Floor Committee 12 - Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution

[Matt Staneck]

Yikes. Simple majority. Wild. Though young, I remember a time when some folks opined it was sad that our important resolutions and elections went forward with only simple majorities. Now....? 

M. Staneck

[John_Hannah]

From my position these days as an armchair quarterback on the other side of the Hudson:
a) the motion to refer came too soon to be effective - the group hadn't wrestled sufficiently with the issue on the convention floor
b) the house is definitely divided
c) the resolution will, I predict, pass by a pretty close margin unless
d) something is happening behind the scenes of which I am thankfully and blissfully unaware but would applaud from afar if it came to pass.

Dave Benke

PS - does not need 2/3, only simple majority

So if it passes 51%-49% it goes into effect. I would then expect that a small minority will abuse this measure and act as if they have been given a mandate. So much for konoinia.   

Peace, JOHN

[Mark Brown]

From my position these days as an armchair quarterback on the other side of the Hudson:
a) the motion to refer came too soon to be effective - the group hadn't wrestled sufficiently with the issue on the convention floor
b) the house is definitely divided
c) the resolution will, I predict, pass by a pretty close margin unless
d) something is happening behind the scenes of which I am thankfully and blissfully unaware but would applaud from afar if it came to pass.

Dave Benke

PS - does not need 2/3, only simple majority

So if it passes 51%-49% it goes into effect. I would then expect that a small minority will abuse this measure and act as if they have been given a mandate. So much for konoinia.   

Peace, JOHN

Two thoughts:
1) This is all de jure humano stuff.  Nobody is abolishing the office or adding people illegitimately to it.  As such it is the very definition of politics, and in our culture that means simple majority.  The amount of griping is always proportional to whose ox is being gored and how big their microphone is.  While the healthy response is either persuading for change or reconciling to walk together.
2) My real guess is that Harrison would use this not as a tool of inquisition to empower that small minority, but it would be used strategically, like a nuclear weapon that you never actually use.  He's already proved he will drop the big one in the Becker case.  So, when that small minority tries again with someone else not as out of step, he simply says no or reaffirms the DP ruling and solidifies his desired roll as the uniter of the 85% of Missouri.  At the same time just having such a weapon makes conversations with DPs more meaningful in that he might get the decisions he wants out of them without even mentioning it.  It might be contentious now, but it probably leads to much less contention if passed.

[mariemeyer]

Delegate Peters writes...

"The CCM opinion was late because it was only requested May 29, 2016, by a DP.  DPs knew what the task force said and what the floor committee proposed for 45 days and it did not stop them from using this as campaign fodder against it but now suddenly when it comes up on the floor no one knew?  I do not believe the denials are credible.  In this age of email, texts, cell phones, etc... it is possible for DPs to react and respond to this.  The problem lies in the fact that the DPs are divided over this.  While 7 got up to speak against it, there were DPs (including two on the very floor committee that proposed this) who agreed with the proposal but did not speak."

Point of Information: Who appointed the two DPs to the floor committee that proposed the resolution?

Clearly the COP is divided.  From the outside looking in the division reflects a lack of trust among LCMS leaders at the district and synodical level.  To date the Koinonia project seems not to have contributed to greater unity among elected leaders.  Rather claiming the synod is more united than it was just a few years ago, what steps might be taken to address the reality being played out within our church body.

[peter_speckhard]

Delegate Peters writes...

"The CCM opinion was late because it was only requested May 29, 2016, by a DP.  DPs knew what the task force said and what the floor committee proposed for 45 days and it did not stop them from using this as campaign fodder against it but now suddenly when it comes up on the floor no one knew?  I do not believe the denials are credible.  In this age of email, texts, cell phones, etc... it is possible for DPs to react and respond to this.  The problem lies in the fact that the DPs are divided over this.  While 7 got up to speak against it, there were DPs (including two on the very floor committee that proposed this) who agreed with the proposal but did not speak."

Point of Information: Who appointed the two DPs to the floor committee that proposed the resolution?

Clearly the COP is divided.  From the outside looking in the division reflects a lack of trust among LCMS leaders at the district and synodical level.  To date the Koinonia project seems not to have contributed to greater unity among elected leaders.  Rather claiming the synod is more united than it was just a few years ago, what steps might be taken to address the reality being played out within our church body.

Well, the project is up against a pretty ingrained distrust and degree of cynicism, as evidenced by John above when he writes, "I would then expect that a small minority will abuse this measure and act as if they have been given a mandate." Expectations tend to shape how we interpret things. Everything will be a bust from the get-go if we simply assume that it will be a bust or treat trust as though it means them trusting me but not me trusting them. And I think John's honest statement reflects an attitude that is fairly common throughout synod on both sides.

