Convention Accomplishments?

After the convention, I asked myself the question - what did the convention truly accomplish? I found this a very difficult question.

The convention was looking forward to a report from the Task Force on Marriage, Family and Human Sexuality - but the task force said they could not address the underlying theological questions. In addition, there was no consensus among the task force members to continue in their deliberations, and as such the task force was disbanded - with no report being presented to the convention. So no sense of accomplishment there.

There were a number of administrative actions and petitions passed, but are those really the purpose of a convention? Does that bring a feeling of accomplishment?

New officers were elected - that's important, of course, because we know a lot of the work of the Synod goes on between these conventions, by many hard-working people. But many organizations conduct their elections by mail - so is a convention required?

There was Bishop Ron reporting on the Synod's Mission Priorities for 2008 to 2010. Now we're getting somewhere - we're actually talking about mission. But do we need a whole convention to hear (and approve) these priorities?

There were the workshops, worship services and just the day-to-day personal conversations between people. Perhaps those are even more important - equipping and providing support for those of us at the convention for mission in our home churches - for that's really where mission is accomplished.

So perhaps we can say that if the convention (and in turn, the structure of the Synod) helps and facilitates the congregations in continuing their own mission, then there is a reason for these conventions, even if there isn't some profound and grand "accomplishment" directly from the convention itself.

For those whom attended the convention, what do you think?