Author Topic: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics  (Read 205554 times)

Daniel L. Gard

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #75 on: December 02, 2012, 09:14:45 PM »

That's why we're here, Chaplain.  And we don't even have lists.   We do have unpublished polls.

Dave Benke

I have a list. Well, sort of. The thing is that nobody is on it.

Of course, at this time of year someone else has a list as well. I understand that he is checking it twice and is gonna find out who is naughty or nice.

I love lists. Except the A-List and B-List. But that is simply sinful envy. ;D
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 09:21:06 PM by Daniel L. Gard »

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2012, 10:35:51 AM »
Lists are helpful because we know so little about the candidates - just a brief paragraph too focused on academic background or work experience and too little on their approach to the position and its challenges.

For the record:

Not too long ago the only information delegates received was a name and a brief list of past experience. Subsequent Convention Nomination Committees introduced the idea of a separate convention insert with additional information, statements by nominees and a picture.  Delegates to recent conventions receive this information far in advance with ample time to do further research.

It is not insignificant that some nominees who were elected included persons who failed to provide any of the additional information for the voting delegates. IOW, they were elected simply on the basis of their name appearing on a list.

Since my association with Daystar and Jesus First is no secret I will add that I spoke against their providing any list. I did so as someone who was elected as a result of their name being on lists, who was three times elected to the Commitee for Convention Nominations and twice elected as secretary of the CCN.

Marie Meyer

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2012, 12:06:33 PM »
Lists are helpful because we know so little about the candidates - just a brief paragraph too focused on academic background or work experience and too little on their approach to the position and its challenges.

For the record:

Not too long ago the only information delegates received was a name and a brief list of past experience. Subsequent Convention Nomination Committees introduced the idea of a separate convention insert with additional information, statements by nominees and a picture.  Delegates to recent conventions receive this information far in advance with ample time to do further research.

It is not insignificant that some nominees who were elected included persons who failed to provide any of the additional information for the voting delegates. IOW, they were elected simply on the basis of their name appearing on a list.

Since my association with Daystar and Jesus First is no secret I will add that I spoke against their providing any list. I did so as someone who was elected as a result of their name being on lists, who was three times elected to the Commitee for Convention Nominations and twice elected as secretary of the CCN.

Marie Meyer

Someone mentioned "straight-ticket" voting as an analogy earlier.  I think that is a good analogy.

For those aligned with the theological outlook of either DayStar or the United List, these lists can be helpful guides just as newspaper endorsements of candidates are or business references on a resume.  It means that someone vouches for the fitness of a candidate.

I agree that delegates should not leave it at that, and while I do not doubt your anecdotal observations, I think you do a general disservice to all delegates in suggesting that most do just leave it at that.  When I have been a district convention delegate, I took my role seriously and researched nominees and resolutions, and those who I know who have synodical and district delegates have done the same.

Mike

Dave Benke

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13512
    • View Profile
    • Atlantic District, LCMS
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2012, 12:38:45 PM »
Lists are helpful because we know so little about the candidates - just a brief paragraph too focused on academic background or work experience and too little on their approach to the position and its challenges.

For the record:

Not too long ago the only information delegates received was a name and a brief list of past experience. Subsequent Convention Nomination Committees introduced the idea of a separate convention insert with additional information, statements by nominees and a picture.  Delegates to recent conventions receive this information far in advance with ample time to do further research.

It is not insignificant that some nominees who were elected included persons who failed to provide any of the additional information for the voting delegates. IOW, they were elected simply on the basis of their name appearing on a list.

Since my association with Daystar and Jesus First is no secret I will add that I spoke against their providing any list. I did so as someone who was elected as a result of their name being on lists, who was three times elected to the Commitee for Convention Nominations and twice elected as secretary of the CCN.

Marie Meyer

Someone mentioned "straight-ticket" voting as an analogy earlier.  I think that is a good analogy.

For those aligned with the theological outlook of either DayStar or the United List, these lists can be helpful guides just as newspaper endorsements of candidates are or business references on a resume.  It means that someone vouches for the fitness of a candidate.

I agree that delegates should not leave it at that, and while I do not doubt your anecdotal observations, I think you do a general disservice to all delegates in suggesting that most do just leave it at that.  When I have been a district convention delegate, I took my role seriously and researched nominees and resolutions, and those who I know who have synodical and district delegates have done the same.

