ALPB Forum Online
Archived Boards => 2016 LCMS Convention => Topic started by: prsauer on July 10, 2016, 12:13:10 PM
-
Resolution 2-01 is first up. To thank Missionaries.
Should be uncontroversial except for the final resolved - calling for a Mission Reunion which will cost synod $30,000!
A former missionary from Paupa speaks in favor of the resolution, and encourages more missionaries.
Incidentally West Paupa (not legally part of Paupa New Guinea) is one of these areas around the world where there is a horrific genocide of the local people (complicated but it involves Indonesian control)
A couple of other missionaries and missionary kids speak up in favor of the resolution.
-
And here comes a pastor to propose an amendment deleting the final resolved and save synod $30,000.
-
A former missionary kid speaks against the amendment. Groups are currently meeting. This funding will help to spur additional groups that will hopefully become ongoing and which also has the potential to spur future missionaries.
Amendment goes to vote...
Amendment fails by margin of 82%.
Back to discussion.
-
Question about how these individual proposals affect the overall financial picture of synod.
Treasurer of Synod is called to the floor. Explains that 339-341 of Today's Business (Sunday) has determined financial impact (as is mandated by the bylaw). It is not the purview of the bylaw for the Treasurer's office to determine whether we should fund it or not.
President votes for closure of debate.
2.01 passes with 90 % of the vote. (A good example of why these conventions take so long. 10 % of the folks leads to 10 minutes of debate).
Former mission workers stand and are thanked. Then the convention sings.
-
Resolution 2-02 To thank God and Ask for additional support of Missionaries.
No money requested - should be a no brainer.
Question about the decline in short term (1-2 year missionaries) and whether we are thanking God for the decline.
The chair responds - no, we are not thanking God for the decline.
Call to end debate... and now the vote...
93.5% pass the vote.
Rest of the floor committee 2 will have to wait.
Point of order about us not singing a second doxology. Chair determines that we will hold off on the repeated doxologies to the end.
-
And they begin with a video, which provides an opportunity for delegates to stretch and stream their way past me to the restroom - someone in International Witness must have made the convention planner angry - they are getting some pretty lousy placement on the schedule.
2-03 To continue our support of International Schools and Their Role in the Church's Mission.
The three international schools would be Hong Kong International, Concordia International - Shanghai and Concordia international - Hanoi.
As a personal aside - Honk Kong International school had a long history in its formative period of being staffed by administrators who cut their teeth at my parish school, Our Saviour in the Bronx. Men like Jim Handrich, Bob Christian, David Rittmann.
Delegate rises to say that it is important for our teachers and administrators at these schools to be Lutheran.
Concern about the ability of Lutheran Theology to be taught under Chinese rule. Concern that this resolution may not be possible given restrictions in China.
Friendly amendment to replace "day school" with
Chin Chen in China is it our school, and why was it not included? No it belongs to our partner synod in Hong Kong.
Founding principal of Shanghai (who taught at Our Saviour-Bronx for a year) gives a passionate speech about how our schools are actually one of the few places in China where they can actually share Jesus and teach the faith.
Resolution passes with only 12 voting against.
-
2-04 To affirm LCMS Military Chaplain's Right for Free exercise of Religious Freedom in the Face of LGBT inclusion in the Armed Forces.
I get that the issue of LGBT in the military is the prevailing issue that brought this resolution, but I would have preferred a measure that was not limited simply to that issue or even predominantly focused on it. Religious Freedom for Chaplains will likely face challenge on far more fronts than this.
Reminder that friendly amendments shouldn't be used for editing typos.
Chaplain makes an amendment to clarify a technical clarification that would include flag ceremonies as a part of the religious freedom piece for chaplains (not being fully aware of the way the military works yet - Pr. Hannah, what just happened? (for those keeping score at home I am down to about 20% understanding now for the morning).
Only 7 vote against. Off to lunch.
-
2-04 To affirm LCMS Military Chaplain's Right for Free exercise of Religious Freedom in the Face of LGBT inclusion in the Armed Forces.
I get that the issue of LGBT in the military is the prevailing issue that brought this resolution, but I would have preferred a measure that was not limited simply to that issue or even predominantly focused on it. Religious Freedom for Chaplains will likely face challenge on far more fronts than this.
Reminder that friendly amendments shouldn't be used for editing typos.
Chaplain makes an amendment to clarify a technical clarification that would include flag ceremonies as a part of the religious freedom piece for chaplains (not being fully aware of the way the military works yet - Pr. Hannah, what just happened? (for those keeping score at home I am down to about 20% understanding now for the morning).
