07 May 2008

Another District Weighs In

Pr. Weedon notes that the Minnesota South District Board of Directors has now weighed in on the Issues, Etc. matter. Great!

I still have my lingering question, however. With all of the very fine resolutions from District Pastors' Conferences and District Boards of Directors, what happened at the most recent Council of Presidents meeting in which there was "no dissenting vote" when it came to *supporting* David Strand's unilateral decision to cancel Issue, Etc.? Where were the voices in that discussion and vote to defend "talk radio for the thinking Christian"? Did I miss an answer to that question?


Anonymous said...

I'm left to conclude that the pastors within these districts were not happy with the COP statement and their representation through their DP; hence, the pastoral conference action. Just a theory.

Anonymous said...

On another blog the DP from Illinois district that passed a pro-IE resolution has written that he regretted agreeing to the COP letter. He said that the resolution was rushed through at the end of the their meeting and that the letter agreed to was much milder than the one they had first been asked to sign. He asked for forgiveness for the lapse in judgement. So he may not be the only one.

Anonymous said...

Quote from Herb Mueller, SID DP, leter posted on Pr. William Weedon's Blog:

Out of a desire to have something to which District Presidents could refer going back home, the Council of Presidents also adopted a statement with counsel to the members of the Synod. Both statements were quickly posted to the Synod’s web site. The COP’s statement was adopted in the closing minutes of the meeting on Tuesday, April 22, after the COP had rejected a formal resolution that would not have been helpful at all. The web site says the COP statement was adopted by voice vote with no dissenting voices. Personally, I did not raise an objection to the final version of the statement because I believed at the time it was better than the first resolution presented. To those who are disappointed in the COP Statement, I understand and I do share your sense of disappointment. I am sorry I failed to do better. At the very least, I failed to slow what became a hurried process to adopt something. As a result, the COP Statement itself does not fully represent, I believe, the level of frustration on the part of many members of the COP that Issues Etc was cancelled, or that the matter was handled in the manner it was. Having said that, I do not believe it would be helpful or wise for me to have any further public comment on the COP Statement.