if any of you are streaming your worship you can send me the links.
I would if I was on the other side of the Pacific begin planning for something similar.
Best wishes to all and a blessed Lent
James
From famine and pestilence, Good Lord, deliver us.
Jeremy
Have mercy on us, O God, according to Your great mercy, we pray You, hear us and have mercy.
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
Let us pray for pious and Orthodox Christians.
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
Again we pray for (episcopal rank) (name).
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
Again we pray for mercy, life, peace, health, salvation, visitation, forgiveness and remission of the sins of all pious and Orthodox Christians living and visiting in this city, the parishioners, the members of the Parish Council and every Ministry of this Parish, and the donors and benefactors of this holy church, and the servants of God [names] who celebrate this holy feast.
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
Again we pray for the protection of this holy church, this city and every city and land, from wrath, famine, pestilence, earthquake, flood, fire, sword, foreign invasions, civil strife, and accidental death. That our good and loving God may be merciful, gracious and favorable to us by turning and keeping from us all wrath and sickness, and deliver us from His just rebuke, and have mercy on us.
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
Again we pray that the Lord our God may hear the prayer of us sinners, and have mercy on us.
(Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.)
PRIEST
Hear us, O God our Savior, the hope of all those who live everywhere on earth and those far out at sea or in the air. Be gracious toward our sins, Master, and have mercy on us.
For you are a merciful and loving God, and to you we give glory, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.
(Amen.)
I won't be in church tomorrow. if any of you are streaming your worship you can send me the links.Trinity Lutheran, Sheboygan (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC1qua9Ih1aaRx0h7SQTBm0A), WI archives their Divine Services on YouTube ... and streams them live at 8a & 10:45a central standard time (March 1 ) ... central daylight time (beginning March 8 ). A Live Link appears on their YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC1qua9Ih1aaRx0h7SQTBm0A) site when the live broadcast is available. The March 1 services will include the Concordia Theological Seminary Kantorei. Their 8a service is normally archived before noon on Sunday.
I would if I was on the other side of the Pacific begin planning for something similar.
Best wishes to all and a blessed Lent
James
P.S.
The Trump administration has slashed the budget of the Center for Disease Control, undercutting its ability to quickly respond to an epidemic.
But... nothing to worry about. Right?
P.S.
The Trump administration has slashed the budget of the Center for Disease Control, undercutting its ability to quickly respond to an epidemic.
But... nothing to worry about. Right?
The CDC budget has not been cut, let alone slashed. Congress has raised CDC spending every year. The one “cut” that some have complained about was not really a cut, but the expiration by its terms of an emergency five-year Ebola program. Congress did not extend that program.
I have been following the information as has everyone.
I think the real problem with the disease will not be the primary effect (corpses stacked like cordwood like the Spanish Flu pandemic.) Where there will be real and life threatening issues will be in the disruption of the global logistics network. Think of the feedstocks for various pharmaceuticals manufactured in China. And look at other necessities that likewise depend on the PRC for at least part of their manufacture. And then, as the disease spreads, the same issue playing out across the globe.
But it’s nice to know that someone has figured out that “it’s all Trump’s fault!””
The CDC budget is now up to Congress and it is likely to be significantly increased to deal with this problem.
But the previous cuts and ends to certain programs, did affect the agencies ability to respond quickly to the current situation.
The CDC budget is now up to Congress and it is likely to be significantly increased to deal with this problem.
But the previous cuts and ends to certain programs, did affect the agencies ability to respond quickly to the current situation.
I have been following the information as has everyone.
I think the real problem with the disease will not be the primary effect (corpses stacked like cordwood like the Spanish Flu pandemic.) Where there will be real and life threatening issues will be in the disruption of the global logistics network. Think of the feedstocks for various pharmaceuticals manufactured in China. And look at other necessities that likewise depend on the PRC for at least part of their manufacture. And then, as the disease spreads, the same issue playing out across the globe.
But it’s nice to know that someone has figured out that “it’s all Trump’s fault!””
No one has said that.
Peace, JOHN
I am undecided if I should go forward tomorrow to receive Communion. Too risky with a common cup. Intinction is even worse.
Will probably skip shaking hands during the Peace. Maybe a bow or a bump, but that's it.
Pastor Johnson--
What alternatives to shaking hands would you suggest?
Pastor Johnson--
What alternatives to shaking hands would you suggest?
Touching the shoulder. Waving the hand. Simply exchanging words with a smile. Bowing the head in greeting.
I've seen people who perhaps had a cold simply hold their hands behind their back or across their chest to indicate they didn't want to shake hands.
