President Kieschnick’s Stimulus Package, by Pr. Charles Henrickson

February 7th, 2009 Post by

BRTFSSGThe news is filled these days with stories about President Obama’s “Stimulus Package.” The funny thing is, he’s not the only president pushing one. Right here in the Missouri Synod, President Kieschnick has a “Stimulus Package” of his own that he’s trying to sell: the restructuring of the Synod. And there are a number of parallels between the two packages.

Sense of urgency. President Obama is claiming that, unless Congress hurries up and passes his stimulus bill, doom and disaster will result. “A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”

President Kieschnick also has used a sense of urgency to try to rally support for the restructuring proposals of his Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance. At the convention in Houston in 2007, we delegates were told by a Kieschnick committee chair, “there is urgency about facing the issues” (Reporter, September 2007). When calling a special convention didn’t fly, President Kieschnick had to back off and shoot instead for a couple extra days at the 2010 convention, “while affirming the urgency of the matters being addressed by the task force” (Reporter, October 2007). In his closing remarks at the August 2008 theological convocation, President Kieschnick spoke of “the urgent necessity of amending the structure and governance of the Synod.” So President Kieschnick has tried to gin up a sense of urgency for restructuring, but at this point–and I’ve been paying attention–I still don’t see what is so urgent about it.

Lack of rationale. President Obama has pressed the urgency of his stimulus bill, but he has been short on explaining the rationale for all of the proposals, how they all will alleviate the problem without creating more problems.

That’s how it’s been, too, with President Kieschnick’s restructuring proposals: long on urgency, short on rationale. We hear flowery language about “walking together” into “the future” and “strengthening the voice of congregations” for “one mission,” but we do not hear much about why this massive restructuring is so needed, how it will accomplish these lofty goals, or what problems it might create or exacerbate.

Lack of detail. When President Obama proposed his stimulus bill, he talked about “economic recovery” and “reinvestment,” and there were a host of possible projects mentioned that might be funded, but there were also a lot of gaps and holes and question marks in the “plan.” Lack of detail–and, as we all know, often the devil is in the details.

Likewise with President Kieschnick’s Task Force’s “Proposals and Possibilities.” It’s not always clear which are “proposals” and which are “possibilities.” Right now we are into the 2009 district convention cycle and we still do not have a specific plan being proposed. What would be all the resulting changes in the language of the Constitution and Bylaws? Unclear at this point. But it would take many months to rewrite the Bylaws for such sweeping changes. And we need to be able to see the exact wording and weigh it and discuss it, far ahead of time, in order to vote intelligently on it in 2010. Otherwise, we’re being asked “to buy a pig in a poke.”

More power at the top. President Obama’s stimulus bill would give far more power to the federal government, because with federal funding comes federal control. More power is rising to the top.

And that is perhaps what is most troubling about what we’ve seen so far in the proposals from President Kieschnick’s Task Force. More and more power is flowing to the top, away from the grassroots (congregation and circuit), and more toward the district and national synod, with more power especially being given to the district presidents and the synod president. Overall, there is a strong centralizing tendency in these proposals.

Sense of urgency. Lack of rationale. Lack of detail. More power at the top. Those are some initial observations on “President Kieschnick’s Stimulus Package.” We’ll have some more “unpacking” of the package in the days to come.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Pastor Tim Rossow
    February 7th, 2009 at 23:32 | #1

    You promised us that you would keep an eye on the political beat of synod. What a great start!

    Pastor Rossow

  2. February 8th, 2009 at 00:55 | #2

    “Right now we are into the 2009 district convention cycle and we still do not have a specific plan being proposed.” The longer they delay the details, the more “urgent” things become, the less time to debate, and the more likely we’ll be to swallow the proposals whole.

  3. Todd Wilken
    February 8th, 2009 at 02:32 | #3

    Yes, we can’t.

  4. Paul
    February 8th, 2009 at 07:15 | #4

    Pastor Henrickson,

    You brought clarity to the “Yankee Stadium” affair and now you do the same for this pending concern. Thank you for all your work and skill.

    Pastor Wilken and the Issues Etc. team interviewed Dr. Ken Schurb on the LCMS, structure change. The shows are linked below. Dr. Schurb also gives great insight from his background and experience.

    http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/Show44082808H1S2.mp3
    http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/Show68100108H1.mp3

    I look forward to reading your next installment.

    Paul in O’Fallon

  5. helen
    February 8th, 2009 at 13:25 | #5

    Compare rather to the President of Venezuela, whose urgency consists in a vote to let him run for (i.e., occupy) his office indefinitely.

  6. Charles Henrickson
    February 8th, 2009 at 15:21 | #6

    Change We Can Be Leery Of.

  7. Todd Wilken
    February 8th, 2009 at 17:47 | #7

    Change We Can’t Believe In.

  8. Ron Pratt
    February 8th, 2009 at 19:35 | #8

    The only stimulus we need in the LCMS is God’s word, the Sacrements and continuous prayer.

  9. February 8th, 2009 at 20:06 | #9

    Tee shirt:

    NOPEwe can’tCHANGE

  10. Pastor Tim Rossow
    February 8th, 2009 at 20:58 | #10

    Elephant’s Child,

    How’s this for a graphic. Maybe I can spruce it up and hand it out as a freebie at the conference.

    TR

  11. February 8th, 2009 at 21:00 | #11

    In both cases: “stimulus” = enlarging the power, authority, and budget of the central organizing authority.

    Like so many things in life, the wisest thing to do is simply to say: ‘I’d rather not.’

    Let’s be sure that whomever our congregations send to be delegates understand what is going on: the devolution of our church from a family into a business.

    Once people understand what is at stake, I’m sure they will agree that we should be communicants – not ‘constituents’!

  12. Smalltown Lutheran
    February 8th, 2009 at 22:06 | #12

    Pastor Rossow (#10), I hope you have those shirts ready. I need one!!!

  13. Eric Ramer
    February 9th, 2009 at 14:06 | #13

    Phillip:

    I’m not having any problem picturing Pr. Kieschnick in a yellow exposure suit wearing a flower pot for a hat…Whip it Good!

  14. helen
    February 9th, 2009 at 14:08 | #14

    Make “we can’t” a little larger…or make it red?

  15. Rev. Thomas C. Messer
    February 9th, 2009 at 14:26 | #15

    What I want to know is how Wilken comes up with these little slogans that say it all: “Yes, we can’t” and “Change we can’t believe in” – Brilliant! Is it the Chelada? I gotta try that stuff! :)

  16. Pastor Tim Rossow
    February 9th, 2009 at 16:33 | #16

    Helen,

    I think I should also change the “+” to a “&.” The reason the “we” and “can’t” are small is because it is supposed to read as “Hope & Change” but upon closer inspection it is “Nope We Can’t Change.”

    Pastor Rossow

  17. Heartbroken
    February 9th, 2009 at 19:57 | #17

    I had thought the + sign was a small rendition of the Cross?

  18. Pastor Tim Rossow
    February 9th, 2009 at 20:02 | #18

    You’re right. Maybe I should leave it.

    Pastor Rossow

  19. February 10th, 2009 at 00:00 | #19

    RAMER – YOU ROCK!

    I can see JK now as the “New Traditionalist Man”!

    Or maybe he just
    wore a hat
    got a job
    brought home the bacon
    so that
    no one knew……….

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.