LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 424

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

14. CONVENTION FORMAT REVIEW

14-01

Report of Convention Format
Committee

The Convention Format Committee was brought into being
by New Orleans Resolution 5-04 and has functioned since its
inception under that resolution. A careful reading of the resolu-
tion would suggest that there may be some legitimate difference
of apinion both about the specific intent of the New Orleans
resolution or interpretations of it. However the committee has
had little difficulty doing its work in the face of these potential
areas of tension. We chose to work closely with the various
officers of the Synod upon whose responsibilities we might im-
pinge and be guided by the clear rubrics of the Bylaws. Our
ultimate criteria for suggestions we are making to this con-
vention, and for the implementation of some changes that have
already taken place, were whether they were consistent with
our synodical history, acceptable to those clearly empowered
to make the appropriate decisions, and could be supported by
common sense and Christian concern. As a result there have
been no unresolved or unresolvable areas of difference on the
committee, and the report offered, together with its suggestions,
is presented without dissent.

Three members of the committee are specified in the reso-
lution, namely, Dr. J. A. O. Preus, President, Dr. Herbert
Mueller, Secretary, and Mr. William Barge, Synodical Conven-
tion Manager. Invaluable assistance was also received from the
First Vice-President of the Synod, Dr. Edwin Weber, who
attended our meetings. The Board of Directors of the Synod
elected three of its members to participate on the committee:
Mr. Rupert Dunklau, Mr. Walter Hinck, and Mr. Robert Hirsch.
The Council of Presidents elected from its membership Presi-
dent Wilbert Griesse, President Charles Mueller, and President
Ellis Nieting. As specified by the enabling resolution, Dr. Preus
appointed to the committee from those who had been delegates
to the New Orleans convention Teacher Ronald Beardsley, Mr.
Arnie Schey, and Pastor Gregory Wismar. When Mr. Schey was
no longer able to serve on the committee, Dr. Preus appointed
as a replacement Mr. Gilbert LaHaine. The committee's first
meeting was during Holy Week 1974, and it further met in
St. Louis on four other occasions for a total of 9 days.

During the time the committee functioned, it actively invited
a response from the Synod encouraging submission of sug-
gestions. About halfway through our deliberations a progress
report was prepared and submitted through the Lutheran
Witness. again encouraging response from members of the
Synod. Two progress reports were made to the Council of
Presidents, with a request for response and reaction.

All correspondence received, about eight letters in all, and
the reaction of the Council of Presidents, was shared with the
full committee. There were also brought before the committee
reactions which individual members of the committee were able
to gather through a variety of contacts within the synodical
family. It is the committee’s feeling that its work has been tested
against the will of our people and that the committee recom-
mendations reflect the best thinking of the church in this mo-
ment on the matter of conducting synodical conventions. Fur-
ther improvements and refinements for the 1977 convention will
fall to the special floor committee which will function during
the Anaheim convention as outlined in the fifth resolve of New
Orleans Resolution 5-04.

General Observations

One of the things which your committee discovered is that
conventions of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod stand
unique among similar gatherings conducted by other church
bodies. The uniqueness stems from two characteristics.

1. Its size. It is estimated that the convention will have about
1,800 official members as delegates, alternate delegates, and
official representatives. We could find no other church body that
gathers so large a number of individuals together to participate
in the decision-making process as do we. It should be noted

427

that in less than 35 years the size of our convention has more
than doubled. from the 835 who participated in 1944, through the
1,575 who participated in the New Orleans convention, to the
anticipated 1.800 at Anaheim. This is to be compared with the
150 or so who participated in our convention of 120 years ago.
As a matter of fact, the number of individuals who serve on
floor committees today is twice the number of the total con-
vention participants of 1854. Sheer size is a very serious con-
cern which affects the way we conduct convention business.
It would appear that if this matter is left unattended our con-
ventions will only get larger and even more cumbersome. Some
of the tension experienced at and through conventions is un-
avoidable in the face of so many coming with the expectation
of being heard. If every person attending the Anaheim con-
vention who has the right to speak on the floor were to make
only a 2-minute presentation. it would take six 10-hour days of
convention in session to grant to all the privilege which is at
least theoretically theirs.

2. The nature of our conventions. We have very distinct pur-
poses in gathering, purposes which are outlined in Bylaws 1.21
and 1.27. Bylaw 1.21 states: “The delegate convention of the
Synod shall be the Synod's chief legislative assembly.” It fur-
ther states that this convention “shall establish policies, pro-
grams, and procedures to carry on the Synod’s work.” Bylaw
1.27 states: “The principal business of a synodical convention
shall be the consideration of reports and overtures.” How can all
that be translated into convention action? For some these ques-
tions are very simple. But a careful reading of the various rubrics
under which the Synod operates (including Article VII of the
Constitution) must be considered before an easy answer is
offered.

The committee decided to work on correcting areas of un-
necessary potential misunderstanding. areas of procedure
which might better enhance the process of orderly decision
making, and areas of heightening the sense of involvement and
participation on the part of all members of the Synod. And all
of this was done with a further encouragement from the en-
abling resolution to, “provide for more inspiration, information,
and fellowship.”

To this end, and with the generous cooperation of the
Synod’s Secretary, Dr. Herbert Mueller (upon whom would fall
a significant portion of the increased work load), efforts have
been made to expand the time frame of preconvention activity
in order to allow more information for all our membership. We
wish to do this in such a way that we would have a longer period
of time to consider those actions and expand opportunities for
useful reaction on the part of all members of the Synod, in-
cluding members of the Anaheim convention. All of this has been
done within the framework of our Constitution and Bylaw re-
quirements.

By the time this report is read, our suggestion that floor com-
mittees prepare their proposed resolutions well in advance of
the convention sessions themselves, that resolutions be numeri-
cally prioritized by the floor committee as an aid to decision
making, and that certain changes in procedure be instituted, will
have been implemented. The convention will be asked to adopt
Standing Rules which, in the estimation of the Convention
Format Committee, will protect the rights of individuals, allow
the majority on any question to accomplish its will, and provide
for orderly exchange and debate so that the minority, if it be
persuasive enough, might become the majority. And all this in
an atmosphere conducive to expeditious conducting of con-
vention business.

The committee also recognized that’ there had to be greater
interaction and sharing between official members of this conven-
tion in order that communication might be improved, miscon-
ceptions alleviated, fellowship increased, and the decision-
making process enhanced. To this end it is our recommendation
that the convention be formed into small groups meeting at
regular periods through the convention for Bible study, evan-
gelical exchange, discussion of appropriate matters, and mutual
edification. It is our feeling that the time expended in this
procedure will lead to an increased effectiveness of convention