that happened, and I didn’t include the two vacancies when doing a quick run-through of the LCMS website (that being, Director-Ministry to the Armed Forces and Assistant Director of KFUO, although both of those positions are considered to be pastoral vacancies according to the LCMS job board search).

  8. July 12th, 2013 at 20:23 | #8

    @Rev. Luke Zimmerman #5

    Luke, because of your helpful comment, I am now going to look over especially 7-11 through 7-14, the ones in which the Commission on Handbook was involved, and I will revise my comments up in the article itself. I am very wary of what might sneak in.

  9. Rick Krueger
    July 13th, 2013 at 06:53 | #9

    7-08 actually slightly increases the number of delegates from the 2013 convention. (One of the original resolutions cut the number in half, a la the 2010 proposal.) It would still change district formulas for the number of delegates and where those delegates would be chosen.

    If passed, 7-10 would not take effect until after the 2016 convention (perhaps because of the number of items being referred to that convention?). So we would still have a three-year cycle until then; the first four-cycle would be 2016-2020. Not a comment on the pros or cons of a four-year cycle, just a clarification.

    The other thing about the “Return of 8-05B” resolutions is that this time they would only require a simple majority, not a 2/3rds majority for approval.

  10. Jeremiah Oehlerich
    July 13th, 2013 at 07:40 | #10

    Has anyone considered getting links to all Pr. Hendrickson’s articles on one page. Would increase
    their usefulness in sharing with those non-BJS readers. Having a central Convention issues-related page of sorts would be a useful resource for assisting in discussions with our delegates attending the upcoming convention.

  11. helen
    July 13th, 2013 at 09:23 | #11

    And I do plan to write next week about the elections, which in some ways are even more important than the resolutions. –CH

    That’s hard to say! Men can implement or ignore resolutions.
    Resolutions can help or handicap men.
    The delegates need to be vigilant on both counts.

    My overall impression is that anything that urgently needs “fixing” is postponed.

    Like the dripping faucet raises the water bill, delay does nothing to help our problems with unqualified “ministers” in place or qualified Pastors left dangling. Things have three more years to get worse. Synod has three more years to become more generic protestant!

    “It’s Time” to stop looking around and saying, “Those lutherans aren’t really christians” or “that denomination is losing people faster than we are” and to clean our own house!

    That overseas churches (with women in the pulpit!) are anxious to have our assistance … at our considerable expense, no doubt! … impresses me not at all. [All it really says, possibly, is that LWF and ***A aren't quite the cash cows they were before 2007 and 2009.]

    Sometimes I think our various “missions” are overlapping, but that may be better than having all the RSO’s and money under a St Louis board. Some of the RSO’s (e.g., Lutheran Heritage Foundation) are doing a useful job and don’t need scarce funds bled away to support home office bureaucrats.

    If the bureaucratic thinking is that they will have all the income of all the RSO’s at their disposal, they have missed the obvious!

    It’s unfortunate, but a decade (much more!) has raised tremendous distrust at the lay level, and that isn’t going to be solved by resolutions such as we have read about this week!

  12. July 13th, 2013 at 10:48 | #12

    Rick Krueger: 7-08 actually slightly increases the number of delegates from the 2013 convention. (One of the original resolutions cut the number in half, a la the 2010 proposal.) It would still change district formulas for the number of delegates and where those delegates would be chosen.

    It’s still a bad Blue Ribbon idea. It takes election of convention delegates away from the circuits.

    Rick Krueger: If passed, 7-10 would not take effect until after the 2016 convention (perhaps because of the number of items being referred to that convention?). So we would still have a three-year cycle until then; the first four-cycle would be 2016-2020. Not a comment on the pros or cons of a four-year cycle, just a clarification.

    Thanks, Rick, I had not noticed that. I may revise my comment up above accordingly. Even so, going to a four-year cycle is yet another bad Blue Ribbon idea brought back from the grave, where it should remain. There is so much “damage clean-up and repair” that our next few national conventions need to do–indeed, too much important stuff is being kicked down the road already–that we should not stretch out our convention cycle.

