Author Topic: Tuesday Morning  (Read 4323 times)

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4094
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning - A detour before we begin
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2019, 10:50:20 AM »
And right off the bat we have a motion we have a procedural motion by a delegate regarding Resolution 10-01 (p. 520)
The resolve is to affirm article 7 of the constitution which highlights the local nature of ministry and Synod as "advisory in nature" - "we are not a hierarchical organization"
Charmain of Task Force 10 says it was in the Omnibus because Article 7 is Article 7 and not up for debate, and it should not be divorced from the other articles of the constitution.

CCM Chair explains that this article generally refers to church governance which says something different than the what the resolution proposes.

Parliamentary claims that motions to reaffirm something are out of order because they already stand. The motion is ruled out of order.


Do we know the motivation underlying the motion? 


I ask because many secular courts in deciding any dispute between a congregation and its church body base their ruling in whole or in part on whether the church body is "hierarchical."  Courts often are reluctant to decide these matters of the merits for fear of running afoul of the First Amendment.  In these cases, the alternative is to defer to church officials.  But which church officials?  If the court determines that a church body is hierarchical (as the Roman church assuredly is), the court will defer to the church body.  If the court determines that a church is not hierarchical (as the Southern Baptist Convention seems to be), the court will defer to the congregation.  Courts don't always take this approach.  They sometimes apply neutral principles of law and reach a case's merits directly. 


In this context, the LCMS's four-decades-old dispute with Grace Lutheran Church in River Forest, Illinois, might be of interest.  In that case, the LCMS wanted to exercise a right to repurchase provision in the contract governing the 1920s sale by the LCMS/Concordia to Grace of the congregation's property.  The LCMS in that case argued that it is a hierarchical church body.  Grace argued the contrary.  The court in that case decided that it could not constitutionally decide even this point.  Here's a link to the court's opinion.  The upshot is that the court refused to decide anything, leaving the property in Grace's possession.  (As many of you no doubt know, to avoid triggering a new legal battle over the property, Grace remained at least nominally independent.  That independence may end in a few years when the right to repurchase by its terms expires.)

I don't think it has anything to do with legalities in the secular courts and everything to do with a fear about the "growing centralization" of the LCMS.


Got it.  Thanks.

Pr. Luke Zimmerman

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • 2 Timothy 3:14-15
    • View Profile
    • Minister of Mechanicsburg
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2019, 10:52:34 AM »
Back from the break and a delegate brings a motion to have 9-02 (which was brought out of omnibus and deals with commissioned ministers) to be brought before the convention prior to close of business on Wednesday.

The resolution has been prepared and should come before the convention tomorrow morning. The Chair says that it will change the orders of the day and therefore the motion requires a 2/3 vote to change the orders of the day. The chair promises that it will come up, the delegate is not mollified and wants his motion voted on. President Harrison tries to talk him down from the ledge to no avail. So we are going to waste time on a vote that will not pass (42%) to affirm something that is already going to happen.

And on to ecclesiastical supervision now 20 minutes behind schedule
After watching that, I wonder what the Floor Committee might infer from that action. Might the Floor Committee take this as a "sense of the Convention" that delegates don't actually want to adopt Overture 9-22?
Pr. Luke Zimmerman
Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church -- Mechanicsburg, PA

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2019, 11:03:41 AM »
Back from the break and a delegate brings a motion to have 9-02 (which was brought out of omnibus and deals with commissioned ministers) to be brought before the convention prior to close of business on Wednesday.

The resolution has been prepared and should come before the convention tomorrow morning. The Chair says that it will change the orders of the day and therefore the motion requires a 2/3 vote to change the orders of the day. The chair promises that it will come up, the delegate is not mollified and wants his motion voted on. President Harrison tries to talk him down from the ledge to no avail. So we are going to waste time on a vote that will not pass (42%) to affirm something that is already going to happen.

And on to ecclesiastical supervision now 20 minutes behind schedule
After watching that, I wonder what the Floor Committee might infer from that action. Might the Floor Committee take this as a "sense of the Convention" that delegates don't actually want to adopt Overture 9-22?

I doubt it. I think they will take it as "We don't want to change the schedule to do discuss something that we've already been told will be discussed tomorrow. Now sit down and let's get on with it."
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2019, 11:08:39 AM »
Back from the break and a delegate brings a motion to have 9-02 (which was brought out of omnibus and deals with commissioned ministers) to be brought before the convention prior to close of business on Wednesday.

The resolution has been prepared and should come before the convention tomorrow morning. The Chair says that it will change the orders of the day and therefore the motion requires a 2/3 vote to change the orders of the day. The chair promises that it will come up, the delegate is not mollified and wants his motion voted on. President Harrison tries to talk him down from the ledge to no avail. So we are going to waste time on a vote that will not pass (42%) to affirm something that is already going to happen.

