LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 23

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION 23

concern to synodical boards or commissions before
approaching the convention. This resolution was
adopted with the addition of Overture 6-51 (CW 268) to
the list of overtures. Prior to adopting the resolution a
motion asking that Overture 3-12A-C be related to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations rather
than the Commission on Worship was adopted. The
entire resolution was then adopted as amended.

Resolution B

Dr. Mueller next presented Res. B, which refers
petitioners bringing certain overtures to previous con-
vention action dealing with the issues addressed by
these overtures. Prior to adopting the resolution the
delegates declined an amendment to strike Overture
3-27 from the list and to refer it back to the committee for
consideration. Prior to presenting the resolution Dr.
Mueller pointed out that Overture 3-45 and Overture
5-11 had been stricken by the committee. He also
pointed out that Dallas Res. 3-10 should be 3-10A and
that St. Louis Res. 3-10A should be St. Louis Res. 3-10 in
lines 24 and 25. In addition, Overture 3-39 and the words
“Conscientious Objectors” should be moved to line 25.

Task Force II

Chairman Happel of the Committee on Task Force I
introduced Dr. Herbert Mueller and Mr. Kermit
Brashear to present an overview of the proposals being
presented by Task Force II to the convention.

Dr. Mueller provided a historical overview of the past
efforts which had been carried out for restructuring of
the Synod and briefly reviewed the procedure which
was followed by Task Force II in carrying out its task.
The major question which faced the Task Force was the
question “What are the functions of the Synod?” In
their evaluation they determined that the major func-
tions were that the Synod is to serve in support of its
congregations and that it is secondly to serve in behalf
of its congregations. These two thoughts guided the
Task Force in its restructuring efforts.

He also pointed out that two major directives had
been given by the Synod in previous conventions. The
first of these was that any structure was to preserve the
congregational polity of church government and second-
ly there was to be an avoidance of centralization of
power within the synodical structure. It was for this
reason that Task Force II in its proposals emphasized
the role of the congregation and sought to reactivate the
Circuits. In addition, it recognized that a major problem
was that of franchise. In detailing the proposals of the
Task Force Dr. Mueller pointed out that in order to avoid
inconsistencies, the congregation was being given
the right to make its decisions on its representative
delegates.

. Turning to the matter of centralization of power, Dr.
Mueller pointed out that there must be a clear desig-
nation of a line of accountability and a setting of
responsibility. The Board of Directors is not the govern-
ing body of the Synod. The convention is the governing
body of the Synod. Nevertheless, it is desirable to have

one board for coordination between conventions of the
Synod. The Board of Directors may recommend but it
cannot require certain actions which are delegated to
other boards of the Synod. In further efforts to avoid
centralization of power each District will be asked to
elect members of the Nominating Committee if the
recommendations of the Task Force are adopted. In the
final analysis Dr. Mueller pointed out the matter of
centralization or noncentralization of power depends on
the caliber of people who are elected to office. They are
the ones who will determine whether centralization will
or will not occur.

Following the presentation of Dr. Mueller, Kermit
Brashear, a member of the Task Force, by means of a
slide presentation, illustrated the proposed Bylaw
changes related to structure, franchise, and other
matters.

Following the presentation Chairman Happel intro-
duced Res. 2-02 (7B 45), which called for the amendment
of Article VIII and Article XII of the Constitution of the
Synod. This was done after the words “the Synod in
convention has decided to introduce” were replaced by
the words “Task Force II has recommended” by the
committee in line 66 (TB 45). After brief discussion
Article VIII and Article XII of the Constitution of the
Synod were changed as proposed, both proposals hav-
ing been adopted separately by the necessary two-thirds
majority of the delegates.

Dr. Arnold Kuntz, President of the Southern
California District and a member of Task Force II,
introduced Res. 2-01 (TB 45), which was intended to
establish convention cycles and terms of office. Prior to
introducing the resolution the committee deleted line 30,
and lines 50—51 (TB 45). In the discussion which
followed an amendment calling for the deletion of lines
26 and 27 (7B 45) was declined as was an amendment
asking that the phrase “that full-time officers have
unlimited tenure” be replaced with the words “that full-
time officers have limited tenure” and that the com-
mittee be asked to return with a recommendation for
designation of the limited period of time. An amendment
to delete the words “at the discretion of the Circuit” in
line 18 (TB 45) was adopted. However, an amendment
asking that the number of advisory clergymen and
teachers be one for every 45 instead of one for every 60
was declined. Time expired before final action could be
taken on Res. 2-01.

Closing Devotion

The first session of the convention was closed witha
brief prayer lead by President Preus.

Session 2

July 4, Afternoon
Opening Devotion
Dr. August Suelflow, director of Concordia Historical
Institute, led the delegates in the singing of “America,
the Beautiful” as the opening song for the devotion.
Slightly altering the theme of the convention, he said_