Agreed, and thank you. The Convention is meant to legislate and inspire. The inspire part is playing to a very small but overrepresented group of ultraconservative (not an overstatement) faction of pastors and laity that are not representative of the entirety of the Synod. Perhaps a virtual format for making decisions, especially in light of decreasing contributions to Synod Inc is the prudent thing to do.
Please define "ultraconservative faction of pastors and laity".
And obviously by definition, a "faction" is “not representative of the entirety of the Synod”.
In addition to “legislate and inspire”, a Convention also includes “debate”. According to the Standing Rules, the Synod Convention allows up to 30 minutes of debate by delegates on a main resolution motion, and up to 45 minutes for the presentation and debate of amendments to that resolution.
Right…and there are no strategic “I call the question” to stifle debate. Since most of the Synod is made up of small congregations, they are over represented,; larger churches have little voice and most are not heard in “debate”. My experience, your mileage may vary.
Yes, of course. In the 2 Conventions I was a pastoral delegate were dramatically different. In 2010 the move was to elect Pres. Kieshnick. I blended in OK and even with dissent allowed at the microphones. The next time was when Pres. Harrison was elected. The whole convention had a totally different vibe (or feel) to it. There was a minimal debate and it was obvious to me that a whole different tenor of what little debate there was. Years ago I postulated that if the “Confessional” group ever got their act together and stopped fighting with each other, they would have a good chance of bringing the Synod back to a pre-Kieshnick piety and they have certainly succeeded in that in spades. This is your grandfather’s Synod,.
Still no definition for the alleged "very small but overrepresented group of ultraconservative (not an overstatement) faction of pastors and laity".
Such an alleged small ultraconservative faction cannot be small congregations since you have conceded that “most of the Synod is made up of small congregations”.
And Bylaw 3.1.2 describes how the delegate representation of the congregations is to be determined.
Agreed, and thank you. The Convention is meant to legislate and inspire. The inspire part is playing to a very small but overrepresented group of ultraconservative (not an overstatement) faction of pastors and laity that are not representative of the entirety of the Synod. Perhaps a virtual format for making decisions, especially in light of decreasing contributions to Synod Inc is the prudent thing to do.
Please define "ultraconservative faction of pastors and laity".
And obviously by definition, a "faction" is “not representative of the entirety of the Synod”.
In addition to “legislate and inspire”, a Convention also includes “debate”. According to the Standing Rules, the Synod Convention allows up to 30 minutes of debate by delegates on a main resolution motion, and up to 45 minutes for the presentation and debate of amendments to that resolution.
Right…and there are no strategic “I call the question” to stifle debate. Since most of the Synod is made up of small congregations, they are over represented,; larger churches have little voice and most are not heard in “debate”. My experience, your mileage may vary.
The Synod is a representative body, not a one-man-one-vote polity. It must remain such.
Yes, of course. In the 2 Conventions I was a pastoral delegate were dramatically different. In 2010 the move was to elect Pres. Kieshnick. I blended in OK and even with dissent allowed at the microphones. The next time was when Pres. Harrison was elected. The whole convention had a totally different vibe (or feel) to it. There was a minimal debate and it was obvious to me that a whole different tenor of what little debate there was. Years ago I postulated that if the “Confessional” group ever got their act together and stopped fighting with each other, they would have a good chance of bringing the Synod back to a pre-Kieshnick piety and they have certainly succeeded in that in spades. This is your grandfather’s Synod,.
Still no definition for the alleged "very small but overrepresented group of ultraconservative (not an overstatement) faction of pastors and laity".
Such an alleged small ultraconservative faction cannot be small congregations since you have conceded that “most of the Synod is made up of small congregations”.
And Bylaw 3.1.2 describes how the delegate representation of the congregations is to be determined.
If you have to ask, you should already know…..
You posted the phrase “very small but overrepresented group of ultraconservative faction of pastors and laity”.
I asked you for your definition.
The response, “If you have to ask, you should already know” falls under both "begging the question" and “No True Scotsman” fallacies.
If you have to ask…..c’mon.