I have been following the information as has everyone.
I think the real problem with the disease will not be the primary effect (corpses stacked like cordwood like the Spanish Flu pandemic.) Where there will be real and life threatening issues will be in the disruption of the global logistics network. Think of the feedstocks for various pharmaceuticals manufactured in China. And look at other necessities that likewise depend on the PRC for at least part of their manufacture. And then, as the disease spreads, the same issue playing out across the globe.
But it’s nice to know that someone has figured out that “it’s all Trump’s fault!””
No one has said that.
Peace, JOHN
Trump is a whiner and a crybaby. Any criticism of is so so unfair. Sniff sniffIronic post of the decade.
Pastor Fienen:You can’t tell the difference between reporting facts and reporting “spin.” Any interpretation of the facts is spin. When you say the assessment that he is mishandling the outbreak is fact, not spin, you demonstrate why trust in journalism is at an all time low. You’re too clueless to even know how clueless you are.
That doesn't change the fact that some prominent Democrats have tried to spin this epidemic to their political favor and accuse Trump of somehow mishandling it.
Me:
Not “somehow” mishandling it, but at least until now, actually mishandling it.
That’s not spin, that’s just telling the truth.
And some of us think he hasn’t been able to handle anything else very well, so why should we think he will handle this well?
Too many unsubstantiated assertions, too many lies, too long a history of not believing the science.
The facility where I live put out a nice two page information sheet from the CDC, that explains more in those two pages than anything said by any government official in the last five days.
P.S.
And vice President Pence said yesterday that the government has a multimillion dollar contract with 3M, based here in Minneapolis, for masks and other virus fighting equipment.
Spokesman for 3M says in today’s paper, “no, that’s not actually true.”
And vice President Pence said yesterday that the government has a multimillion dollar contract with 3M, based here in Minneapolis, for masks and other virus fighting equipment.
Spokesman for 3M says in today’s paper, “no, that’s not actually true.”
Pastor Fienen:
That doesn't change the fact that some prominent Democrats have tried to spin this epidemic to their political favor and accuse Trump of somehow mishandling it.
Me:
Not “somehow” mishandling it, but at least until now, actually mishandling it.
That’s not spin, that’s just telling the truth.
And some of us think he hasn’t been able to handle anything else very well, so why should we think he will handle this well?
Too many unsubstantiated assertions, too many lies, too long a history of not believing the science.
The facility where I live put out a nice two page information sheet from the CDC, that explains more in those two pages than anything said by any government official in the last five days.
P.S.
And vice President Pence said yesterday that the government has a multimillion dollar contract with 3M, based here in Minneapolis, for masks and other virus fighting equipment.
Spokesman for 3M says in today’s paper, “no, that’s not actually true.”
From the Snopes site: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/)
These are facts.
Amid warnings from public health officials that a 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus could soon become a pandemic involving the U.S., alarmed readers asked Snopes to verify a rumor that U.S. President Donald Trump had “fired the entire pandemic response team two years ago and then didn’t replace them.”
The claim came from a series of tweets posted by Judd Legum, who runs Popular Information, a newsletter he describes as being about “politics and power.” Legum’s commentary was representative of sharp criticism from Democratic legislators (and some Republicans) that the Trump administration had ill-prepared the country for a pandemic even as one was looming on the horizon.
Legum outlined a series of cost-cutting decisions made by the Trump administration in preceding years that had gutted the nation’s infectious disease defense infrastructure. The “pandemic response team” firing claim referred to newsaccounts from Spring 2018 reporting that White House officials tasked with directing a national response to a pandemic had been ousted.
Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer abruptly departed from his post leading the global health security team on the National Security Council in May 2018 amid a reorganization of the council by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Ziemer’s team was disbanded. Tom Bossert, whom the Washington Post reported “had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks,” had been fired one month prior.
It’s thus true that the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it, eliminating Ziemer’s position and reassigning others, although Bolton was the executive at the top of the National Security Council chain of command at the time.
Legum stated in a follow-up tweet that “Trump also cut funding for the CDC, forcing the CDC to cancel its efforts to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics in 39 of 49 countries in 2018. Among the countries abandoned? China.” That was partly true, according to 2018 news reports stating that funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency’s efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration.
On Feb. 24, 2020, the Trump administration requested $2.5 billion to address the coronavirus outbreak, an outlay critics asserted might not have been necessary if the previous program cuts had not taken place. Fortune reported of the issue that:
The cuts could be especially problematic as COVID-19 continues to spread. Health officials are now warning the U.S. is unlikely to be spared, even though cases are minimal here so far.
