In Part I of my convention report I suggested how LCMS convention delegates might approach making their decisions based on their theological perspective. I’m using a broad brushstroke here, but my thinking going into the convention was that the typical delegate to the LCMS convention would be theologically conservative, have a life-long (or close) association with the LCMS, would be largely supportive of their church body, and would trust the LCMS and its leadership.
There is no question that some people walked away from the convention feeling deeply disappointed. I’ve read comments made by some very dejected people, which frankly, I consider very uncharitable. And there were people that left feeling elated – and comments made and published by some of these I thought were also very uncharitable. Frankly, reading those kinds of perspectives is deeply disappointing to me because they mirror the ugly divisions we see in secular culture. I sincerely believe that these deep divisions corrode the fellowship and destroy our witness of Christ.
Those that left most disappointed were likely the delegates that would find themselves left of the center on the spectrum of LCMS theological perspectives. Remember, however, that these would be folks whose theological identity is still quite conservative – in both doctrine and practice – as compared to North American Christianity – but seen as theologically liberal within the LCMS. These delegates likely came to the convention feeling that they would be heard, and their positions would be considered when the delegates voted. And likely, they were heard, but the driving force behind the voting was the very conservative perspectives of the typical delegate.
There are several places where you can find out how the elections turned out, which resolutions were approved, and which were rejected – and by what margins. You can even watch the recorded sessions of the entire convention at this website: (https://www.lcms.org/convention/national/livestream).
Because of this, I will not be providing a blow-by-blow perspective of the convention in the rest of this report. You can get specifics at these various places. What I hope to do is to give you a sense of the gestalt of the convention – including how the things said and seen impacted the folks at the convention.
Before I proceed, let me put everything on the table: I like traditional worship and contemporary worship. Given my druthers, I’d prefer to attend a traditional service, but would in no way attempt to bind a brother by requiring him to lead worship the way I prefer. In the congregation that I am currently serving, Spanish predominates, bilingual elements are liberally used. We do not have the budget to call a musician, so I lead worship using a guitar for both liturgy, hymnody, and spiritual songs. So, while I prefer traditional worship, as long as contemporary worship showcases Word and Sacrament and allows the worshipper to focus on Christ and his forgiveness – I am ok with worshipping this way.
I sit squarely at the center of the LCMS distribution that I shared in Part I of my convention report. I respect my leaders; I care about my church body – and especially its witness. I truly loath the party spirit that drives so many of the comments and attitudes of my brothers and sisters in Christ. So, given those understandings, I will offer my perspectives to you right from the middle.
WORHIP
Worship at the convention was very well done. The opening worship service was quite beautiful with choral and instrumental accompaniment. The District Presidents, Synodical Vice Presidents and many others served as communion assistants and impressively communed the thousand-plus people present in a quite orderly manner. There were a variety of preachers throughout the week. I believe all the Synodical Vice Presidents had the opportunity to preach during the Matins services each morning. There was also a worship service at noon and at the closing of each day. A variety of choirs and instruments and languages were highlighted at the various opportunities to worship. All were done with excellence. I was overjoyed for the opportunity to worship our wonderful Lord throughout the day and throughout the week.
HOW THE CONVENTION WAS CONDUCTED
Putting on the LCMS National Convention must be a monumental task. Very well-deserved kudos to all the organizers. The person that was the driving force behind much of the planning was MS. Barb Below. While some may disagree, it seemed that the convention was appropriately led. President Harrison was winsome and “in command” as he worked the chair's role. From my perspective, he worked hard to be even-handed, while trying to move the convention business sessions forward. The sessions started timely and ended timely each day.
It was a busy time for the delegates. We were busy and engaged the whole time that sessions were being conducted. You had to make your own potty breaks because none were scheduled. I stand amazed at the stamina of those who chaired the convention. While President Harrison was at the Chair’s podium most of the time, there were times when one of the Vice Presidents or a District President led the proceedings.
Kudos as well to the Secretary of Synod and the staff present to support production of each issue of Today’s Business. Secretary Sias was impressive and demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Synod’s bylaws.
ELECTIONS
President Scott Sailer, DP from South Dakota, led the group that guided the elections. He was professional in conducting the elections. President Sailer worked through the many elections expeditiously, despite the initial problems and delays with the electronic election system – most apparently caused by the interference created by cell phones whose network functions were not put into airplane mode, as the delegates were directed to do numerous times.
As a delegate I received a voting list both from the United List, a right of center group, and from Congregations Matter, a group more to the left. I compared the names on both lists and can tell you that out of the many positions to be elected – there were only a very small number of delegates, less than I can count with both hands, whose names appeared on both lists. (In my opinion, another symptom of the “party spirit” that plagues our church body.)
I saw some of the delegates around me pull out the United List recommendations. Given this, and given the conservative nature of the delegation, it is no surprise that most of the candidates elected came from the United List. May the Lord guide and direct their thinking and decision making in the years to come as each serves out their terms.