    Rick Krueger: The other thing about the “Return of 8-05B” resolutions is that this time they would only require a simple majority, not a 2/3rds majority for approval.

    In 2010, did those resolutions really require a two-thirds vote? I was a delegate to that convention, but my memory is a little fuzzy on that point. Please refresh. So you’re saying these 2013 resolutions, 7-07 and 7-08, which needed a two-thirds majority in 2010, and which would radically shift the power of electing delegates away from the circuits up to the district level–that these would now only need a simple majority? Wow! Then it becomes all the more imperative that Res. 7-07 and Res. 7-08 be SOUNDLY DEFEATED!! VOTE NO ON 7-07 and 7-08!!

    Any Blue Ribbon idea being revived for this convention needs to be defeated.

  13. July 13th, 2013 at 11:05 | #13

    Jeremiah Oehlerich: Has anyone considered getting links to all Pr. Henrickson’s articles on one page. Would increase their usefulness in sharing with those non-BJS readers. Having a central Convention issues-related page of sorts would be a useful resource for assisting in discussions with our delegates attending the upcoming convention.

    Yes, I have thought about that. I plan to have a “Recapping the Resolutions”-type article up next week, in which I give an overview of the whole and highlight the most important ones to be passed, amended, or defeated. And I plan to put my comments into one file that people can access.

  14. July 13th, 2013 at 13:24 | #14

    Rick Krueger: The other thing about the “Return of 8-05B” resolutions is that this time they would only require a simple majority, not a 2/3rds majority for approval.

    No, Rick, I don’t think 8-05B needed a two-thirds vote in 2010. Since it would be a bylaw change, a simple majority would suffice, then or now. It is changes to the Constitution that require a two-thirds majority.

    In any case, VOTE NO on 7-07 and 7-08 and any other dumb Blue Ribbon idea being brought back to this convention.

  15. Rev. Robert Mayes
    July 13th, 2013 at 15:16 | #15

    Brothers in Christ:

    Just as an FYI – My congregation is the one that proposed what eventually became 7-05: To Allow E-Meetings for Voting by Circuits, Districts, and Synod Agencies

    (i.e., To avoid traveling long distances for a brief voting meeting, e.g., a circuit forum to select circuit counselor or elect convention delegates. But face-to-face is better. And the circuit forum could be planned to include other aspects, so as to make the trip worthwhile.)

    Just wanted to let it be known that our original overture we sent in said nothing about circuits or districts, and only specifically requested the COP and LCMS BOD to use electronic communication for meetings if it was feasible and would save money. I think we also said something about doing this if cost-effective and feasible for other Synodical agencies, not district or circuit.

    Perhaps someone could bring our original resolution back up?

    In Christ,
    Rev. Robert Mayes
    Beemer, NE

  16. July 13th, 2013 at 15:21 | #16

    @Rev. Robert Mayes #15

    Talk to your delegates. Write to the floor committee. Have someone speak to the floor committee at the open hearing. Have some delegates ready to speak on the convention floor.

    This advice applies for any proposed resolution.

  17. Rev. Robert Mayes
    July 13th, 2013 at 16:09 | #17

    Sad to think that this is what happens in floor committees:

    Original overture is sent in that says: –

    WHEREAS, the International Center is painted purple in accents and in some rooms, and

    WHEREAS, other colors are just as suitable, therefore be it

    RESOLVED, that the synod-in-convention vote on a new color for the original purple accents and rooms of the International center, and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the funding for such repainting be taken up by a door offering of those present at the convention.

    But after it goes through the floor committee, it looks like this:

    WHEREAS, the International Center is painted purple in various rooms, and each district office is also painted a certain color in various rooms (e.g., the Nebraska district office has a mild blue color in many rooms); and

    WHEREAS, we need to repaint our walls for the sake of mission to the lost, therefore be it

    RESOLVED, that each district office, along with the International center, gets not only a new paint job, but any renovation and/or expansion project that the current district and synodical administration like, and be it also

    RESOLVED, that the money come from the Synod’s mission budgets; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the amount of money raised by door offerings of every congregation at large in the Synod is calculated, and the net increase percentage is added to further augment the Synod’s mission budget.

