Proposed Constitutional Changes at St. Peter � Light from Light
Proposed Constitutional Changes at St. Peter
October 29, 2010 by Rick
On June 28, 2010, the voters of St. Peter met to consider proposed changes to our congregation’s constitution and bylaws. A number of changes were approved, and these proposed changes will be voted on at the Autumn voters’ meeting sometime in November 2010.
Article VI, Powers and Rights of the Congregation, Section 4, of our current (unchanged) constitution reads as follows:
No group or society may be organized within the congregation without the approval of the congregation. The congregation shall be assured that the aims of such a group are in complete harmony with the congregation’s aims before it grants its approval (1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:25).
This is the proposal that was presented to the voters on June 28:
No group or society may be organized within the congregation without first speaking with the pastor(s) who will discuss it with the church council (the approval of the congregation). The congregation shall be assured that the aims of such a group are in complete harmony with the congregation’s aims (before it grants its approval) (1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:25).
I moved to delete the parenthesis, and add a comma & the word “and” after “council,” so that the first sentence would read:
No group or society may be organized within the congregation without first speaking with the pastor(s) who will discuss it with the church council, and the approval of the congregation.
I believed that “the approval of the congregation” was the most important phrase, and was too important to be relegated between parenthesis. As part of the discussion, Pastor Glende revealed that the parenthesis were supposed to mean that what was between the parenthesis would be deleted, and that the words in parenthesis were intended to show what the original language was. (16:30). (My impression was that most people did not catch that the parentheticals were proposed deletions).
So to clarify for the reader, here is what was actually being proposed (with the proposed additions underlined, and the proposed deletions crossed out):
No group or society may be organized within the congregation without first speaking with the pastor(s) who will discuss it with the church council the approval of the congregation. The congregation shall be assured that the aims of such a group are in complete harmony with the congregation’s aims before it grants its approval(1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:25).
The first problem with this language is that in order for someone to form a small group, all they have to do is first speak with the pastor. Nothing is said about the pastor’s approval. That is not what was intended, but that is what the language says. I believe the intent was to take away group and society approval from the congregation, and give it to the pastor(s) and council. Pastor Glende said this would make small group approval more efficient.
I believe that it is important for the congregation to have the only say with regard to any group or society formed within the congregation. The ratification of any small group or society within a congregation is too vital a power to take away from the full congregation.
Because my motion was seconded, there was a vote. However, the person who seconded my motion apologized for doing so, and explained that his second was only so that we could have some discussion, not because he actually supported my motion. Thus, lacking any additional support, my motion was defeated.
A church council member stated that our “church council has been elected to make decisions for the congregation,” and we need to trust them. If “there is anything major, then it will be brought to the congregation for a vote. But if it’s a minor group that wants to start up, the pastors and church council should have the right to allow them to do that.” (35:15). He then proposed language which the congregation adopted:
No group or society may be organized within the congregation without first speaking with the pastor(s) who will discuss it with the church council the approval of the congregation. The congregation shall be assured that the aims of such a group are in complete harmony with the congregation’s aims before it grants its approval (1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:25).
The “approval of the congregation” was struck from the first sentence. Receiving only one “no” vote, this proposed language passed. The end result is unclear. (However, when a written constitution is unclear, it allows the interpreters to forbid and permit what the interpreters wish).
Overall, because the proposed constitutional changes were presented to the voters in bold and (parenthesis) instead of being underlined and crossed out, it is difficult to determine what was supposed to be in parenthesis (such as Bible citations) and what was actually supposed to be deleted. (When I read through the proposed changes before the meeting, I did not fully realize that some of what was in parenthesis were proposed deletions).
Moreover, some language in the proposal just disappeared without any parenthesis. (Article VIII of the Constitution “Officers of the Congregation,” Section 3 would be an example of quietly disappeared/changed language).
Below are some additional changes to our constitution and bylaws that passed this first meeting with little discussion. For purposes of clarity, disappeared language from our present bylaws is included here (and crossed out), and the proposed new language is underlined, so that the reader can see more clearly the proposed changes:
- Committee members shall be elected approved at the October Junevoters’ meeting. (Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7. Terms of Office, A – Committees of the Church Council).
- Vacancies occurring on any of these committees shall be filled through appointment approved by the church council. (Bylaws, Article IV, Section 8. Vacancies – Committees of the Church Council).
- Language in the constitution was made gender-neutral.
- Also, numerous bylaws were made to be non-binding by changing words like “shall” to “should.” For example, in Article IV, Section 4 the Committee of Elders no longer “shall consist of at least three members,” but instead “should consist of at least three members…”
One of the reasons given for these proposed changes is that we need to bring our constitution and bylaws in line with “reality,” i.e. what works and what we are actually doing. (34:20). If the congregation approves the proposals a second time, they will then be sent to the Synod for final approval.
Recently, all of St. Peter’s members were encouraged to fill out a congregational survey that was supposed to identify our membership’s strengths and weaknesses. This was to assist the “Vision Team” as they work to modify the congregation’s “Vision.” One of the purposes of this effort is to help establish more small groups.
According to a sermon preached by Pastor Sievert on September 16, 2010, St. Peter will be aggressively targeting and training lay-leaders and facilitators to conduct small group programs outside of the church building. The lay-leaders and facilitators will be chosen and trained beginning in October 2010, and the entire membership will be encouraged to join a small group starting in January 2011. (Sermon entitled “Be the Church: Devoted to God’s People,” 38:30).
***
GJ - Confidential to Pastor Tim - we all miss your posts on Fake-O-Bod.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Fourth Reich - Proposed Constitutional Changes...":
Directly related -
Rogue Lutheran.
J-641.1
"Sixth, our false apostles justly reward us by smiting us in the face. That is, they consider us inferior to dogs; they abuse us, and treat us as foot-rags."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.