Only 7 vote against. Off to lunch.
I don't know what it was that he was referring to. Flag ceremonies and religious freedom?
-
Possibly flags presented at funerals?
-
How could that be related to religious freedom?
-
Hmmm.
Recently, one of my church members put an article about this (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/21/retired-airman-may-sue-air-force-for-being-booted-from-ceremony.html) on my desk from the Military Times. It was a recent dust up at an Air Force retirement when a pastor spoke at an airman's retirement during the flag ceremony. He was going against the orders of his commanding officer, but said that the ceremony was not a command event, and therefore people were not forced to be there.
Perhaps the language added in the resolution had this in mind? It was a fairly recent event.
-
Hmmm.
Recently, one of my church members put an article about this (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/21/retired-airman-may-sue-air-force-for-being-booted-from-ceremony.html) on my desk from the Military Times. It was a recent dust up at an Air Force retirement when a pastor spoke at an airman's retirement during the flag ceremony. He was going against the orders of his commanding officer, but said that the ceremony was not a command event, and therefore people were not forced to be there.
Perhaps the language added in the resolution had this in mind? It was a fairly recent event.
I believe that was it.
-
Hard to comment on the case without knowing a whole lot more.
Peace, JOHN
-
Just now getting to reading the convention posts. I believe the delegate was speaking of promotions to flag officer rank being affected by a chaplain following the teachings of his church body/conscience -- that is, not receiving such promotion as a result of his faithfulness -- and our church speaking against such.
-
Just now getting to reading the convention posts. I believe the delegate was speaking of promotions to flag officer rank being affected by a chaplain following the teachings of his church body/conscience -- that is, not receiving such promotion as a result of his faithfulness -- and our church speaking against such.
Like Chaplain Gard?
Peace, JOHN
-
Just now getting to reading the convention posts. I believe the delegate was speaking of promotions to flag officer rank being affected by a chaplain following the teachings of his church body/conscience -- that is, not receiving such promotion as a result of his faithfulness -- and our church speaking against such.
Like Chaplain Gard?
Peace, JOHN
Since
1. Chaplain Gard has been promoted to flag officer rank, and (more importantly),
2. He is definitely faithful to the teachings of our church body (which is to say to, faithful to the Scriptures and the God whose Word it is),
the answer to your question is plainly "no".
-
Promotion boards (and I have sat on many including Flag Officer boards) are rigidly conducted and extraordinarily fair. A Chaplain board does not consider the officers' ecclesiastical affiliation - it may not be mentioned and does not appear in the chaplains' records. All that is considered is the written records in the officer's file. In fact, if a board member knows anything that is not in the written record, it may not be brought up.
The painful reality is that there are many highly qualified officers, including chaplains, that are not promoted because only a certain number can be. For example, there might be 40 officers considered but only 4 will be promoted. No one is promoted or not promoted based on ecclesiastical endorser but only on the prior written record and the judgment of a board as to who has the best potential to lead at the next level.
We have had a number of LCMS chaplains over the years promoted to Flag/General Officer. In the 1990s, LCMS Chaplain Don Muchow served as a two star admiral and Chief of Chaplains. There will remain many LCMS chaplains with highly competitive records for many years to come. Among them are future Flag/General officers.
-
That certainly the way the Army works also.
Paul Sauer asked me about the "flag problem" cited by a delegate. I don't know what that was about. A case involving an Air Force funeral was suggested. I don't know Air force protocol so could not comment on the case as was described by the media.
So we still don't know what is the "flag problem." :-\
Peace, JOHN
-
I am saying, Rev. Hannah, that the problem brought up at the convention was not about flags but about promotion to flag officer rank. That is, the convention was saying that a chaplain's adherence to certain teachings ought not affect his promotion -- but then the question was raised of those whose perspective promotion was to flag officer rank, which is handled differently (we were told) than other promotions. And we were told that this resolution was meant to speak to that as well as to promotion to other ranks.
-
I am saying, Rev. Hannah, that the problem brought up at the convention was not about flags but about promotion to flag officer rank. That is, the convention was saying that a chaplain's adherence to certain teachings ought not affect his promotion -- but then the question was raised of those whose perspective promotion was to flag officer rank, which is handled differently (we were told) than other promotions. And we were told that this resolution was meant to speak to that as well as to promotion to other ranks.
If that's the issue that the delegate raised, I have difficulty seeing it as a real problem. I think Chaplain Gard would agree.
