Bethany Lutheran Church and Preschool

Report of the Voters Meeting March 5, 2016 and Action Items There from

The scope of the Governance Team’s charge from the PPC was to review and propose governance structure changes. While the Governance team continues to work on operational guidelines and the transition plan, I am working in parallel with the Congregation to close the discussion items we had at the Voter’s meeting on the wording of the Proposed Bylaws.

By adoption of the Proposal at the meeting on March 5, the Voters decided that we should move forward with the new governance structure. At the same meeting, the Voters approved the amendments to the Constitution to be effective on July 1, 2016. The final versions of the Proposal and Constitution are available for download: Through the discussion at the same meeting, the Voters suggested some further amendments to the Proposed Bylaws. Either with or without the additional amendments, final approval of the Bylaws by the Voters is necessary to continue realizing the benefits of the approved Proposal.

We always have healthy and interesting dialog at voter’s meetings; so, I present to you what was approved and what we need to work on to meet our goal of having a new governance structure in place by July 1, 2016. The point of which is to more efficiently execute God’s Great Commission through Bethany’s mission on earth.

I hope that you will read this document and be prepared to discuss and approve the bylaws at a voters meeting on April 17, 2016 (after the service). In the meantime, I hope you will send me your comments and concerns about the information below. I will send out all comments and questions for everyone to review, up until April 13, 2016.

While the intent is to approve the Bylaws in support of the approved Proposal and Constitution, if you have any other changes, concerns, or comments that you would like for the Voters to consider, please make your comments as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Randy Lucas

Executive Director

Action Items from the Voters Meeting of March 5, 2016

Introduction

Each Action Item concerns potential further revisions to the Proposed Bylaws. These Action Items were outside the scope of the Governance Team’s charge by the PPC. As such, the Executive Director and the PPC, by direction of the Voters Assembly, is shepherding these items through to completion. The goal is that these items can be sufficiently addressed so that the Proposed Bylaws can be enacted with the commencement of the next term of Church Officers and Directors. Here are positions provided for the voter’s to consider. All members are invited to voice their own opinions.

Action Items

Whether the use of the word Elders is most appropriate in the proposed governance structure changes.
Explanation: More specifically, the Voters raised a concern that the word “Elder” connotes a certain role/office in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod that may or may not be appropriate if held by a female member of the congregation. 1. There was discussion about the use of the term “Elders” as proposed in the governance proposal and codified in the proposed changes to the Bylaws.
The debate at the Voter’s meeting came as a result of a suggestion from the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Reform, entitled, “The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices.” This portion of that recommendation deals specifically with the office of Elder and states in pertinent part,
“The duties of this office in Synodical congregations generally indicate that elders work closely with the pastor in his divinely assigned responsibility to feed the whole congregation with the Word of God and to watch over it for the sake of its spiritual welfare. Elders serve primarily to assist the pastor in shepherding and overseeing the entire flock of God at their place. They frequently assist in certain aspects of the conduct of the public worship service, such as in the distribution of Holy Communion. In certain emergency situations elders may be asked by the congregation to perform, on a temporary basis, certain distinctive functions of the pastoral office (e.g., lead public worship, deliver a sermon). In evaluating whether women may serve in the office of elder (established inure humano) in congregations, the principal consideration is whether the office requires that those who hold it are eligible to perform those functions that are distinctive to the public exercise of the ministry of Word and sacrament. If such a situation pertains, women may not serve in this office. An additional consideration has to do with the use of the term "elder" for those offices which do not in fact require such responsibilities. In view of the use of the term "elder" in the Scriptures (see note 9) in the history of the church, and in our own Synodical history, we recommend that this term be reserved for that office which has as its assigned duty assisting the pastor in the public exercise of the distinctive functions of his office. To avoid confusion regarding the pastoral office, consideration should perhaps be given to the use of a different term (e.g., deacon, deaconess) for those who assist the pastor in the care of the flock, but who are not engaged in the distinctive functions of the pastoral ministry. Women have long participated actively in a caring, spiritual ministry in our Synod's congregations and in light of presently changing needs will likely be increasingly asked to do so. Such work is not only necessary, but ought to be encouraged, for the responsibility for the mutual care and nurture of Christ's body, the church, lies with all and may indeed be enhanced through the creation of offices for this task.”
Bethany’s practice for a number of years has been for lay persons to assist the pastor in various aspects of “shepherding and overseeing the entire flock of God at their place”. Much of this has fallen to the Lay Ministers, assisted by the Shepherds. Additionally, lay persons (Lay Liturgists and Lay Ministers) have specifically “assist[ed] in certain aspects of the conduct of the public worship service, such as in the distribution of Holy Communion. Pastor Jagow illustrated during the Voters Meeting that there are certain pastoral duties that we have, to date, reserved to be performed only by ordained pastors. In Pastor Jagow’s view, “The way we currently have Elders in the bylaws is fine, but the issue remains as to whether it is a good idea for us to change the title.”

The voters will be asked to decide if the term Elders is ok to use or should some other word be used. (E.g. Deacon).