“It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen in this country any more but a question of when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press call [on Feb. 25].
The coronavirus was first detected in Wuhan, China, in the winter of 2019, and cases spread around the globe. The U.S. had 57 confirmed cases as of this writing, while globally, roughly 80,000 patients had been sickened with the virus and 3,000 had died. As of yet, no vaccine or pharmaceutical treatment for the new coronavirus. Data from China suggests the coronavirus has a higher fatality rate than the seasonal flu, although outcomes depend on factors such as the age and underlying health of the patient.
Yes, the president takes criticism very well. And he believes that any reaction to the corona virus is actually an assault on him personally.Yes indeed... about as well as you take criticism directed at you ... or towards the ELCA for that matter. 8)
Just returned from the Divine Service ... other than a prayer for the virus situation, no changes in the service ... sharing of the peace proceeded as usual ... common cup used as usual ... attendance unaffected.
The facility where I live put out a nice two page information sheet from the CDC, that explains more in those two pages than anything said by any government official in the last five days.
Mr. (Or Ms. or ...)Eivan and Mr. Gale:
Whatever. What-freaking-ever.
As they say on Star Trek, you have the con.
And vice President Pence said yesterday that the government has a multimillion dollar contract with 3M, based here in Minneapolis, for masks and other virus fighting equipment.
Spokesman for 3M says in today’s paper, “no, that’s not actually true.”
A report on CBS this morning indicated that the virus is so small that a mask does not protect the wearer from it.
And vice President Pence said yesterday that the government has a multimillion dollar contract with 3M, based here in Minneapolis, for masks and other virus fighting equipment.
Spokesman for 3M says in today’s paper, “no, that’s not actually true.”
A report on CBS this morning indicated that the virus is so small that a mask does not protect the wearer from it.
Masks are appropriate for people who are already infected, because they keep that person from raining droplets on others from sneezes and so forth. They do nothing to prevent a wearer from becoming infected. They are probably well short of 100% effective even when worn by those who are infected, hence the quarantining of such people.
Pastor Johnson--
What alternatives to shaking hands would you suggest?
Touching the shoulder. Waving the hand. Simply exchanging words with a smile. Bowing the head in greeting.
I've seen people who perhaps had a cold simply hold their hands behind their back or across their chest to indicate they didn't want to shake hands.
Pastor Johnson--
What alternatives to shaking hands would you suggest?
Touching the shoulder. Waving the hand. Simply exchanging words with a smile. Bowing the head in greeting.
I've seen people who perhaps had a cold simply hold their hands behind their back or across their chest to indicate they didn't want to shake hands.
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you." and everyone responds, and then are seated without the sharing of the peace individually. Likely will continue through Lent until we see the certain arrival of spring and the end of the flu season. Not as personal to be sure, and not even sure if it's the proper thing to do, but we do it.
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you."
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you." and everyone responds, and then are seated without the sharing of the peace individually. Likely will continue through Lent until we see the certain arrival of spring and the end of the flu season. Not as personal to be sure, and not even sure if it's the proper thing to do, but we do it.
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you." and everyone responds, and then are seated without the sharing of the peace individually. Likely will continue through Lent until we see the certain arrival of spring and the end of the flu season. Not as personal to be sure, and not even sure if it's the proper thing to do, but we do it.
That's how it was done pre-LBW.
Pax, Steven+
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you." and everyone responds, and then are seated without the sharing of the peace individually. Likely will continue through Lent until we see the certain arrival of spring and the end of the flu season. Not as personal to be sure, and not even sure if it's the proper thing to do, but we do it.
That's how it was done pre-LBW.
Because both Influenza A and B have been so prevalent here for the past two months, we have simply gone to "May the Peace... be with you." and everyone responds, and then are seated without the sharing of the peace individually. Likely will continue through Lent until we see the certain arrival of spring and the end of the flu season. Not as personal to be sure, and not even sure if it's the proper thing to do, but we do it.
That's how it was done pre-LBW.
Pax, Steven+
Yep. Right before the Agnus Dei. You got me nostalgic enough to give it a listen. Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRJoEW8rsq4&list=PLmoig8AD9EEQTlUzForLfh6o59raON-nG&index=10)
BTW, I think that praying SBH Setting 2 imbued me with more faith as a young person than almost anything else. That said, I couldn't help but wonder why Jesus would sitteth on the Father's right hand (or on his left hand, for that matter). That sounded supremely uncomfortable for both Father and Son.