Peace, JOHN
-
I missed the delegate's statement. If he or she was implying that Flag/General Officer selection is biased against LCMS, he or she is wrong. As far as FO/GO selection being different, that is also wrong.
There are only a few chaplain FOs/GOs at a time. Army, Navy and Air Force active duty each have one 2-star and one 1-star. The reserve components (Army, AF, Navy, Nat Guard) each have one 1-star. That makes a total of 10 chaplain FOs/GOs at a given time (6 active, 4 reserve). That is out of thousands of chaplains in the system.
FOs/GOs are board selected just like any other officer. The majority of the board are not chaplains but other FOs/GOs. A zone is established based upon date of rank to O-6 (Captain or Colonel) and all chaplains within the zone are considered equally. Only one will be selected. The denomination of the chaplains is not known or considered.
My predecessor was a very conservative Presbyterian. My successor will be a very conservative Baptist. Both my predecessor and my successor are model chaplains who have firm faith commitments and the ability to facilitate freedom of religion for all military personnel. The next one to be selected in three years may or may not be conservative but will be charged with the same responsibility.
There are increasing challenges to the free exercise of religion in the United States. The military will reflect those challenges as a part of American society.
-
I missed the delegate's statement. If he or she was implying that Flag/General Officer selection is biased against LCMS, he or she is wrong. As far as FO/GO selection being different, that is also wrong.
There are only a few chaplain FOs/GOs at a time. Army, Navy and Air Force active duty each have one 2-star and one 1-star. The reserve components (Army, AF, Navy, Nat Guard) each have one 1-star. That makes a total of 10 chaplain FOs/GOs at a given time (6 active, 4 reserve). That is out of thousands of chaplains in the system.
FOs/GOs are board selected just like any other officer. The majority of the board are not chaplains but other FOs/GOs. A zone is established based upon date of rank to O-6 (Captain or Colonel) and all chaplains within the zone are considered equally. Only one will be selected. The denomination of the chaplains is not known or considered.
My predecessor was a very conservative Presbyterian. My successor will be a very conservative Baptist. Both my predecessor and my successor are model chaplains who have firm faith commitments and the ability to facilitate freedom of religion for all military personnel. The next one to be selected in three years may or may not be conservative but will be charged with the same responsibility.
There are increasing challenges to the free exercise of religion in the United States. The military will reflect those challenges as a part of American society.
A very minor point. Aren't there actually 11?
o Chief/Deputy in Army, Navy, & AF = 6.
o USAR, ARNG, USNR, USAFR, ANG = 5
TOTAL = 11
Peace, JOHN
-
I missed the delegate's statement. If he or she was implying that Flag/General Officer selection is biased against LCMS, he or she is wrong. As far as FO/GO selection being different, that is also wrong.
There are only a few chaplain FOs/GOs at a time. Army, Navy and Air Force active duty each have one 2-star and one 1-star. The reserve components (Army, AF, Navy, Nat Guard) each have one 1-star. That makes a total of 10 chaplain FOs/GOs at a given time (6 active, 4 reserve). That is out of thousands of chaplains in the system.
FOs/GOs are board selected just like any other officer. The majority of the board are not chaplains but other FOs/GOs. A zone is established based upon date of rank to O-6 (Captain or Colonel) and all chaplains within the zone are considered equally. Only one will be selected. The denomination of the chaplains is not known or considered.
My predecessor was a very conservative Presbyterian. My successor will be a very conservative Baptist. Both my predecessor and my successor are model chaplains who have firm faith commitments and the ability to facilitate freedom of religion for all military personnel. The next one to be selected in three years may or may not be conservative but will be charged with the same responsibility.
There are increasing challenges to the free exercise of religion in the United States. The military will reflect those challenges as a part of American society.
A very minor point. Aren't there actually 11?
o Chief/Deputy in Army, Navy, & AF = 6.
o USAR, ARNG, USNR, USAFR, ANG = 5
TOTAL = 11
Peace, JOHN
Ooops...you are right. There are 11.
-
My guess is that this is the flap being referred to.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/06/22/air-force-talking-god-retirement-ceremonies-does-not-violate-policy/86243824/
It happened back in April that a retiring AF officer wanted some traditional flag speech done at his retirement ceremony and invited a someone to give it. The Air Force told him not to give that particular speech, presumably because it mentioned God, and forcibly removed the speaker from the premises mid-speech.
