Issues, Etc. — Convention Update with Mollie Hemingway

issueswidgetWe thought this was a good update on convention happenings.

This 29 minute podcast is Found on Issues, Etc..

 

An Update on the 65th Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod – Mollie Ziegler Hemingway

[podcast]http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/issuesetc.org/podcast/13270723135.mp3[/podcast]

About Norm Fisher

Norm was raised in the UCC in Connecticut, and like many fell away from the church after high school. With this background he saw it primarily as a service organization. On the miracle of his first child he came back to the church. On moving to Texas a few years later he found a home in Lutheranism when he was invited to a confessional church a half-hour away by our new neighbors.

He is one of those people who found a like mind in computers while in Middle School and has been programming ever since. He's responsible for many websites, including the Book of Concord, LCMSsermons.com, and several other sites.

He has served the church in various positions, including financial secretary, sunday school teacher, elder, PTF board member, and choir member.

More of his work can be found at KNFA.net.

Comments

Issues, Etc. — Convention Update with Mollie Hemingway — 31 Comments

  1. Around 19 minutes into the interview, Molly mentioned that, when a delegate tried to strengthened a resolution that would bring the Missouri Synod back into agreement with AC.XIV, “a very confessional vice-president kinda of gave the impression that he didn’t think that was a good idea,” leading to the delegates voting the amendment down. As Molly noted “that reflects, again, the makeup of the delegates as being new; they don’t like complex amendments.”

    “People were freaking out outside of the delegate floor. ‘Why could we not reaffirm what we believe in our confessions,’ and that’s true. It was a confusing moment.”

    Related to this was a comment from ALPB’s Peter Speckhard:

    One reason all the resolutions have been reduced to mere suggestions is that the Purple Palace wants calm…

    Probably the best example of that (though there are many good candidates) was in the resolution about women in combat. The original overture called down fire and brimstone on our apostate nation, but the actual resolution merely supports and encourages everyone no matter what they’re doing and suggests we take a look at the issue. Calm was achieved and the vote passed with over 90% in favor.”

  2. Robert :@Carl Vehse #1
    This was our “bound conscience” resolution. I knew that it would come up some time, although without Tim Wengert’s help.

    You mean this observation, right?

    “…the actual resolution merely supports and encourages everyone no matter what they’re doing…”

  3. Yes, Ted, that’s it. It’s a resolution to support opposing positions, without deciding which is the truth based on Scripture.

    It sets a bad precedent. Better had the entire resolution been tabled or defeated.

  4. I agree with Mollie. I also thought Kieschnick amazingly sharp in handling the previous convention proceedings. I am also surprised how capable and sharp is President Harrison’s handling because of the differences of “likes” between the two presidents. I very much like his pleasant demeanor. Just proves, a theologian CAN also handle business. President Harrison is extremely intelligent, and a perpetual learner. And, above all, he holds closely to being a Pastor/Shepherd. I guess that’s what I like so much.

  5. I was viewing the opening service on-line and after Holy Communion was over I heard a few voices singing a cappella and then the whole assembly started singing with them. I can’t remember what hymn it was but it was very familiar. Finally the organist joined in too. Mollie said it was a very moving experience and I felt so too even though I wasn’t there. What is it about large gatherings of Lutherans and the singing of hymns? How I wish my own congregation could have heard it.

  6. @Carl Vehse #1

    I’m wondering how that claim can be laid at the foot of the “Purple Palace?” President Harrison asked in amazement how (Pastor David Behnke — not sure spelled correctly) “he” got that resolution passed with over 90%. Behnke, head of that committee, smiled broadly and said, “that is what this committee does!” It seemed to me that the resolution passed at the recommendation of the two strong military commanders that testified for the passage of the amendment because it would make it a smoother process for the women now serving in the military. Basically, to let them do what they want — or to let them opt out if they so choose. That’s how I remember the proceedings — but I could be wrong.

  7. @Abby #10: I’m wondering how that claim [for calm and lack of controversy] can be laid at the foot of the “Purple Palace?”

    I suspect Rev. Speckhard made that statement because:

    First, the Floor Committees, including the DP or SVP chairmen, were appointed by the Purple Palace.

    Second the Floor Committees were given their marchiing orders via the Presidential Report, Part II (see Today’s Business, Part II).