I'm sure that the repetitive praying of SBG Setting 1 almost drove me out of the Lutheran Church. I found faith much more dynamic than the staid plainsong tunes in the liturgy. It was seeing guitars and a banjo from a singing group from LBI that gave me hope for Lutheranism. (They hadn't progressed to drums, yet.)
A friend, a doctor, posted this on FB today:
https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/03/02/infectious-disease-doctor-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR2LJRZK8bjyOV5wKJS6iUv6D2vn5AZf_ncGRRoELShM2A4vbxZSagm_9rk
Mike Pence's Prayer Circle was in the news today. Is Pence headed in the right direction on this matter?
Mike Pence's Prayer Circle was in the news today. Is Pence headed in the right direction on this matter?What on earth is newsworthy about Mike Pence praying?
Mike Pence's Prayer Circle was in the news today. Is Pence headed in the right direction on this matter?
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?What do you think is a reasonable thing to think about a Christian man who holds public office praying? Do you really see a conflict between praying about something and doing something about it to the best of your ability? Of course not. The idea is absurd and unworthy of being taken seriously. So why take seriously those who are acting (and they are acting) shocked that a Christian holding public office prays?
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
The critique has been when prayers are offered rather than actions that are needed. Offering prayers for the people who lost everything in Puerto Rico wasn't helping them. They needed food and water. It's like what James writes in 2:15-16: "Imagine a brother or sister who is naked and never has enough food to eat. What if one of you said, 'Go in peace! Stay warm! Have a nice meal!'? What good is it if you don’t actually give them what their body needs?" (CEB)
If faith without works dead, couldn't we also say that prayers without works is dead?
I'm not arguing that VP Pence is not doing anything, but trying to explain why there have been criticisms about praying. Praying is a good thing. Praying as an excuse for inactivity is not good. Jesus also criticized those who used praying as a way to show off their piety.
Mike Pence's Prayer Circle was in the news today. Is Pence headed in the right direction on this matter?
Unless one wishes to make the argument prayer is wrong, I don't see how he isn't.
Is anyone under the impression that Pence is ONLY praying about this?
So do you pray for those with terminal cancer? Or do you view praying for someone without helping them to be inherently hypocritical? I don't think anyone ever prayed for Puerto Rico in lieu of helping. There may have been difficulties involved with appropriation and logistics of giving aid, of differences about how much aid to allocate, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Christians should have been praying for the people there.Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
The critique has been when prayers are offered rather than actions that are needed. Offering prayers for the people who lost everything in Puerto Rico wasn't helping them. They needed food and water.
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
The critique has been when prayers are offered rather than actions that are needed. Offering prayers for the people who lost everything in Puerto Rico wasn't helping them. They needed food and water. It's like what James writes in 2:15-16: "Imagine a brother or sister who is naked and never has enough food to eat. What if one of you said, 'Go in peace! Stay warm! Have a nice meal!'? What good is it if you don’t actually give them what their body needs?" (CEB)
If faith without works dead, couldn't we also say that prayers without works is dead?
I'm not arguing that VP Pence is not doing anything, but trying to explain why there have been criticisms about praying. Praying is a good thing. Praying as an excuse for inactivity is not good. Jesus also criticized those who used praying as a way to show off their piety.
So do you pray for those with terminal cancer? Or do you view praying for someone without helping them to be inherently hypocritical? I don't think anyone ever prayed for Puerto Rico in lieu of helping. There may have been difficulties involved with appropriation and logistics of giving aid, of differences about how much aid to allocate, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Christians should have been praying for the people there.Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
The critique has been when prayers are offered rather than actions that are needed. Offering prayers for the people who lost everything in Puerto Rico wasn't helping them. They needed food and water.
Public opinion on Mike Prince and his public prayer life is a sign of the divisiveness of our time. To some, Pence praying is a sign of public affirmation of the Divine, to others it is a continuing appeal to his political base. To still others, Mike Pence at prayer is a sign that we are really screwed. Science, medicine, public policy? Religion or politics?
The difference between our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and you is He can see into our mind and heart ... your comment on praying to show off ones piety at minimum is a failure to place the best construction on the Vice President's prayer life....though it may even a sinful judgement of the man ... who exhibits his Christian faith on a regular basis.
All you LCMS people should vigorously and vocally oppose government officials leading prayers at meetings of their agencies or committees.
The practice is guaranteed to lead to occasions of unionism, syncretism, and prayers by those denying Jesus Christ. It may also result in women taking spiritual leadership roles which, in your view, they should not assume.
Mr. Gale:Charles just being Charles. He knows our reactions better than we do and saves us all time by scolding us for how we react without us having to actually say anything. In any case, he seems to prefer having conversations with us where we say nothing and let him put words in our mouths, makes his rebukes easier and clearer.