I think the answer to your question starts with everyone asking themselves what they're willing to give up for the sake of genuine koinonia. If we will only go along with koinonia to the degree that it makes no demands of us or requires no change in our attitudes or cherished behaviors or polices (while agreeing it might call for such from some others in synod) then we aren't really even trying. And I think this little exercise I'm proposing will sting a bit in terms of law being applied for anyone who tries it.

[prsauer]

President announces that an attempt at compromise on 12-01A is underway. The COP is currently meeting. This is brilliant and raises my hope for the church. At the end of the day I can agree or disagree with the resolution, but I would just want stakeholder's voices to be heard. We will see  and keep you posted...

[prsauer]

We move on to 12-04a - lots of numbers being read about changes - I'm lost (the understanding number dropping down well below 50% - and that was with the appropriate caffeination this morning)

I believe this changes the timelines within the dispute resolution process to speed up the process.

[prsauer]

So you can blame Dan Gard, Jeremy Loesch, and Scott Yakimow for that last gap in reporting> I should have never revealed my location

[prsauer]

We are now on to 12-11 - Provides districts with a mechanism for removing an individual on the board not fulfilling the duties of their office.

This does not apply to district presidents.

A request for a rewording in the event that we come to point in the history of the US where a pastor my commit a felony by being faithful to his call. President indicates that the bylaws are flexible. Although from my point of view if it reaches that point we will have bigger problems than membership on boards of synod.

And the vote goes on hold as a delegate questions whether this really does not apply to the DP. Not sure how this was resolved (batting about 25% this morning - the afternoon has to be better right!).

Well past the orders of the day we pass the resolution with 75% or so of the vote.

Floor Committee chair clarifies that the CCM will remove the confusing language from the resolution prior to publication.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well past the orders of the day we pass the resolution with 75% or so of the vote.

Floor Committee chair clarifies that the CCM will remove the confusing language from the resolution prior to publication.

How can the wording of a resolution be changed after it has been approved?

[prsauer]

President announces that an attempt at compromise on 12-01A is underway. The COP is currently meeting. This is brilliant and raises my hope for the church. At the end of the day I can agree or disagree with the resolution, but I would just want stakeholder's voices to be heard. We will see  and keep you posted...

Word is that the COP, CCM, and Board of Directors have gotten together to talk through things and this may not come back before the convention and instead a task force representing each of those groups and the office of president may try and work through these issues.

If so, this would be a wonderful model of churchmanship on the part of President Harrison and probably do more to further the unity, collegiality, and trust level of the church than any resolution we could pass.

The matter, so it seems, is now in the hands of President Harrison to make a decision.

[Matt Staneck]

Word is that the COP, CCM, and Board of Directors have gotten together to talk through things and this may not come back before the convention and instead a task force representing each of those groups and the office of president may try and work through these issues.

If so, this would be a wonderful model of churchmanship on the part of President Harrison and probably do more to further the unity, collegiality, and trust level of the church than any resolution we could pass.

The matter, so it seems, is now in the hands of President Harrison to make a decision.

Fascinating. Any idea when this could be made clear?

M. Staneck

[prsauer]

Fascinating. Any idea when this could be made clear?

M. Staneck

No idea. Nothing has been announced - I have only heard rumblings. Ultimately, all of this is under the purview of President Harrison. He seems to have a genuine concern about the unity of the church and a care for churchmanship in the church (I can't think of too many other Synodical leaders who have apologized as much as he has over the course of their tenure), so I would be very surprised not to see him push this to an expanded task force for the sake of unity and harmony within the church.

[Dave Benke]

President announces that an attempt at compromise on 12-01A is underway. The COP is currently meeting. This is brilliant and raises my hope for the church. At the end of the day I can agree or disagree with the resolution, but I would just want stakeholder's voices to be heard. We will see  and keep you posted...

They have heard my plea/on ALPB/see my post from today/and all shout out YEA!

Dave Benke

[John_Hannah]

President announces that an attempt at compromise on 12-01A is underway. The COP is currently meeting. This is brilliant and raises my hope for the church. At the end of the day I can agree or disagree with the resolution, but I would just want stakeholder's voices to be heard. We will see  and keep you posted...

They have heard my plea/on ALPB/see my post from today/and all shout out YEA!

Dave Benke

OK. That is if it turns out well as we pray it will.