by Pastor Matt Titus
The 2026 SC Synod Assembly considered and voted on a resolution brought by pastors from the Saxe Gotha Conference. The Revs. Gregory Brown, Jason Antley, Stephen Mims, Wade Roof, Ralph Hill, and Rebekah Boatwright asked the Assembly to consider a commitment to holding in-person Synod Assemblies beginning in 2027, whenever possible. The resolution highlighted many benefits of gathering as the body of Christ, including strengthened relationships across the Synod, shared worship, prayer, discernment, conversation, and fellowship.
During a brief period of discussion, many spoke in support of the proposal, citing the same benefits identified by the resolution’s authors and emphasizing the value of gathering in person. Others expressed concerns because of the logistical and financial challenges faced by smaller congregations and churches located farther from Assembly sites.
Those who raised concerns noted the positive experiences many congregations had during years when the Synod gathered virtually. They pointed to the success of regional “Zoom watch parties,” where churches and voting members gathered locally while participating in the larger Assembly. They shared that these smaller regional gatherings fostered relationships, strengthened connections among neighboring congregations, and provided opportunities for fellowship and shared ministry.
Following the period of discussion and discernment, a motion was made to vote on the resolution. The Assembly approved the resolution with 241 in favor and 130 opposed. The resolution passed.
Immediately following the adoption of the resolution, a motion was brought from the floor asking the Synod Council to consider holding a one-day business-only Assembly on a rotating basis as needed, to help alleviate some of the financial and travel burdens faced by smaller and more distant congregations.
Questions were raised about whether this motion could be considered in light of the resolution that had just been adopted. The matter was referred to the Assembly’s Committee on Reference and Counsel to determine whether the newly adopted resolution already addressed or conflicted with the motion from the floor.
On the Assembly’s final day, the Committee on Reference and Counsel reported that the two actions were not in conflict and that the previously adopted resolution did not encompass the motion from the floor. With that determination, the Assembly was free to consider the proposal.
The motion was then brought to a vote. The Assembly approved it with 242 in favor and 102 opposed. With the passage of that motion, the Assembly concluded its work regarding resolutions at this Assembly.