Whether the Proposed Elders (currently, the Board of Lay Ministry) should be able to excommunicate a member without prior consultation of the Pastor and visa versa.
Explanation: Under the current and proposed Bylaws, Article II (A) states in pertinent part, “Members who . . . resist all efforts [to amend their sinful lives] by the Pastor(s) and/or the Board of Lay Ministry . . . shall be excommunicated . . . .” The Proposed Bylaws make no substantive change to this wording, only inserting the word “Elders” in place of “Board of Lay Ministry.” The current Bylaws, when enacted on or about November 10, 2001, were reviewed and approved by Southeastern District and Synod officials. The Proposed Bylaws do not change this wording. Nevertheless, the Voters raised a concern that, by using the phrase “and/or” in this Article, then the Elders (currently, the Board of Lay Ministry) could excommunicate a member without consultation of the Pastor and visa versa.
Proposed Solution: Revise Article II(A) to state as follows: “Members who persist in living in an unchristian manner, i.e., who openly adhere to teaching contrary to the articles of faith as listed in Article III of thisthe Constitution, give evidence of an immoral and offensive life, or willfully despise the preaching of the Gospel and the Lord’s Supper, and resist all efforts by the Pastor(s) and/or the Board of Lay Ministry to amend this sinful life, shall be excommunicated from membership in this congregation. The Board of Lay Ministry shall administer church discipline in behalf of the congregation. Such persons, however, will at all times be cordially welcome to attend all divine services in this churchadmonished in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17. If the member in question refuses to be reconciled and forgiven, then the Senior Pastor may publically excommunicate the member after consulting with the Elders. This should be done with great care and only after repeated attempts to restore the member (Galations 6:1-2; Ephesians 4:2-3). Excommunicated members may still attend all divine services in this church to hear the Word of God.” (underlining indicates added/changed text; strikethrough indicates deleted text).

The voters will be asked to approve the wording as outlined in paragraph “b”

Whether proxy and/or absentee voting should be allowed under the Proposed Bylaws.
Explanation: Under Article III (D) of the current Bylaws, “[t]here shall be no voting by absentee or by proxy.” The Voters raised a concern that some would like to but could not exercise their ability to Vote without attending a Voters meeting and; therefore, proxy and/or absentee voting should be permitted.

Argument in Favor of Including Absentee or Proxy voting in the Bylaws
The Governance Proposal Q&A answer to Question #37 states that (1) prohibiting absentee and proxy votes encourages active involvement/participation…in the decision-making process and (2) the prohibition helps to avoid the unlikely event of manipulating a vote.

I disagree with point (1)—If I am unable to attend Voter’s Assemblies, I will not be able to cast a vote and, therefore, will not be participating in the decision-making process. How can I be actively involved and participate? If the opportunity to cast votes by means other than in-person were available, my voice/choice would be heard via my absentee or proxy vote. Instead of feeling shut out, I would feel encouraged to be actively involved and to participate in BLC&P’s governance and management.

The congregation at BLC&P includes many members who reside in a sizable geographic area, and some perform a substantial quantity of business and personal travel. These members have many skills and ideas that would benefit BLC&P’s growth, governance and management. Having a system that provided absentee or proxy votes would support these members’ active involvement and participation BLC&P’s administration.

One cause of apathy and one barrier to engagement is the belief among [people] that they’re virtually invisible—that no one notices them or cares what they think. For that reason, a…“I hear you” is an antidote to the [person’s] “I don’t care” [attitude].1 How better to hear ALL of BLC&P’s members but though the power of voting. Having the ability to “hear” via an additional method of casting votes would combat the apathy that has infected some members of BLC&P.

In regards to point (2)—There have been Voter Assemblies with few members in attendance. Voter Assemblies with a small number of BLC&P members present have an unbalanced amount of power in directing the path of BLC&P activities without any overt action towards manipulating a vote. I think improving low voter turnout is more important than avoiding the unlikely event of manipulating a vote.

Many other organizations provide their members with the opportunity to vote via absentee or proxy ballots. Some do all of their voting via these methods. I believe providing the congregation with the chance to vote other than in-person will increase interest being active, contributing members of BLC&P.

Argument Against Including Absentee or Proxy Voting in the Bylaws

First, absentee ballots can be effectively used in elections if there is a mechanism to promulgate the ballots and receive them before the election. When elections are held during Voters Meetings at Bethany, nominations from the floor are permitted and modifications to the slate of candidates are often proposed and voted on. Modifying the slate of candidates, especially, happens quite often during our elections. We cannot write up ballots and promulgate them before the meeting because we do not know what the eventual slate of candidates will be.

Secondly, proxies are not a way for our members that cannot attend a meeting to vote during that meeting. This is because at Bethany, Voters Meetings, even those that include elections, involve discussions and several motions during the course of the meeting. Only members can vote and a proxy would have to be a member. Suppose Bethany member X appointed Bethany member Y to be a proxy at a Voters Meeting. Bethany member Y will have several chances to vote during the ebb and flow of the meeting with all of the discussions and motions and subsequent modifications of motions. It is impossible for Bethany member Y to vote exactly the same as Bethany member X would if Bethany member X attended the meeting. The reality is that Bethany member Y would have two votes. Bethany would not have the benefit of Bethany member X’s thoughts and ideas. Bethany would not have Bethany member X’s vote. Bethany would have Bethany member Y voting twice.

Another example would involve Bethany member Z acting a proxy for his or her spouse and their children away at school. Bethany member Z could have three or four votes and Bethany would not reap the benefit of the contributions of three or four different members coming and joining with other Bethany members to openly discuss and decide upon issues.

According to Roberts Rules of Order, “…proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable.” (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed., p. 428-429).

The voters will be asked to decide if proxy and or absentee balloting will be allowed.