    Third, after controversial Resolutions 4-07 and 4-09 were removed, it was announced that floor committee 4 handed out a sheet showing that the CCM, President Harrison, and the CTCR have reached a smoke-filled-room deciision, on suspending a CCM opinion.

    Fourth, as noted above, a synodical vice president discourged an amendment bringing the LCMS back to AC.XIV compliance, rather than engage in controvery at the convention.

    Fifth, Harrison’s apology following the Newtown syncretic prayer service for which the pastor refuse to apology for his participation.

    Sixth, in response to an earlier Issues, Etc. interview question by Rev. Wilken about his 2010 election as head of the LCMS and whether it signaled that he would “spearhead a move of church discipline” and “housecleaning” across the Synod, President Harrison stated [26:19]:

    “I’m a pastor. I deal with issues pastorally. I deal with issues constantly, I deal with issues carefully, but persistently, and I’m not a bull in a china shop, but I’m going to be faithful, you can count on it. Most people that complain about this issue probably have never been in a leadership position, which is extremely complex, or they are unaware, in fact, of the accountability that is going on constantly, and that is certainly the case. And it could be the case that I’m well due some criticism from time to time, so we’ll take that.”

  8. Carl Vehse :
    Around 19 minutes into the interview, Molly mentioned that, when a delegate tried to strengthened a resolution that would bring the Missouri Synod back into agreement with AC.XIV, . ..

    Let’s not forget two chaplains who could not even get back to the mike and affirm what the delegate had offered with regards bring the MO synod back in line with AC X!V…

  9. @Carl Vehse #11

    Dear BJS Bloggers,

    “Carl Vehse” notes: “Third, after controversial Resolutions 4-07 and 4-09 were removed, it was announced that floor committee 4 handed out a sheet showing that the CCM, President Harrison, and the CTCR have reached a smoke-filled-room deciision, on suspending a CCM opinion.”

    This can be found on pages 230 and 231 of “Today’s Business,” Issue 2. Issue #2 can be downloaded at the convention web-page, for the date of July 21, 2013 here: http://www.lcms.org/convention/downloads (other Today’s Business at the same place)

    Due to the overwhelming opposition to Opinion 11-2598, from many quarters in the synod, this issue was dealt with prior to the convention. The CCM has agreed to suspend its Opinion, so Article VI.2.b is still in force and rostered church-workers can still be disciplined for its violation.

    I have to say that I agree with how President Harrison dealt with this matter. It avoided an unnecessary public embarrassment of the CCM members, since they agreed to retract their statement and work with him. If they had not agreed to work with him, that would have been different.

    President Harrison, as well as all of our pastors, have been called to the ministry of the Gospel. If we can win over our brothers by reason, by kindness, by gentleness, by going-the-extra-mile, then we are supposed to do that. That is in our job description, as I read it in the New Testament and Lutheran pastoral theology. The ministry of church discipline is only for the unrepentant and stubborn.

    In his dealing with this matter, President Harrison proves that he knows how to lead our church in a way that accords with our theology. All of our district presidents, pastors, and other church leaders should follow his example.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  10. The CCM and CTCR have ‘juggled the hot potato’ regarding LCMS members attending communion at non-partner churches for years.

    The CCM, in its October 2 and October 21-22, 2002, Minutes (Sect. 63. Interpretation of Article VI 1 b of the Constitution (02-2278) and Sect., 71. Interpretation of Article VI 2 b (02-2278)), stated:

    Article VI indicates that taking part in a service or sacramental rite of a heterodox congregation or a congregation of mixed confession is an act of unionism and syncretism. The specific questions are then: 1) What constitutes “taking part”? 2) What constitutes a “service”? 3) What constitutes a “heterodox congregation”? 4) What constitutes a “congregation of mixed confession”? The answer to these questions relates to a minister of religion’s commitment to witness publicly and privately to the one and only Gospel set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Among the functions of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations is to “provide guidance to the Synod in matters of theology and church relations” (Bylaw 3.925 b). Thus this question should be directed to that commission. [Emphasis added]

    The CTCR, in its February 12, 2010, “Response to [a September 7, 2009] ‘Request for CTCR Opinion Concerning Continued Eligibility of an Inactive Emeritus Member Under Article VI of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’,” responded:

    Given this uncertainty [in the meaning of “taking part” and whether Art. VI applies to individual and/or congregational members] , the Commission on Theology and Church Relations cannot answer Questions 1 or 2 directly on the basis of the stated theological positions of the Synod or past CTCR reports or opinions. As noted in the CCM’s 2002 Opinion, the Commission is currently continuing its work on a longstanding assignment to give guidance concerning “inter-Christian relationships” (see 1981 Res. 3-03A). This assignment, however, does not include a specific request to provide a precise definition of the phrase “taking part” in Art. VI 2 b of the Synod’s Constitution.

