Saturday, July 29, 2006

News Report CTCR May Action (2)

Overature to Consider Split of Synod ruled Unconstitutional

From the CCM's minutes:

"A district president in a letter dated March 9, 2006, provided a copy of an overture submitted to his district convention advocating a “respectful separation” because of factions within the Synod. The overture advocates that the district “affirm the desire to seek and promote a respectful and fair separation” of the Synod and the appointment of a “bipartisan” committee to investigate the possibility of such a separation."


"Therefore, it is in violation of the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod for a district in convention to consider a memorial that promotes a division of the Synod, given the synodwide consequence of such a proposal."

1. a district was memorialized by those who sought to dissolve the Synod.
2. the CCM has ruled such a request, even if passed, has no consitutional validity
3. Overatures to the convention come from congregations and districts filtered through the committees

Implication: even if a district, (s) or all of them requested such, it would not be brought to the floor of the convention.

Question: if a district's overature is unconsitutional, and a congregation is a member of Synod and hence part of its mission, would it's overature also be unconstitutional?

Here is what I hear in the question and answer but you can evaluate to see if you hear it too

1. Some people are very upset about issues and they have little hope in the current administration to bring resolution. There is a lack of hope and trust and so they are seeking to leave. Now I believe a climate of hope and trust if the responsibility first and foremost of the leadership to create in their leading not so much for the followers to create in their obeying. Authority for me is always about responsibility and service not issuance of orders and imposition of vision. Set a vision yes! But a vision adopted because it is seen as valuable (even under scrutiny) not because an organizational framework is butressed around it so that the vision is defended by the fort of bureaucracy.

2. The number of people upset is sufficient to cause enough concern for a question to be posed to the CCM.

3. The extreme nature of the ruling suggests that perhaps there is fear of the possible passage of such a resolution if it saw the convention floor.

It is also an interesting observation now that we have a more liberal/moderate administration regarding the use of legalistic techniques to push an agenda. We used to hear criticism when the administration was more conservative and took stronger stands on traditional understandings that such was legalistic and imposed on the freedom of the Synod, the Gospel, and the conscience. One can see that an adminstration can be tempted to fall back onto a butressed layer of bylaw and interpretation to defend any agenda, it does not matter if the agenda is conservative, progressive, liberal, moderate, or whatever. The deciding factor is whether the vision is strong and true or frail and thereby in need of extra armor to protect it.


Post a Comment

<< Home