It would be fine to ask our LCMS friends fraternally how they regard prayer in the context being discussed. Instead, your purpose seems to be nothing more lofty that petty provocation to the detriment of the Body of Christ.
Me:
Wow! Small words and a valid question are a “detriment of the Body of Christ“?
Ok. I fraternally ask ... yada yada ... as you suggest.
Sorry you do not find my words genteel or polite enough. Blame it on 40+ years in New Jersey.
All you LCMS people should vigorously and vocally oppose government officials leading prayers at meetings of their agencies or committees.
The practice is guaranteed to lead to occasions of unionism, syncretism, and prayers by those denying Jesus Christ. It may also result in women taking spiritual leadership roles which, in your view, they should not assume.
Mr. Gale:
It would be fine to ask our LCMS friends fraternally how they regard prayer in the context being discussed. Instead, your purpose seems to be nothing more lofty that petty provocation to the detriment of the Body of Christ.
Me:
Wow! Small words and a valid question are a “detriment of the Body of Christ“?
Ok. I fraternally ask ... yada yada ... as you suggest.
Sorry you do not find my words genteel or polite enough. Blame it on 40+ years in New Jersey.
All you LCMS people should vigorously and vocally oppose government officials leading prayers at meetings of their agencies or committees.
The practice is guaranteed to lead to occasions of unionism, syncretism, and prayers by those denying Jesus Christ. It may also result in women taking spiritual leadership roles which, in your view, they should not assume.
Why do you insist on this kind of comment? Why? What in the world do you expect to accomplish other than the annoyance of some here and the sidetracking of our conversation?
It would be fine to ask our LCMS friends fraternally how they regard prayer in the context being discussed. Instead, your purpose seems to be nothing more lofty that petty provocation to the detriment of the Body of Christ.
So what do you think on the matter itself, Pastor Bohler?
Does not the specter of unionism loom over events such as this?
All you LCMS people should vigorously and vocally oppose government officials leading prayers at meetings of their agencies or committees.
The practice is guaranteed to lead to occasions of unionism, syncretism, and prayers by those denying Jesus Christ. It may also result in women taking spiritual leadership roles which, in your view, they should not assume.
Why do you insist on this kind of comment? Why? What in the world do you expect to accomplish other than the annoyance of some here and the sidetracking of our conversation?
It would be fine to ask our LCMS friends fraternally how they regard prayer in the context being discussed. Instead, your purpose seems to be nothing more lofty that petty provocation to the detriment of the Body of Christ.
We, and much of the world, saw how (some) of our LCMS friends reacted to prayers at Yankee Stadium. Some of the same complaints happened over prayers in Newtown. Has the LCMS changed since then?
Again, I said nothing against praying; but praying, like faith, without works is dead.No where does does God state that praying without works is dead ... in fact He clearly states the opposite in James 5:16
Again, I said nothing against praying; but praying, like faith, without works is dead.No where does does God state that praying without works is dead ... in fact He clearly states the opposite in James 5:16
'The effectual fervent prayers of a righteous man availeth much.'
Using your logic, there is no purpose in the 'Prayer Requests' ... thread on this forum ...prayer without works is dead.
I can hear the pastor on Sunday morning state 'Unless you plan to actively participate in the treatment of the ill and shut in members of this congregation, please don't waste your time praying for them because praying without works is dead (and useless).
Thank heavens you are retired ... I pity the congregation that would hear that.
Within the context, James 5:16 is about prayers for healing. I doubt that God will miraculously have a motorcycle show up in my garage no matter how much I pray for one.
Also, for James, "being righteous" is about works. (Note: "being righteous" and "justified" are different ways of translating the same Greek word.
2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
For James, the righteous one who prays is righteous because of works.
I think of a group of college-aged students who, back during the charismatic phase, prayed that God would show them which college they should go to. They didn't research colleges. They didn't send in applications. They waited for some sign from God. I see that as prayer without works.
So also a friend who was convinced that God had healed him of his diabetes through prayer (of his righteous friends). Checking his blood sugar would be a sign of disbelief. He ended up in the hospital. That was prayer without works.
I just visited with a friend in the hospital today. She was supposed to have surgery yesterday for a blockage in her intestine; but her surgeon got sick and it was postponed. This morning she had a contrasting scan done. It showed no blockage. She is still in the hospital and will be eating some food before fully claiming that she is healed. She had hundreds of people praying for her; but she still sought the expertise of doctors and hospital staff. That is prayer that also works.