    It is the opinion of the CTCR that the meaning of the phrase “taking part in” within the context of Article VI 2 b is a matter of interpretation based upon the original intent of our Synod’s fathers when they drafted the Constitution. Its potential theological meanings are varied, as noted above. Its particular usage in the context of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is a question, therefore, that can be rightly decided only by those who are charged with the responsibility for such interpretation, the Commission on Constitutional Matters. [Emphasis added]

    Tapdancing sounds are even heard in the 44-page, 110-footnoted, January, 2012, document, “Historical Background and Interpretation of Article VI.2 of the Constitution of The Lutheran—Church Missouri Synod (Draft),” in which Gerhard Bode explores in detail every phrase, word, and fraktur in the applicable section of the original 1847 Missouri Synod constitution:

    Theilnahme: (The more current spelling is Teilnahme.) The word is a common noun with a standard definition of “participation,” “taking part,” or “joining” in something.[16] The word can carry the additional sense of taking an active interest in something, sharing the feelings or emotions of another person, or having sympathy for another. [17] Theilnahme seems to presume an intentional interest and active taking part in an engagement—not an accidental or unintentional one. [18] It also can include the sense of having fellowship, association, or union with something. [19] As far as can be determined, in and of itself the word is not a technical theological or liturgical term. Given the context of the word in the Synod constitution, it appears that Theilnahme refers to at least an active participation or engagement in worship services, administration of the sacraments, etc. [20] Beyond that, the word does not offer much additional clarity as to the intended meaning of the drafters of the constitution.

    Finally the CCM, in its opinion, “Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI 2 b (11-2598),” in the CCM February 10–12, 2012, Minutes, Sect. 91, opines that partaking in a heterodox communion is not actually “taking part” in a heterodox communion, as that phrase is used in Article VI, paragraph 2 b of the Constitution. But they ruled even further:

    “However, a district president (ecclesiastical supervisor) cannot use constitutional Article VI 2 b as the cause for an action to expel (Article XIII) a member from the Synod for simply attending worship, Holy Communion, a wedding, and/or a funeral in a non-LCMS church.”

    Of course it is obvious that (as a visitor) attending a worship service, wedding, or funeral in a non-LCMS church is no cause to suspend or expel a synodical member (although regular attendance at a non-LCMS church should certainly raise some questions). However, it is unionism and/or gross incompetence to lump, with these visitor activities, the partaking of the Sacrament of Holy Communion within the fellowship of such a heterodox church, as if receiving Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper were as insignificant as a visitor’s opportunity to hear some good organ playing.

    Then in April 18, 2012, CPH Publisher McCain gave a description on BJS of that CCM opinion:

    I believe when there is a less than partisan and agenda-driven CCM in position after the next Synodical convention we may find resolution to these issues. As it stands now, the present CCM is issuing opinions that are based on idealogical loyalties, not balanced, objective opinions, such as their latest position that a pastor who communes at an ELCA altar is not participating in the rites and ceremonies of a heterodox body as long as he is not participating in the sense of being involved In the liturgical observances, that is, vested and involve directly in the worship service. Yes, I know, plainly absurd, but this is the kind of vacuous opinions we are getting at present from the CCM, so do not look to them to sort through these issues in any helpful way.

    On May 29, in admitting to figuratively being taken behind the woodshed, McCain sent the following apology to the CCM:

    Thank you for your letter of May 15 offering me brotherly reproof and admonishment, sent in the spirit of Matt. 18. I’m humbled by it and confess my sin against the Eighth Commandment, and all of you, as you rightly point out. You have my apology and request for forgiveness, and I ask you to share this letter with the members of the CCM.

    Now, a year later, in mid-2013, after two separate and valid Overtures were prepare months earlier for the convention, and placed in Today’s Business as resolutions, we are told, “[d]ue to the overwhelming opposition to Opinion 11-2598, from many quarters in the synod, this issue was dealt with prior to the convention. The CCM has agreed to suspend its Opinion.” A smoke-filled-backroom suspension (not revoked, recanted, or overturned).