Mike


Regarding lists:
Until either 1998 or 2001, there was only one list, or maybe better put there were several varieties of The One List.  Because there was no Daystar, and there was no Jesus First.  There was The Affirm List.

And at some time along the way, the Nominations Committee changed from being a Synodically-elected group to being a district-elected group by halves.  So as a person who's attended conventions since 1979 (not all of them, though, only almost all of them), the vibe has shifted from

Unassigned seats
Punch cards
few floor nominations

to
rules about the use of electronics after mandatory seating assignments cut down the in-row politicking and kibitzing
enormous amounts of floor nominations
quick-result voting

I'm still reminded of the comment one of the camera guys made to me some years back.  He said, "you know, I cover state and national political conventions.  But this is at a whole other level.  This is far more political than the government."  I suspended his roster status, or would have if he had been rostered.  What nerve!

Dave Benke

Daniel L. Gard

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2012, 12:58:50 PM »
I'm still reminded of the comment one of the camera guys made to me some years back.  He said, "you know, I cover state and national political conventions.  But this is at a whole other level.  This is far more political than the government."  I suspended his roster status, or would have if he had been rostered.  What nerve!

Dave Benke

This has inspired me. For 2013 I am going to publish my own list, the "Totally Sanctified List" (TSL). But mine will be different. I will not do this political reasons. Rather, I will do this for economic reasons. Anyone on my list can have their name removed from TSL and their electability soar for a price.

President Benke, you are all over TSL. How much ya' got?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44883
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2012, 01:03:44 PM »
I'm still reminded of the comment one of the camera guys made to me some years back.  He said, "you know, I cover state and national political conventions.  But this is at a whole other level.  This is far more political than the government."  I suspended his roster status, or would have if he had been rostered.  What nerve!


I remember hearing Russ Salzmann saying a number of years ago that church politics was much worse than in the government (and he had worked in government politics). His reasoning, at least at that time, is that in the government, opponents on one issue may need each other's support on the next issue. So there was always a sense of "I don't want to piss him off so much that s/he will never help me when I need it in the future." There often isn't that kind of checks and balance within church politics. Some have no problems acting in ways that sever relationships.


He also, in a newspaper interview, made a distinction between "opponents" (people who disagree about an issue) and "enemies". "Opponents" can be friends. They will sit down and have coffee (or something stronger) together. They can even enjoy each other's company. Enemies avoid any contact with each other.


Now if Russ reads this, he can state whether is opinion of politics has changed in the last 25-30 years.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44883
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #81 on: December 03, 2012, 01:05:20 PM »
I'm still reminded of the comment one of the camera guys made to me some years back.  He said, "you know, I cover state and national political conventions.  But this is at a whole other level.  This is far more political than the government."  I suspended his roster status, or would have if he had been rostered.  What nerve!

Dave Benke

This has inspired me. For 2013 I am going to publish my own list, the "Totally Sanctified List" (TSL). But mine will be different. I will not do this political reasons. Rather, I will do this for economic reasons. Anyone on my list can have their name removed from TSL and their electability soar for a price.

President Benke, you are all over TSL. How much ya' got?


You should go further. For one price, you can have your name removed. For an additional price, you can add someone to the list.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Daniel L. Gard

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2012, 01:14:10 PM »
I'm still reminded of the comment one of the camera guys made to me some years back.  He said, "you know, I cover state and national political conventions.  But this is at a whole other level.  This is far more political than the government."  I suspended his roster status, or would have if he had been rostered.  What nerve!

Dave Benke

This has inspired me. For 2013 I am going to publish my own list, the "Totally Sanctified List" (TSL). But mine will be different. I will not do this political reasons. Rather, I will do this for economic reasons. Anyone on my list can have their name removed from TSL and their electability soar for a price.

President Benke, you are all over TSL. How much ya' got?


You should go further. For one price, you can have your name removed. For an additional price, you can add someone to the list.

Brilliant! My retirement would quickly become financially viable. (That last sentence by itself will increase payments just to get me on the emeritus role).

Charles Henrickson

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
  • Charles Henrickson
    • View Profile
    • stmatthewbt.org
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #83 on: December 03, 2012, 07:07:09 PM »
Thoughtful people believe you are the author of The United List. . . .

Is there a shadowy cabal. . . ?

As you, Rev. Henrickson, are no doubt aware, with a vast and highly teched-up church-political system in your personal grasp. . . .

Sounds like you're describing Keyser Sze.