The Prayer Requests thread isn't just requests for prayers. There is also follow up questions and concern about how the sick are doing. It encouraged some folks to attend a funeral. (Maybe they would have anyway without the announcement of the death in the thread.)
You know, the context of this train of thought on prayer is the Vice-President of the United States, formerly the Governor of Indiana and 6-term Congressman, praying as he is about to meet with people and perhaps make decisions on the Federal Government's response to a serious public health issue that, while not (yet) impacting public health in the US very much, has thrown international trade and the stock market into a major tizzy.
He's not a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in doctors, or a Christian Scientist who believes everything is a figment of the mind, or a Missouri Synod pastor trying to represent the church in a grand "spiritual" event, or a college student who is new to the Christian faith thanks to a charismatic experience who thinks opening the Bible and pointing her finger will divine the answer as to where she should go to college and what major she will have, or a (grown-up?) child for whom prayer is akin to sitting on Santa's lap three weeks before Christmas.
Seems to me a serious person addressing a serious matter deserves a serious conversation among serious people on a serious forum, rather than silly flights of fancy.
Christe eleison, Steven+
Climate change is a totally different issue than anything to do with medicine. Why trust medicine to someone who denies the science of when life begins? A pro-choice person, therefore, cannot possibly be trusted to fight the outbreak of a virus. I suspect that if I seriously made that argument, you would (rightfully) see the absurdity. Of course a pro-choice person, despite denying basic science about human biology, could still oversee a strategy to fight a contagious disease.You know, the context of this train of thought on prayer is the Vice-President of the United States, formerly the Governor of Indiana and 6-term Congressman, praying as he is about to meet with people and perhaps make decisions on the Federal Government's response to a serious public health issue that, while not (yet) impacting public health in the US very much, has thrown international trade and the stock market into a major tizzy.
He's not a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in doctors, or a Christian Scientist who believes everything is a figment of the mind, or a Missouri Synod pastor trying to represent the church in a grand "spiritual" event, or a college student who is new to the Christian faith thanks to a charismatic experience who thinks opening the Bible and pointing her finger will divine the answer as to where she should go to college and what major she will have, or a (grown-up?) child for whom prayer is akin to sitting on Santa's lap three weeks before Christmas.
Seems to me a serious person addressing a serious matter deserves a serious conversation among serious people on a serious forum, rather than silly flights of fancy.
Christe eleison, Steven+
I agree with you for the most part.
I can say I'm uncomfortable with this particular VP being put in charge of a something related to medicine/science. He has argued for "teaching the controversy"(1) in front of congress and has not accepted the science regarding climate change(2).
(1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=189&v=ikax0Y0NJsY&feature=emb_logo
(2)https://www.desmogblog.com/mike-pence
I think my discomfort is warranted. I do hope he has sound advisers and listens to them appropriately.
Seems to me a serious person addressing a serious matter deserves a serious conversation among serious people on a serious forum, rather than silly flights of fancy.
I agree with you for the most part.
I can say I'm uncomfortable with this particular VP being put in charge of...
Climate change is a totally different issue than anything to do with medicine. Why trust medicine to someone who denies the science of when life begins? A pro-choice person, therefore, cannot possibly be trusted to fight the outbreak of a virus. I suspect that if I seriously made that argument, you would (rightfully) see the absurdity. Of course a pro-choice person, despite denying basic science about human biology, could still oversee a strategy to fight a contagious disease.
Too many people use the word “science” as though science in the abstract says things. Scientists say things. And they disagree with each other, and even the consensus changes. My question to you is, what do you think Pence would do to screw up a national response to a virus because he doesn’t accept the “accepted” view of climate science?
Someone, you and I have some rather serious disagreements on this forum. I'll note, however, that you hadn't contributed to this topic when I wrote what I did. And even when I think you're wrong or perhaps even deluded, your arguments are here not unserious or, as I described above, "silly flights of fancy."
Pax, Steven+
Scientists don’t all say the same thing. Nor is the scientist trained to make policy recommendations. Scientists say, “In these conditions, this happens.” Policy-makers take it from there.Climate change is a totally different issue than anything to do with medicine. Why trust medicine to someone who denies the science of when life begins? A pro-choice person, therefore, cannot possibly be trusted to fight the outbreak of a virus. I suspect that if I seriously made that argument, you would (rightfully) see the absurdity. Of course a pro-choice person, despite denying basic science about human biology, could still oversee a strategy to fight a contagious disease.
Too many people use the word “science” as though science in the abstract says things. Scientists say things. And they disagree with each other, and even the consensus changes. My question to you is, what do you think Pence would do to screw up a national response to a virus because he doesn’t accept the “accepted” view of climate science?