    This is not the way vacuous and unLutheran opinions of the CCM should be handled. In addition to secret partnership agreements with nonLutheran church bodies, it raises concerns about smoke-filled backroom deals becoming the modus operandi of the synodical administration.

  11. Dr. Noland,

    Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe the CCM did “retract” their opinion. They only suspended it. That seems to be an important difference. As I understand it, suspension implies that they still hold their original opinion to be correct, but have simply agreed not to enforce it (at least, not in cases beyond the original one, which is concluded I think). To retract their opinion would indicate that they agreed it was defective or incorrect or improper in some way. And this they specifically did not do. That is, I believe the CCM still is holding their original opinion to be correct…

  12. Two questions:
    Call me new to the synod, but what is the “purple palace?”
    And for the live-stream: It appears they have removed the videos of the opening service except for the sermon. Is there any way I can go back and watch the rest of the service? Thanks.

  13. If another delegate goes up there and says “I’d like to make an amendment….” Dear Lord help us.

  14. The CCM’s suspension of their vacuous opinion 11-2598 is as much of a retraction as the Newtown interfaith prayer service Lufauxran co-officiant’s “Sorry if I offended some people” is an apology.

  15. Apparently some variant of the “women in combat” resolution passed. And now some are using the “bound conscience” pejorative to describe the result. Please consider the following.

    Item#1: Suppose “no women in combat” means “no women combatants”. Then past plus present woman combatants (i.e. women in uniform) constitute 0.85% of the U.S. population. This is approximately one female for every 60 females within a sample of 120 people (assuming equal numbers of males and females). In other words, one in every 60 males have been replaced by a female within the military. This is the “best construct” in that it does not consider things such as age, fitness, or those who serve(d). This replacement is over and above the males within the sample who serve(d).

    Item#2: There seems to be a contention that we can somehow please God by eliminating women combatants without the imposition of a compulsory all male draft.

    Item#3: Some seem to accept economic oppression of poor males (my interpretation of other’s statements) as an alternative to a compulsory all male draft.

    Item#4: Looking now at the males who serve(d), we must note the following. Many have served in combat more than their fair share. I have heard no call for a compulsory all male draft as a means of eliminating this disparity.

    Item#5: Looking now at the wives of the males who serve(d). While the husband is deployed, the wife must be both mother and father to the children, and the breadwinner. The under-employment of men upon return means that the wife must continue to be the breadwinner.

    Item#6: The woman as father and/or breadwinner is scorned for reasons similar to that for which the female combatant is scorned (i.e. a woman performing a man’s role). Is it any wonder that this scorn of both (woman as father/breadwinner, woman combatant) seems to be coming from the same group of people?

    Speakers of the English language get suckered into thinking that they can address issues of righteousness without addressing issues of justice because “righteousness” and “justice” are different words.

    Speakers of the Spanish language are not so fortunate because the single word “justicia” means “justice, equality, rightness, righteousness, legitimacy, execution, etc.”.

    Jesus said the following:

    “And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” Luke 11:46 ASV

    Show of hands please: “Does the shoe fit?”.

  16. Carl Vehse :
    >
    Then in April 18, 2012, CPH Publisher McCain gave a description on BJS of that CCM opinion:

    I believe when there is a less than partisan and agenda-driven CCM in position after the next Synodical convention we may find resolution to these issues. As it stands now, the present CCM is issuing opinions that are based on idealogical loyalties, not balanced, objective opinions, such as their latest position that a pastor who communes at an ELCA altar is not participating in the rites and ceremonies of a heterodox body as long as he is not participating in the sense of being involved In the liturgical observances, that is, vested and involve directly in the worship service. Yes, I know, plainly absurd, but this is the kind of vacuous opinions we are getting at present from the CCM, so do not look to them to sort through these issues in any helpful way.

    On May 29, in admitting to figuratively being taken behind the woodshed, McCain sent the following apology to the CCM:

    Thank you for your letter of May 15 offering me brotherly reproof and admonishment, sent in the spirit of Matt. 18. I’m humbled by it and confess my sin against the Eighth Commandment, and all of you, as you rightly point out. You have my apology and request for forgiveness, and I ask you to share this letter with the members of the CCM.