Weird.
Charles Henrickson
Pastor, St. Matthew Lutheran Church (LCMS), Bonne Terre, Missouri: stmatthewbt.org

Charles Henrickson

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
  • Charles Henrickson
    • View Profile
    • stmatthewbt.org
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2012, 07:20:17 PM »
I don't read either one [Steadfast/Lutherquest]; masthead is sufficient.

That certainly puts any comments you might have about the content of those sites into clearer perspective.
Charles Henrickson
Pastor, St. Matthew Lutheran Church (LCMS), Bonne Terre, Missouri: stmatthewbt.org

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2012, 10:04:12 AM »
Regarding LCMS politics and the continnued use of lists:

Two question:  Have lists led to the marked decline in the number of persons nominated for synodical office?  Are lists the result of a deeply divided church or have list contibuted to further division in the synod?

There was a time when close to 3,000 names were submitted to the Committee for Convention Nominations (CNN).  To evaluate all the nominees, the CNN had to meet two or three times to form a ballot.  This meant that committee members had time between meetings to continue their work.

Prior to the last convention about 500 names were submitted to the CNN.  There were positions for which one, two or no names were submitted.  Clearly, interest in the nomination and election process has declined.  The committee now meets for two days with little work to do. While there are several factors for the significant decline in the number of names submitted to the CNN,  I submit that loss of confidence in the nomination and election process cannot be ignored. Why bother to submit names that represent the entire synod when elections to Boards and Committees are either an up or down vote that reflect one segment of a divided synod?   

Marie Meyer

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2012, 10:15:58 AM »
Regarding LCMS politics and the continnued use of lists:

Two question:  Have lists led to the marked decline in the number of persons nominated for synodical office?  Are lists the result of a deeply divided church or have list contibuted to further division in the synod?

There was a time when close to 3,000 names were submitted to the Committee for Convention Nominations (CNN).  To evaluate all the nominees, the CNN had to meet two or three times to form a ballot.  This meant that committee members had time between meetings to continue their work.

Prior to the last convention about 500 names were submitted to the CNN.  There were positions for which one, two or no names were submitted.  Clearly, interest in the nomination and election process has declined.  The committee now meets for two days with little work to do. While there are several factors for the significant decline in the number of names submitted to the CNN,  I submit that loss of confidence in the nomination and election process cannot be ignored. Why bother to submit names that represent the entire synod when elections to Boards and Committees are either an up or down vote that reflect one segment of a divided synod?   

Marie Meyer

I find your correlation between lists and a reduction in interest in election to be specious.  Do you have any evidence that someone actually declined to permit himself or herself to be nominated simply because he or she might end up on a list?

Even if so, perhaps this leads to a good vetting of candidates  If someone is truly so cowed by the political process one might experience when being considered for a position, then how well suited would that person be to actually handle the pressures of a tough decision once elected?

Mke

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2012, 11:07:14 AM »
Mike:

Suggest you read my post again. I said nothing about anyone declining to permit himself or herself to  be nominated. The issue as  stated is that fewer and fewer people are taking the time to submit names to the CNN.
 

It may be my imagination, Mike, but there seems an inclination to counter just about any post I write on any issue. Not sure what that's all about. I offer it as an observation.

Marie

Dave Likeness

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5334
    • View Profile
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2012, 11:16:16 AM »
Marie is correct there is something wrong when
the LCMS goes from 3,000 names nominated to
only  500.   My perception is that many faithful
people in our Synod feel the system is fixed and
feel the deck is stacked against them. 

Today, not only do  you have to put your name
up for nomination, you also must hope you get
endorsed by the United List.  Many of the good
Lutherans in our Synod do not like those odds.

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Re: And So It Begins: 2013 LCMS Politics
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2012, 11:56:19 AM »
It may be my imagination, Mike, but there seems an inclination to counter just about any post I write on any issue. Not sure what that's all about. I offer it as an observation.

Fair enough.  I tend to respond to people I disagree with.  I usually don't have that much to add to those I agree with.  In real life, I'd offer a simple affirmation of agreement, but I tend not to do so online because many boards believe they clutter discussions.

Perhaps that is why Internet discussion can seem so adversarial and unfriendly at times.

I'm still skeptical that nominations and elections are that much more political than in the past.  I simply think that publicly-posted lists end up spilling the politics that used to be corralled up in smoke-filled rooms.  That may actually be progress.

Mike