LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 124

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

and women who can be called upon to serve the church.
Fears have been expressed that this will result in
minority rule. This is not the case. We are talking here
- only of nominations, which can be supplemented of
- course by any single delegate from the floor. Further-
“more, the electing process still remains with the sum
total of the delegates. Whoever has the votes on the floor
“has the power to elect. The majority principal will
“eontinue to prevail.

Ballot Box Review

: The term of office for the officers of the Synod has
“been set at three years to enable the “stock holders” of
“the Synod to pass judgment through their represen-
tatives on the performance of their officers. Originally it
"had been planned to have also the elected boards serve
. three-year terms, but in order to avoid the possibility of
an entirely new board being elected at one time it was
- finally decided to recommend a six-year term for the
elected boards. The appointed boards can still serve
three year terms because the appointing authorities can
always seeto it that there is some overlap of membership
where needed.
Wecould refer to additional checks and balances, but
time does not permit. ,
_ Perhapsin order to sum up this particular section we
need to remind ourselves that no matter how carefully a
structure may be developed to avoid centralization of
power and authority, the determination will finally be
made by the caliber of the people whom you elect to
office. If these persons are inclined to be dictatorial,
abrasive, inconsiderate, arbitrary in the way they deal
with their responsibilities and with the people of Christ,
then the most carefully developed structure will not
stand in their way. However, if you elect honorable men
and women who recognize the basic principle that in the
Church one is our Master even Christ, and that we are
all brothers, sisters, and servants one of another who
seek to be of help to one another in Christian love, then
weneed not fear a militaristic or dictatorial approach on
their part under the structures that are being proposed.

* * *

Finally, let it be said that we all have our different
opinions, even within Task Force II, as to what might be
the very best possible structure for our beloved Synod.
That is understandable, since our Lord has not pre-
scribed the polity for His church on earth.

However, let us remember that much study, not only
on the part of the present Task Force but of previous
committees, has gone into the proposals that have now
reached their maturation. In other words, what is being
proposed is not the product of impulsive thinking. Very,
very few constitutional changes are being recommend-
ed. Our Constitution has served us well. The basic
structure of the Synod will remain unchanged under our
recommendations. Furthermore, what is being proposed
is not the law of the Medes and Persians. If some of the
proposals which we place before you do not stand the
acid test of experience, Bylaw changes can be made at

SPECIAL PRESENTATION OF TASK FORCE II

125

any and every convention of the Synod. In fact, we are
proposing asmall standing Commission on Structure to
keep these matters under review and to make recom-
mendations to the next convention regarding any
additional fine tuning that needs to be done.

So, brothers and sisters, let us be open minded and
open hearted to one another and approach these issues
calmly, trusting one another, realizing that all of us
have the best interest of the Synod at heart, and
remembering also that in our common love for our
Savior, we will be willing to try new things for Him.

Weare living in anew day. Exciting times are ahead
for our Synod and some of us wish that we were 20 years
younger. Let us not run away from the future, but rather
welcome the new day, retaining what is good in our
structure, but also willing at all times to try new things
for Him in whom we ourselves are—wonder of won-
ders—a new creation!

To Him be the glory—and the government in the
Church—for ever and ever (1 Peter 5:11).

Herbert Mueller, Chairman

(Outline of Visual Presentation)

I. Reason for Study
A. Broad Charge by Synod in Convention—1979

1. To study and review frequency of conven-
tions

2. To study alternative to Assembly concept

3. To determine number of boards and com-
mittees required

4. To define roles and relationships of boards,
executives, Board of Directors, President,
convention, other decision-making groups

5. To develop plan of implementation and
schedule

6. To encourage widest possible consideration
of study by and from congregations, Cir-
cuits, and Districts

7. To continue work and assignment of Task
Force I

B. Time, Effort, Money Expended on Past
Studies

1956—1962 Survey Committee

Denver—1969

. Milwaukee—1971

. New Orleans—1973

. Anaheim—1975

. Dallas—1977

. St. Louis—1979

II. Membership,Task Force II

Kermit A. Brashear, II, Omaha, NE, Lawyer
John L. Daniel, Emmaus, PA, Business
Executive

* Gilbert R. Heine, Seward, NE, Dean of
Development Affairs, Concordia Teachers
College

* The Rev. Richard T. Hinz, Washington, DC,
President, Southeastern District

NOUPONHE