I feel what you posted is a bit of a strawman. I recognize Pence could be completely wrong about everything and could still do a fine job at handling a response to a virus.
Physics is not geology, but both are scientific fields. Pence chose not to listen to the national center for science education and mischaracterized what makes a scientific theory (and also missed the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision on ID) and wanted to influence public policy on a scientific/educational matter. It is also appears evident that Pence chose not to listen to climatologists and their particular fields of experience/research. So my concern is how much he listens to the CDC and researches on the issue. Doesn't mean he will screw it up. But I am concerned about how he relates to his advisers. And like i said I hope he listens.
How could he screw up? I think he could screw up by not listening to the scientists and their conclusions.
Someone, you and I have some rather serious disagreements on this forum. I'll note, however, that you hadn't contributed to this topic when I wrote what I did. And even when I think you're wrong or perhaps even deluded, your arguments are here not unserious or, as I described above, "silly flights of fancy."
Pax, Steven+
All good. I didn't take your comments at me. Like I said, I agree with you for the most part. I just read about Pence mentioned my discomfort with his track record.
Scientists don’t all say the same thing. Nor is the scientist trained to make policy recommendations. Scientists say, “In these conditions, this happens.” Policy-makers take it from there.
Furthermore, scientists (as a community of consensus) tend not to apologize when they’re wrong. If you listen to them and they’re wrong, you bear the blame, they go on to say something else, demanding to have their words taken as the Gospel truth once again.This feels out of left field. "Demanding to have their words taken as Gospel truth once again." I'm gently asking, what are you talking about?
You'll need to unpack this one.
Scientists also are as political as anyone else. There are studies that are verboten. There are dogmas that must not be challenged in the scientific community, and those rebels who do get ostracized.
So I’m all for taking science seriously and scientists as fallen, error-prone, politically driven, and self promoting as anyone else, including politicians. Today’s progressives tend to regard scientists as some sort of holy caste.
That’s why I posted what I did upstream about the beginning of life, and why it is not a straw man, but quite pertinent. Do you believe someone who thinks human life does not begin at conception is a science denier? Why or why not?
Perhaps if we go back to the beginning of this sub thread. What decision did Pence make that rejected the scientific consensus that causes you to be uncomfortable with the idea of him in charge of policy?
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
if any of you are streaming your worship you can send me the links.A week after James initiated this thread, I think I speak for all of us praying that he and others his area of the world remain healthly and virus free and wish him a continued Blessed Lententide.
I would if I was on the other side of the Pacific begin planning for something similar.
Best wishes to all and a blessed Lent
James
So Someone, you have nothing to complain about how he is handling his responsibilities in managing the Coronavirus, you just don't like how he has dealt with other unrelated issues, so he must go?
Should Marxism be taught in public schools? It is thoroughly discredited. But it is one historically significant way of understanding things.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
Peter writes:
How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
I comment:
You can teach that some people believe that way. And you can also teach that most people don’t.
You can teach the Christianity influenced the strain of racism that brought us slavery and the Ku Klux Klan.
And you can teach that Christianity brought us the abolition of slavery, liberation theology, and a new look at what constitutes civil rights for all.
Pastor Fienen:
Isn't it a little early to render a final verdict on how they managed this crisis. Suggestions on what should be done should be welcome and considered. But rendering judgment that they aren't responding at all adequately and couldn't because they don't have the proper ideology seems premature.
Me:
How’s this for a response? The president, our leader, the one most in charge of managing the crisis, cites statistics from the Center for disease control on the death rate from the virus, and then says “but you know, I’ve got a hunch it’s not that high.”
Then he says, contrary to what the actual suppliers say, that we have enough test kits and everybody has access to one.
Then, he’s down in Florida playing golf. He was critical of President Obama’s vacation time and golf playing, and he’s already done more of those things than his predecessor.
In my not so humble opinion, a true leader would be in his office day after day paying attention to how the situation is being handled.
But you probably have a different view.
Pastor Fienen:
Isn't it a little early to render a final verdict on how they managed this crisis. Suggestions on what should be done should be welcome and considered. But rendering judgment that they aren't responding at all adequately and couldn't because they don't have the proper ideology seems premature.
Me:
How’s this for a response? The president, our leader, the one most in charge of managing the crisis, cites statistics from the Center for disease control on the death rate from the virus, and then says “but you know, I’ve got a hunch it’s not that high.”
Then he says, contrary to what the actual suppliers say, that we have enough test kits and everybody has access to one.
Then, he’s down in Florida playing golf. He was critical of President Obama’s vacation time and golf playing, and he’s already done more of those things than his predecessor.