  18. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 13th, 2013 at 18:11 | #18

    Regarding men on CRM status who are deemed not fit for the pastoral ministry…

    In the church, when someone does not have the gifts to carry something out — and I’m by no means painting a broad brush over all these men — we are very slow to inform people of that and allow them to think in terms of a different career option. Nor are we assisting them in a different career option. One thing we might be able to do is offer some kind of service here at the International Center while we help guys transition into different careers. That’s a possibility.

    Matthew C. Harrison
    Issues Facing Confessional Lutheranism Today
    Issues, Etc.
    July 12, 2013

  19. helen
    July 13th, 2013 at 20:51 | #19

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #18
    In the church, when someone does not have the gifts to carry something out —…
    — we are very slow to inform people of that and allow them to think in terms of a different career option.One thing we might be able to do is offer some kind of service here at the International Center while we help guys transition into different careers. That’s a possibility.
    Matthew C. Harrison

    Some may need that possibility… starting at the DP level! ;(

    Seriously, while “helping men out of the ministry” could in some cases be the right thing,
    what did he say about those who do have the gifts, and are without a call through no fault of their own and ample talent for Word and Sacrament ministry?

  20. Joshua
    July 13th, 2013 at 20:54 | #20

    @helen #19

    He suggested that the LCMS extend them calls in starting churches, via a worker-priest program (or that is how I perceived it): http://issuesetc.org/2013/07/12/2-issues-facing-confessional-lutheranism-today-pr-matt-harrison-71213/

    It very well might be a solution to this crisis.

  21. helen
    July 14th, 2013 at 20:32 | #21

    @Joshua #20
    He suggested that the LCMS extend them calls in starting churches, via a worker-priest program (or that is how I perceived it):

    It’s possible. It’s even been done in individual cases, sponsored by individual churches… no perceptible cooperation or backing above the local level, though, which might be desirable if all the currently un called are to be put back into congregations.

  22. Rick Krueger
    July 15th, 2013 at 05:24 | #22

    Pastor Henrickson, thanks for the correction of my mistake on what was needed to pass the 8-05B resolutions in 2010. That was entirely my error!.

  23. PPPadre
    July 15th, 2013 at 08:38 | #23

    7-03 should not even be up for consideration. As Charlie points out, the bylaw language of 5.12 specifically limits circuits to geographic composition. This language was not there prior to the 2010 Convention. That is because while the 2010 Convention was considering this very resolution (circuits as affinity groups), the Convention so resoundingly rejected the notion that they inserted language into the bylaws that would prohibit such action. (2010 Convention Proceedings, pp. 34-35, 45)

    Our congregation/circuit forum/district, following the procedure outlined in the bylaws of proposing an overture at the congregational level, then at the circuit level, then at the district level to receive priority consideration for the synodical convention, sought to reverse 2010 Resolution 8-16a because the floor committee misled the Convention (we made no judgement whether this was intentional or not) by saying that the original composition of the Board of Directors consisted of one pastor and three laymen elected at large, so there never was balance on the BoD to begin with. The representative of the floor committee neglected to mention that the Synodical President (pastor), Secretary (pastor) and Treasurer (layman) were also on the BoD, so its composition was 3 pastors and 4 laymen – in other words, one member off of evenly balanced. Our overture (6-13) was not even assigned to the Structure and Ecclesiastical Matters committee (FC 7) but Administration and Finance (FC 6) and put in the Omnibus Resolution B, respectfully declining our overture and referring us to 2010 Resolution 8-16a. (We know that 8-16a was passed and what it says, that’s why we specifically referenced it in the rationale and asked for it to be reversed!)

    If our overture to overturn 8-16a cannot be considered because of previous convention action, then why can 7-03 (which is practically identical to the originally proposed 2010 Res. 8-02) even be considered in light of the passage of 2010 Resolution 8-02A? Should not the Resolution 8-07 Task Force be referred back to previous convention action as was our congregation/circuit/district?

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.