RESOLUTIONS
I am not entirely sure what I am about to say is accurate, so I’ll say it this way: During the time I was present, and except for biology-driven breaks I was present most of the time, I only remember one resolution not passing. That Resolution – 9.09A was brought forward by the Structure and Administration Floor Committee and proposed moving the convention to a four-year cycle. The vote on that resolution was 486 (61.13%) against, 309 (38.87%) for. The chair, President Harrison, said after the vote something to the effect, “You got slapped, didn’t you! I’m glad that I’m not the only one.” Interesting that on the Synodical Website it says that No Action was taken on this resolution, when in fact, pretty decisive action was taken! Apart from this one resolution, most floor committees were affirmed, as I don’t remember any other resolutions failing. Some, however, did die on the vine, as often happens when the convention runs out of time and issues for one reason, or another are not brought to the floor.
Some words on Floor Committee 7, which brought forward what was probably the most controversial resolution, 7.03 – the resolution calling the leaders and regents of Concordia Texas to repentance. The official communication channels of the LCMS pretty much advanced the synodical position, with very little said about the reasons that Concordia Texas offered. Late in the process, Texas District President offered a fairly balanced preliminary ecclesiastical supervisor’s report that indicated that both parties (synod and Concordia Texas leadership) contributed to the impasse that led to the separation.
There was some fairly intense, but quite controlled, debate on this matter when Resolution 7.03 hit the floor. President Christian from Concordia Texas was given an opportunity to speak from the floor – to no avail. In fact, in the third point that President Christian made, he referred to the Concordia Texas Regents retaining sole governance authority. A member of Floor Committee 7, Christian Preus, pointed to this very comment by President Christian as the reason that Resolution 7.03 was on the floor. Another comment made from the floor that, in my opinion, gave wings to this resolution was made by Dr. Bernard Bull, the president of Concordia Seward. In a quite appealing and emotive manner, he essentially indicated that Concordia Texas had abandoned the conversations that dealt with proposed governance changes for the Concordia University System.
Attempts to amend the Resolution 7.03 were made and easily defeated. Despite spirited parliamentary appeals and appeals to get the parties to engage in reconciliation efforts – Resolution 7.03 came to the floor unchanged. At the end it easily passed - 716 (71.67%) for, 283 (28.33%) against.
Personally, I was not at all surprised. Given the nature of the delegation that attended the convention, and how Concordia Texas was generally seen as the entity that was bucking the Synod’s structure, Resolution 7.03’s approval was pretty much a done deal. In my opinion, both sides were recalcitrantly committed to their own course of action.
The other two possibly contentious resolutions that Committee 7 presented were 7.04 and 7.05, which addressed Concordia University System governance matters. When the remaining Concordia University Presidents stood shoulder to shoulder voicing support for these resolutions, both easily passed with very little opposition.
As stated before – the conservative nature of the delegations that attended the convention generally tended to trust Synod, its leadership and the Floor Committees’ work. Most resolutions passed handily.
PRESENTATIONS
There were several wonderful, sometimes tear inducing presentations. Other presentations were de rigueur, such as the presentations from LCMS auxiliaries, from supporting organizations such as LCEF and CPH, appearance from and acknowledgment of past Synodical Presidents, some extremely powerful essays by our Seminary Presidents and by several theologians, and other similar presentations.
And there were some that were quite moving: the presentations by Rev. Dr. Juhana Pohjola, the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland (ELDMF) and Dr. Päivi Räsänen, a member of the Finish parliament who were prosecuted for the biblical stands that they took in defense of biblical sexuality. The Bishop of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church gave us the gift a shrapnel damaged helmet that saved his life as he ministered to victims of the Russian / Ukrainian war. There were several powerful presentations made by International LCMS missionaries that spoke of amazing Gospel work among Persians, Latin America, and other world mission areas.
Rear Admiral Rev. Dr. Daniel L. Gard was awarded the Silver St. Martin of Tours medal by the LCMS Ministry to the Armed Forces.
One of the presentations that almost stole the show was done by Marcus Gray, perhaps better known as FLAME. In a funny and winsome way, FLAME shared his story of coming to the Lutheran Faith through myriad turns and twists along the way. He also wrote his story in a CPH book titled, Extra Nos.
Throughout the convention moments like these were highlighted and allowed the delegates to celebrate the many ways that the LCMS has advanced the Gospel and touched the lives of people throughout the world.
This convention was about more than politics. As sinful humans, we sometimes let the worst of us “throw shade” on things that relate to our church body. But we can do better. Let's thank God for the amazing ways that He has helped us to boldly share the Gospel, here and abroad. Let's pray so that his Word may have free course among us and as well among all who need to hear what Christ has accomplished through his perfect life, his passion and cross and his resurrection!
If you have any questions or comments for me, please share these on either my blog or on the Facebook post where I shared the link to this report. I also want to provide you with a link to the LCMS page where you can look up details of the proceedings: https://www.lcms.org/convention/national
Blessings to you all!
Comments