    Don’t miss the fact that in Pastor McCain’s “apology” to the CCM he never recanted his accusation, but merely pointed out that he may have offended some people with it.

    http://www.rotundus.com/node/1303

    .

  17. In his public “apology” to the CCM,” Publisher McCain confessed his “sin against the Eighth Commandment, and all of you”.

    This was likely referring to his unsubstantiated ad hominems (a chronic problem in his blog postings) about the CCM and their motivations.

    However, McCain’s description of the CCM opinion, “Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI 2 b (11-2598),” in the CCM February 10–12, 2012, Minutes, Sect. 91, as “vacuous” is pretty much on the mark.

  18. @Carl Vehse #22
    However, McCain’s description of the CCM opinion, “Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI 2 b (11-2598),” in the CCM February 10–12, 2012, Minutes, Sect. 91, as “vacuous” is pretty much on the mark.

    If Vehse, (who must hold the record for deletions from Cyberbrethren) 🙂 is “seconding” a comment of PTM’s, I’ll take it as accurate!

  19. Of all the resolutions voted on, the delegates rejected only two:

    7-03A, To Establish Visitation Circuits to Best Meet Needs of Congregations, voted down 295 – 732

    7-07A, To Respond to 2010 Res 8-05B To Change Process for Electing Delegates to Synod Conventions voted down 62 – 830

    While most of the other (with some amended) resolutions passed with an overwhelming majority, a number of these had a vote total that was significantly less than the number of registered voters. Whether some delegates present deliberately did not vote, or whether some delegates were not present on the convention floor when the votes were taken is not known.

    BTW, did any of the delegates ask to have their negative vote recorded for the record, as has been done in some previous conventions?

    Or were the voting devices code-numbered so that someone (other than the CIA, DIA, FBI, DHS, DNI, NRO, NCTC, INS, IRS, BATF, MI5, SVR, GRU, MSS, and Google) knows who voted or not for what?

  20. Carl Vehse :
    .. Whether some delegates present deliberately did not vote, or whether some delegates were not present on the convention floor when the votes were taken is not known.

    If you watch the archives as I have done, they were quite a number of empty chairs.

  21. I took lots of notes before and during convention…

    I am disappointed the 4-07 and 4-09 were withdrawn, but there are plans for study. I am hoping results come out of that, TEACHING begins to correct all our b***s*** in synod, and resolutions come next time. Hopefully after clearing out restructuring, we won’t have as many for next time.

    Speaking of which, the couple that were voted on and failed were Blue Ribbon stuff, and I was very grateful for that. Pr. Noland (so glad I got to meet you) wrote about them in his post, and after one was beaten, the Floor Committee opted not to bring its companion to the floor. the 4-year cycle never made it, ran out of time. So hopefully that is all done now.

    Most resolutions passed. A lot of them were reworked after the open hearing. A lot of times they were mollified, which took some teeth out. Study instead of action, so the missional types would be okay with it, but I think the confessionals got the better of the final wording.

    Towards the end, delegates were not around as much, and some have left. Only a few ‘officially’ checked out to lower the number, so the report said we still had 1100+ voters, but we really didn’t. And every one was given a lanyard to speak, so the one electronic device was queued up to us personally. I was advisory, so I don’t know about the voting devices. A guy from my district on the Elections Floor Committee talked about having personal codes, so you had to log in to activate the voting device. Even then, I don’t know if they would record who voted how. (anonymity of the voting process…) Of course, was a log and record kept of the signals the computer received? I don’t know, I.T. would.

  22. @Jason #26: ” I am disappointed the 4-07 and 4-09 were withdrawn, but there are plans for study.”

    The way in which those resolutions were withdrawn smacks of some backroom deal that lends no confidence in any alleged “plans to study.”

    Maybe the ACELC can add the CCM opinion to their List of Errors.

    That will really get the attention of the Violet Vatican. [sarcasm off]

  23. @Walter Troeger #25

    Dear Walter,

    I was sitting in the back of the convention hall on Sunday afternoon and parts of Monday. Regarding the “empty seats” at that time, I observed that there were a number of delegates who were sitting in the back with the guests. I encouraged them to go back and sit in their assigned delegate seats, but then they showed me their electronic voting gizmos. Both the lanyard “thingie” and the voting pad were wireless, so they could vote anywhere in the convention hall.

