Dr. Mueller,

With due respect, the phrase "much consultation across the Synod" does not adequately address the need for sufficient time to walk together on this topic, both practically and theologically in the years and months prior to this convention. One option the task force and floor committee could have offered, but did not, was to recommend a detente on the vote and provide a legitimate forum in the coming years for discussing both the theology and practical needs of our congregations. In this case, I am concerned that voting is the least effective way to handle an important issue for our time.

At convention, the floor committee had over 30 minutes to present its case, which included powerpoint slides (!!), while the group discussion took a little over 25 minutes. The chair did not allow for extended discussion though he was asked to do so and could have allowed it per the standing rules. Not a single licensed lay deacon made it to the microphone, nor did any district presidents whose districts utilize LLDs. The vote was hasty, and uninformed. It is a fact that we have 1. real theological differences on this issue that we need time to discuss (voting on this did not help), and 2. real challenges in places anywhere that the LCMS has a small footprint (these will continue to increase). Further, the options provided by this resolution in no way foresee a strategy for the future after these present LLDs are "pastorized."

I value your integrity Dr. Mueller, and trust you as a wise churchman and I hope that my disagreement on this point in no way affects our relationship. I do not agree that adequate or "much consultation" was carried out, nor were the perspectives that were shared with the floor committee (prior to the convention and during the open floor committee hearings) adequately represented by the floor committee to the convention.

Respectfully,

Dust Kunkel
Exec. Asst. to the President
NOW District