One reason I say this is time. The whole process now unfolds over weeks of possible ballot casting and therefore weeks of campaigning in between the casting of those ballots. Where the Convention was able to reconfigure the ballot and vote right away after the results of the previous vote were announced, we now have a cumbersome process with days between votes and several days of voting. All of this creates a perfect moment for those with an agenda and a cause to take up their voice to the internet in pleading the case for their guy and giving reasons why the other guy (usually the leading candidate) is not the right guy. It is unseemly. People jump on the idea that without a first ballot victory, the leading candidate is somehow wounded and bleeding and therefore vulnerable. Others jump on the rising star who moves up a few points and then presume to suggest that this one is the only one who can save the Synod. How sad it is and how unchurchly for us to act in this manner. It could be over which quickly at the Convention but here we drag out our pain before the whole world.
The second reason I think the Convention is the right place is that instead of appealing to the narrower group of voting delegates, the kingmakers are now appealing to the whole Synod, unsure of who it is who will be casting a ballot for Synod President. The result of this is that it embroils the whole Synod in the controversies of the day, identifies the candidates with those controversies (rightly or wrongly), and puts the bad taste of bad politics in the mouth of us all. Although I have not commented on any of the posts or threads about the candidates, I know how many of the things said are blatantly false and bordering on slander. I am sure I am not alone in sitting on the sidelines while watching how this unfolds and brings out the worst in all of us. It this how we ought to do things? The old days of mailing lists to a selected few have been replaced with broader public appeals making the social media even more unsocial than ever with respect to who shall lead us. Furthermore, we are airing our dirty laundry and doing so with a passion seemingly lost on the cause of preaching the Gospel to our neighbors and it does not make us look very good at all.
The third reason is that without the election of Synod President, the Convention has lost some of its urgency and importance. In other words, it almost seems superfluous. Yes, we have had too much scripted entertainment, too many folks ready to nip in the bud anything that approaches honest deliberation and debate, and too many of the same faces to the microphones every time a resolution is brought up. Yes, I get it. But still, elections are some of the most important of the items of business a convention does -- any convention -- and it is the same for Synod. We need to restore this to the business of the delegates assembled because that is where it belongs and where it did belong without fail until 2013 when we started this mess.
The final reason I think the Convention is the best place to elect the Synod President is that the populist idea promoted by the election as it is now is a false populism. What is to prevent any and all items from being accomplished at a convention to be shifted to the congregational plebiscite? Will that serve us better than the delegate assembly has or can in the future? In my mind, the election of the SP by the congregation through their pastors and a lay delegate is a pure anomaly to the way we have done business since about 1854 and not a wholesome or helpful detour from that previous pattern. The office of SP is not or should not be a popularity contest and there should be the opportunity for the Synod to change its mind -- which, in a convention setting, can happen on the turn of a phrase. Without that, we are left with the official and unofficial social media. The old mailing lists have been replaced by so-called media outlets, web sites set up just for the vote, and an even more obscure web of folks who hide their identity but promote their opinions. We can presume that those who are voting delegates to the Synod Convention have been selected because of their judgment and discernment and also because they hare held in high esteem by their peers. To take the election from them is to diminish them and their jobs even more and make the whole convention's business more distant and more irrelevant to the Synod as a whole and to the congregations and circuits of the Synod. Do we want that? I think that we have enough pulling us apart and teaching us to be apathetic or jaded about the business of Synod. How we elect the Synod President should hold up the importance and role of the Synod Convention and its delegates. We have always said that the convention is the highest governing authority. It is the place where this election ought to take place. For those who still like the idea of a plebiscite consider this. For good or for ill, incumbency means the election outside the convention is more likely to favor the incumbent than in convention,
Our Synod is not a nation, not a business, not a community organization, not a philanthropic society, and not a social club. Sin does not become good by majority vote nor is doctrine established by the same. This only means that our process has become somewhat more unseemly for the way we confuse the will of the people with the mind of God. I only wish we were so inclined so that we might begin to believe that. So whatever we can do to reduce the politicking, the endless social media posts official or not, and the appearance of a churchly organization run by democratic vote of the majority, the better off we will be.