    Two guys I talked to said the chairs were uncomfortable where they were sitting. Another guy said he felt claustrophobic sitting between two heavily overweight delegates. Another said that he was seated next to a delegate who kept making snide remarks about the chairman (I don’t know which chairman), and he couldn’t concentrate on the business at hand–because he just got angry at the “snide-remarker.”

    Having been a delegate in 1992 and 1995, as well as to all district conventions, I can confirm that such things happen at conventions. Sometimes you just have to “grin and bear it.” Being a delegate is not a vacation. Discomfort and long hours in one chair, usually sitting next to people you don’t know, is part of the job description.

    Most of us who have been delegates learn to make the best of it: make new friends with those seated around you, tell jokes (but not insults or snide remarks), try to help folks who don’t understand parliamentary procedure or the resolutions at hand, and pray for the convention and our leaders in tense moments.

    It is normal at synodical conventions for delegates not to show up the last day. That is not a good thing, but it happens. Delegates sign up for the whole convention, from the call to order to adjournment, when they agree to serve. The “commitment” of some is disappointing, but last day absences have been normal ever since I have been ordained (1984).

    I have met some delegates, in previous years, who only attended the convention up until the presidential election, and then they left. That is really wrong, because someone else in their circuit would have been willing to attend to business for the whole time. Such is human nature . . .

    So, in summary, things were no different at this convention in terms of delegate participation from others I have attended (district and synod). It was “business as usual.”

    As always, many thanks are due to the President’s office staff, the Secretary and his staff, and the many folks at the national offices who did so much work, mostly behind the scenes, to make this an effective convention.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  24. @Martin R. Noland #28 : “Another guy said he felt claustrophobic sitting between two heavily overweight delegates.”

    Like sitting in the B or E seats on an commercial jetliner. It’s never between two midgets. 😉

  25. @Carl Vehse #24

    Dear Carl,

    You ask a good question, i.e., whether individual votes can be traced to the voter who cast them in electronic voting systems.

    When I first used an electronic-wired-voting system at an LCMS convention (I don’t remember if it was district or synod, and I don’t remember what year), I was intrigued. I know just a little bit about electronics and computers. So I asked a member of the elections committee some questions about whether votes could be identified by voter. He didn’t know, so he referred me to someone he considered an expert on the committee. That “expert” committee member said absolutely, “No, it can’t do that.”

    At the next convention, I think this was at district, I saw the same system in use. I found one of the contracted voting-system technicians and asked him the same question. His answer was, “Of course, we keep track of individual votes by individual keypad, otherwise we couldn’t confirm valid votes.” At that convention, we were assigned keypads by name. So, yes, the elections committee could have kept a list of each delegate’s vote. Whether they do that depends on the committee that year, which always includes the Secretary (of district or synod, depending on the convention).

    I concluded that the elections committee at the previous convention did not understand the technology they were using.

    Which is too bad, because at previous conventions, when they had used IBM #2 pencil computer cards, they always had an IBM engineer (LCMS member) on that committee to make sure things were working properly and who could answer all questions. They also had a voting audit procedure in those #2 pencil days.

    At some conventions, a motion is made to destroy all electronic voting records, at the end of the convention, in order to prevent misuse of the voting record. I made such a motion many years ago, but I don’t know if I was the first person to do this. It should be standard practice, in any event. It is the same idea as destroying all paper ballots after a congregational election of officers.

    The voting at synodical conventions is overseen by the Secretary of the Synod. Ever since Dr. Raymond Hartwig has been in that office, we have not had to worry about misuse of voting information, or anything else like that. I have not been concerned about the voting records of synodical conventions ever since he has been in that office.

    District conventions, on the other hand, could be another issue. There are many “options” for information, records, and keypad assignments available from the “vendor” and it depends which one of these options the election committee uses. You have a right to ask questions about these options and the voting record, and the election committee has an obligation to answer truthfully.

    There are some nice provisions in the civil law for prosecuting “fraud” in the matter of voting in corporations–and there is no immunity in this matter just because the synod or district is a church corporation.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  26. @Martin R. Noland #30: “That “expert” committee member said absolutely, “No, it can’t do that.”…

    “I concluded that the elections committee at the previous convention did not understand the technology they were using.”

    Well, one could say that is a “best construction” conclusion.

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.