LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

10

SYNOD REPORTS

be new and most likely inexperienced in the process of a Synod
convention.
• Since we already know the identity of and contact information
for the 2007 delegates, communication opportunities with them
regarding task force recommendations are immediately available.
• There is a possible if not probable expectation among 2007 delegates that a special convention will be held.
• There exists an established trust level among the 2007 delegates
that developed at the convention this summer.
• “Fresher” delegates at a special convention could devote their time
and attention exclusively to structure and governance matters and
would not need to consider other matters regularly brought before
a Synod convention.
• A special convention, which would have been held in August 2009,
would enable more time for planning the 2010 convention and for
implementing any amendments to structure, governance, elections,
etc. that would have been adopted by the 2009 convention.
• The Council of Presidents in February 2007 urged the Blue Ribbon
Task Force to move forward with possible special convention plans
rather than experience an unnecessary delay in implementing recommended changes to structure and governance of the Synod.
• Most current district presidents could provide leadership at a special 2009 convention. Any new district presidents elected at 2009
district conventions, to succeed those who retire or have term limits, would be less familiar with the history, the role of the COP in
this process, the necessity and wisdom of task force recommendations, etc.
• Projected cost savings resulting from structural amendments
adopted by a special convention in 2009 could be realized without further delay.
Cons

• Uncertainty exists regarding the thoughts and intentions of the 70
percent of delegates who voted for Res. 8-07S. (For instance, is the
“urgent necessity” of a special convention perceived by the delegates, or are delegates counting on the Synod President and district
presidents to make that determination?)
• The attrition of numerous 2007 delegates is certain, and there is
uncertainty of the “readiness to serve” of those who would replace
them.
• Personal scheduling conflicts could arise regarding a late summer
convention that would affect the ability of delegates to attend.
• The possibility exists that special-convention delegates would not
approve task force recommendations, resulting in unproductive
time and financial expenditure.
• The criteria for determination of and concurrence regarding the
“urgent necessity” of calling a special convention (Art. VIII B 2)
are not definitive.
• Lack of consensus in the Synod of the urgent necessity for calling
a special convention would not contribute to peace and harmony
in the Synod.
• Because the task force intends to develop recommendations only
after comprehensive consultation with local, district, and national
Synod leaders, its progress and case statement are not yet fully
enough developed and communicated to make a convincing case
for the urgent need for a special convention.
• Time constraints and pressure to meet the deadlines for a special
convention would make it more difficult for the task force to complete its task in a timely and thoughtful fashion.

• There would be less time to process feedback from the church at
large regarding recommended amendments to the Synod’s structure and governance.
• Understandably, district presidents’ responses to the task force’s
theological principles document is unknown, since it has not yet
been thoroughly considered and discussed.
• Understandably, district presidents’ commitment to exercising leadership in acceptance of a special convention and approval of task
force recommendations is unknown, since recommendations have
not yet been articulated by the task force.
• The cost to districts and congregations for a 2009 special convention would be incurred in addition to the costs for the 2009 district
conventions and the 2010 Synod regular convention.
• Logistics would be complicated in planning two Synod conventions in two years.
Accordingly, after giving careful and prayerful consideration to
these pros and cons, I have communicated my recommendations to
the Council of Presidents as follows:
• I have decided not to call a special 2009 convention of the Synod.
In addition to the considerations noted above, the urgent necessity
of amending the structure and governance of the Synod makes it
critical to spend sufficient time, provide for clear communication,
and seek adequate feedback in order to develop a clear consensus
in the Synod on these important matters.
• The district presidents will not be asked to vote on this matter, since
the president is not calling a special convention.
• Task force recommendations will be considered at the regular convention of the Synod in 2010.
• Prior to the 2009 district conventions, the delegates to the 2007
Synod convention should be surveyed by the task force for their
input regarding proposed task force recommendations.
• The task force should meet with district boards of directors in late
2008 to review its report and recommendations and receive further
input for task force consideration.
• The President of the Synod and the task force should present recommendations to the 2009 district conventions for discussion, Q&A,
and feedback.
• The President of the Synod and the task force should conduct
numerous regional caucuses for 2010 delegates and other district
leaders after the 2010 delegates are elected and certified (late 2009
through early 2010).
• Regional caucuses would provide feedback to the task force from
the 2010 delegates and district leaders in attendance, resulting in
appropriate changes by the task force to its recommendations prior
to the 2010 convention.
• After these caucuses, the 2010 delegates and district leaders should
be surveyed regarding amended task force recommendations, thus
providing valuable feedback for task force consideration in formulating its final report and recommendations to the 2010 convention.
• Participation in this process by 2010 delegates and other district
leaders would allow them to offer significant input and would lead
to greater consensus throughout the Synod regarding task force
recommendations.
• The first 2–3 days at the beginning of the 2010 convention would
be used to consider task force recommendations prior to regular
convention activities, elections, other resolutions and business, etc.
• Decisions of the 2010 convention regarding bylaw amendments
would be effective immediately, per the current bylaws regarding
such amendments.

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 10

4/15/10 2:37 PM