And on to ecclesiastical supervision now 20 minutes behind schedule
After watching that, I wonder what the Floor Committee might infer from that action. Might the Floor Committee take this as a "sense of the Convention" that delegates don't actually want to adopt Overture 9-22?
I doubt it. I think they will take it as "We don't want to change the schedule to do discuss something that we've already been told will be discussed tomorrow. Now sit down and let's get on with it."
THIS
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 11:27:11 AM by prsauer »

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning - Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2019, 11:26:33 AM »
10-02A This deals with Call and Roster Matters

A lot of complicated procedural matters that affect District Presidents more than the average parish or pastor. A large part of this has to do with district membership of foreign missionaries and other specially called individuals. There has been some confusion about who owns their membership and thus, who is responsible for their direct supervision when something goes wrong.

Also deals with what to do with those whose calls end - it sets timelines for getting them on candidate status (CRM).

In a church with high levels of trust - this housekeeping item would go quickly. We'll see how it plays with this crowd which seems particularly ornery today.

Delegate calls the question right off the bat.

Point of order called asking whether this violates our standing rules by having the first speaker in the queue vote to close debate..

Chair rules that it does not. This is appealed and now we vote on whether to sustain the ruling of the chair. This passes with 55% of the vote. Now on to voting to close debate. That fails with 63% of the vote.

Back to debate.

If I understand this right - it allows missionaries to keep the president of the district their are leaving for the mission field as their ecclesiastical supervisors.

Move to amend and return 2.12.1.5 to its original language. (i.e. what is crossed out will not be crossed out).

Secretary Sias notes that the modifying one of these without modifying the others doesn't solve the issue of these bylaw revisions and therefore it would  be out of order without reviewing the impact of these changes by the CCM. President Harrison rules it out of order.

Now we seek to separate section C from the resolution. This deals with folks on CRM. That fails.

Due to the ruling out of order the delegate who proposed the 2.12.1.5 amendment, which was ruled out of order, now moves to refer it back to committee.
Concern that the proposed resolution like the Lutheran Literacy Project which serves in multiple districts, and multi-point parishes that cross districts would be affected by this.
Secretary Sias reports that RSO workers are already covered under bylaw 2.12.6 which places their supervision under the membership of the district in which the worker holds membership. District presidents have the ability to work out which district president holds primary supervision.
Confusion about "Place of Service" - John Silas on the spot again. Place of service is the actual place where the worker is working.

Orders of the day have been called. Vote to end debate on the motion to refer. 92% are done with debate on the referral. 76% do not want to refer.

Now to end debate on the main motion.89% Want to do that. And the main motion passes with 89%

And that is how you kill almost 40 minutes on a 90% resolution.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 02:05:25 PM by prsauer »

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning - Structure and Admnistration
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2019, 11:35:59 AM »
9-06 Clarify Access to Information by the Synod BOD to Synod Agencies

Designed to give Synod BOD greater access to the financial records of Synod Agencies. Concordia Plan Services, LCEF, and the Foundation all Support.

Yikes... "following the rules come into existence for a reason" theory. There is disfunction somewhere that leads to this.

Secretary Sias notes that Agencies included Synod's colleges and Universities - which if I had to guess is at the heart of this. it does not include congregations.

Vote to close debate passes with 84% Motion passes 84%
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 02:04:38 PM by prsauer »

Dave Benke

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12711
    • View Profile
    • Atlantic District, LCMS
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2019, 11:45:16 AM »
I had not looked in on these proceedings until this morning on the live stream.  Seeing a bunch of colleagues running those floor committees was nice, but wow - from the newish perspective of someone outside the rail the whole thing absent the devotions is absolutely stultifying.  Dead zone level. 

Maybe it gets better in the afternoon.

Dave Benke

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning Structure and Administration
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2019, 11:45:36 AM »
Resolution 9-07
Changes Final President Candidate List from 3 to 5.

Let Dan Gard's story be a warning.... one of you may get tasked into being a sacrificial candidate for the good of Synod.

Move to refer due to final resolved which adapts the timing of the online voting and which is going to affect the bylaw mandated timing of the ballots and voting since with 5 you will be more likely to have a runoff. Secretary Sias is called on again to give two week notification and 4 weeks prior to convention reporting. Because it is a bylaw he can't adjust that on his own. It seems that Secretary Sias has been called on more at this convention than Ray Hartwig was in the entirety of his 80 year career (for those who ate the M&Ms this number is hyperbole) as synod secretary.

Motion to refer fails.
Motion to end debate succeeds. Motion to approve the bylaw change succeeds with 70%. Timelines will also likely need to go in motion at some point.