An investigation followed and I think it was determined that the AF acted inappropriately and should have allowed the speech. But during that investigation all kinds of issues came up about the rights and duties of military personnel regarding expressions of faith. So I didn't hear the proposed amendment or comment from the floor of the convention, but if it talked about flag ceremonies and freedom of conscience for LCMS military personnel, I would guess this incident was in the background.
-
That seems to be the case. It was a retirement ceremony not a funeral. It appears that the commander was wrong, although I do not know about USAF protocol and retirement flag folding speeches. We don't do that in the Army. I recently attended a Navy retirement and they didn't do anything like it. If in fact the honoree is given his choice in the matter, it should be allowed. This incident may be a single local incident rather than service-wide practice.
Peace, JOHN
-
(This is my WELS blood talking): I don't understand why a chaplain would be an admiral, a corporal, and so-on-and-so-forth. Isn't he just a chaplain? What do the different ranks infer?
-
(This is my WELS blood talking): I don't understand why a chaplain would be an admiral, a corporal, and so-on-and-so-forth. Isn't he just a chaplain? What do the different ranks infer?
In the British Navy (maybe the Army as well), a chaplain has no rank. The American system is different - a chaplain is also a commissioned officer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. What matters is that we can go wherever people in uniform go and bring them Word and Sacrament.
WELS has never sent chaplains. The LCMS does and actually gives them a divine call as a missionary of the Synod.
-
And now my ex-WELS blood wonders how the American system ended up different from the American system. The British just seems more natural for the church from what little you've described, Dr. Gard.
-
And now my ex-WELS blood wonders how the American system ended up different from the American system. The British just seems more natural for the church from what little you've described, Dr. Gard.
I am uncertain why we differ. Most US Navy customs and traditions were directly adapted from the British Navy. But not this.
It was, in any case, a decision of the Kingdom of the Left.
-
My guess is that this is the flap being referred to.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/06/22/air-force-talking-god-retirement-ceremonies-does-not-violate-policy/86243824/
It happened back in April that a retiring AF officer wanted some traditional flag speech done at his retirement ceremony and invited a someone to give it. The Air Force told him not to give that particular speech, presumably because it mentioned God, and forcibly removed the speaker from the premises mid-speech.
An investigation followed and I think it was determined that the AF acted inappropriately and should have allowed the speech. But during that investigation all kinds of issues came up about the rights and duties of military personnel regarding expressions of faith. So I didn't hear the proposed amendment or comment from the floor of the convention, but if it talked about flag ceremonies and freedom of conscience for LCMS military personnel, I would guess this incident was in the background.
No, it had something to do with how a Flag Officer is promoted. The speaker said that a FO/GO also had to be approved by Congress (I think he meant the Senate). I'm still not sure of his point and I was sitting there. Of course, I wasn't sure of the point of about 90% of the proposed amendments; most of them struck me as silly or frivolous.
-
You are definitely not alone . . .
-
My guess is that this is the flap being referred to.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/06/22/air-force-talking-god-retirement-ceremonies-does-not-violate-policy/86243824/
It happened back in April that a retiring AF officer wanted some traditional flag speech done at his retirement ceremony and invited a someone to give it. The Air Force told him not to give that particular speech, presumably because it mentioned God, and forcibly removed the speaker from the premises mid-speech.
An investigation followed and I think it was determined that the AF acted inappropriately and should have allowed the speech. But during that investigation all kinds of issues came up about the rights and duties of military personnel regarding expressions of faith. So I didn't hear the proposed amendment or comment from the floor of the convention, but if it talked about flag ceremonies and freedom of conscience for LCMS military personnel, I would guess this incident was in the background.
No, it had something to do with how a Flag Officer is promoted. The speaker said that a FO/GO also had to be approved by Congress (I think he meant the Senate). I'm still not sure of his point and I was sitting there. Of course, I wasn't sure of the point of about 90% of the proposed amendments; most of them struck me as silly or frivolous.
There is a process. After selection by a statutory board, the list of new FOs/GOs works its way to the President who nominates the selected officers. This is a three to four month process and only at its conclusion are the names released. Then, in another three to four month process, the nominees must be confirmed by the Senate. Chaplains are treated as any other officers.
Theological position is not an issue. I am LCMS with all that this implies - soteriologically, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, etc. Yet I was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate.
Besides the 1st amendment, there are provisions in the US Code that protect a chaplain's confession and conscience. These are not issues in the process.
-
Amen, Chaplain Gard.
Promotions of all military, including chaplains, are done fairly and impartially. If only all other areas of our lives together were likewise we would all be much better off. Your Armed Forces are a model for much besides weapons and war tactics.
Peace, JOHN