What is behind this - someone asks (seeing politics behind everything). My speculation: It allows a safety in the event that the preferred candidate of either party runs into issues (or dies) after the list has been narrowed down.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 02:04:20 PM by prsauer »

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2019, 11:51:37 AM »
Resolution 9-08 Clarify Multi- Congregation parish representation

I got distracted talking with Concordia Ft Wayne President Rast but it looks like this resolution strips away one of the votes from multi-point parishes.

80% of folks are ok with that

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2019, 11:58:26 AM »
Resolution 9-16
Allows District Presidents access to voting lists for Synod President so they can encourage their members to vote and no one else.

Surprisingly not everyone trusts their district presidents - or more accurately they like their district president (since they keep electing him) but not the other district presidents.

Debate ends (delegates are ready for lunch). Motion carries with 56%.

Point of oder is called out about bylaws needing 2/3 - only constitution needs 2/3.

prsauer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning Structure and Administration
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2019, 12:04:51 PM »
We are going to try and squeeze one more in before lunch

9-11 Leaves residence as the standard for synod wide regional membership and congregational membership as the district level membership

Question called. motion approved 99%

President Harrison jokes that he is invoking a standing rule and we will begin 15 minutes early because to go late costs thousands and thousands of dollars.... (as does some of our inanity).

Mark Brown

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Pastor, St. Mark Lutheran, West Henrietta, NY
    • View Profile
    • Saint Mark's Website
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2019, 12:20:54 PM »
Resolution 9-08 Clarify Multi- Congregation parish representation

I got distracted talking with Concordia Ft Wayne President Rast but it looks like this resolution strips away one of the votes from multi-point parishes.

80% of folks are ok with that

That is an interesting change to emphasize and bring up.  I get it, but with the underlying fight being between a bunch of smaller typically liturgical and highly "LCMS" congregations and a smaller number of non-denom-like large congregations that often have "satellites", this would seem to tell those satellites that they aren't real places in the eyes of the Synod. Or if not that strong, it is a political action to close down one path to more voting strength for the large parish.

aletheist

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Greek aletheia = truth
    • View Profile
    • Catechism Devotional
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2019, 02:22:49 PM »
Resolution 9-08 Clarify Multi- Congregation parish representation

I got distracted talking with Concordia Ft Wayne President Rast but it looks like this resolution strips away one of the votes from multi-point parishes.

80% of folks are ok with that
That is an interesting change to emphasize and bring up.  I get it, but with the underlying fight being between a bunch of smaller typically liturgical and highly "LCMS" congregations and a smaller number of non-denom-like large congregations that often have "satellites", this would seem to tell those satellites that they aren't real places in the eyes of the Synod. Or if not that strong, it is a political action to close down one path to more voting strength for the large parish.
Or simply an encouragement to start new congregations that eventually call their own pastors, rather than maintaining multiple flocks under one shepherd long-term.
Jon Alan Schmidt, LCMS Layman

"We believe, teach and confess that by conserving the distinction between Law and Gospel as an especially glorious light
with great diligence in the Church, the Word of God is rightly divided according to the admonition of St. Paul." (FC Ep V.2)

Kevin Vogts

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2019, 04:05:06 PM »
I recently stumbled upon the proper, ancient name for a "satellite campus."  An additional worship location of a congregation is called a "Chapel of Ease," meaning that it is designed for the "ease" of attendance for members of the parish in that area.  I was surprised that this not a new development but dates back to the middle ages.  "Chapel of Ease" sounds more churchly than "satellite campus."
Rev. Kevin Vogts, Pastor
Trinity Lutheran Church
Paola, Kansas
www.trinitylcms.org

ghp

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Tuesday Morning
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2019, 08:25:45 PM »
Dan Gard shared the story of his "one foray" into synodical politics. In the 2010 election that ultimately was between Harrison and Kieschnick Secretary Hartwig went through the list of nominees for president to round out the bylaw mandated slate of 5 candidates. All declined to allow their names to stand except for one other leaving two vacancies on the slate. Dan and Carl Fickenscher were the last two names on the list and if they didn't allow their names to stand Synod would have to go through the expense of soliciting nominations again to complete the slate of candidates. - a pointless waste given that it was clear the vote was going to be between Harrison and Kieschnick.  Dan and Carl both took one for the team and reluctantly allowed their names to stand as sacrificial lambs They roomed together at the convention - perhaps the first time two candidates for presidency did so. "We weren't even given name tags"...

I was fortunate enough, during that hot & humid week in Houston nine years ago (little did I know that I'd be in my fifth year of living down here back then), to get the opportunity to share a Lutheran beverage in the Hyatt lobby bar with the candidate.  Wonderful man, wonderful conversation (wonderful Shiner Bock), and he was very tolerant of my good-natured ribbing.
--
Glen Piper
LCMS Layman (Zion - Tomball, TX)
Conroe, TX