In my not so humble opinion, a true leader would be in his office day after day paying attention to how the situation is being handled.
But you probably have a different view.
It is the 21st century Charles. One does not need to be "in the office" day after day to be fully informed or to make critical decisions.
More likely that Rev Austin suffers from the TDS pandemic ;DYeah, I'm guessing he has one of those cell phone thingies. After all, it IS a necessity of life.Pastor Fienen:It is the 21st century Charles. One does not need to be "in the office" day after day to be fully informed or to make critical decisions.
Isn't it a little early to render a final verdict on how they managed this crisis. Suggestions on what should be done should be welcome and considered. But rendering judgment that they aren't responding at all adequately and couldn't because they don't have the proper ideology seems premature.
Me:
How’s this for a response? The president, our leader, the one most in charge of managing the crisis, cites statistics from the Center for disease control on the death rate from the virus, and then says “but you know, I’ve got a hunch it’s not that high.”
Then he says, contrary to what the actual suppliers say, that we have enough test kits and everybody has access to one.
Then, he’s down in Florida playing golf. He was critical of President Obama’s vacation time and golf playing, and he’s already done more of those things than his predecessor.
In my not so humble opinion, a true leader would be in his office day after day paying attention to how the situation is being handled.
But you probably have a different view.
Not all Republicans are stupid. But some are.And so are some Democrats.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
The same way we teach other myths that people considered historical, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, and Teutonic gods and goddesses.
Democrats ignore the science on embryology literally all the time. Nobody ever calls them "science deniers" even though they literally are.
Honestly, this just smacks of more of the tired old "Republicans are all stupid" line.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
The same way we teach other myths that people considered historical, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, and Teutonic gods and goddesses.
The term “history” needs more unpacking. What is history and the historical? I think folks are operating out of different conceptual universes or biases.
Democrats ignore the science on embryology literally all the time. Nobody ever calls them "science deniers" even though they literally are.
Honestly, this just smacks of more of the tired old "Republicans are all stupid" line.
As we all learned in grade school, science is not so much a list of established principles as it is a method for testing hypotheses regarding observable phenomena. Applying the scientific method to some phenomena has enabled us to conclude with nearly absolute certainty that hypotheses are correct. Sometimes, this process requires little formal testing. For example, we need no expert help to conclude that gravity will almost certainly keep us attached to the earth. By contrast, most problems studied by professional scientists are enormously complex. This absolutely includes scientific inquiry into climate and the causes of climate change throughout the earth's history.
This brings us to the great irony that almost invariably arises in debates over climate and climate change. Prudent people understand that the climate changes constantly and that sometime those changes are drastic. The land now making up New York City once sat under a mile or two of ice. Just a few thousand years ago, much of the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile. Prudent people also understand that humans can and do effect climate changes. And indeed, the use of fossil fuels certainly does influence and change climate.
That said, prudent people also understand the need for substantially more information than this in deciding what policies make sense in response to the changing climate. What precisely are the causes of particular changes to climate? What are the good and bad consequences of these changes? Who will benefit and who will be harmed? What steps might mitigate the bad changes? At what cost? To whom? And what benefit would each change bring? All these questions and more need to be answered for policy makers to decide wisely.
This is where we often encounter activists screeching "science denier," often motivated by a sincere belief that the end of the world is nigh and that we all need to repent. The deep irony here is that this cri de coeur is generally applied to those who are arguing that we need to apply science to a complex problem in order to arrive at the wisest possible policies. Oddly, many of these folks genuinely believe that a call to follow the scientific method wherever it might lead--in other words, a call to do more science--is a denial of science.
Almost every time I am accused of denying the science, I am met with arguments that are decidedly anti-science. The science is "settled," I'm told. Really? Science related to anything as complex as climate is almost never really settled. But okay. Fine. Tell me, I ask, the answers supplied by science to the questions I've listed above. This usually leads to no substantive response. The science is too complicated to understand, I'm told. Only ourhigh priestsscientists can understand. And among this group, there is consensus. Okay. Fine. What precisely is the consensus? How was it reached? And what policies does it justify? These questions are generally met with nothing of substance, growing frustration, and more name calling.
At this point, with no good scientific responses, activists often fall back on emotionalism of the sort epitomized by the decidedly non-scientific Greta Thunberg.
There's an old saying among lawyers that when the facts or law are on a client's side, the lawyer in court will pound on the facts or the law. But when neither is on the client's side, the lawyer has no choice but to pound the table. You don't resort to pounding the table unless you have no choice because in so doing, you are implicitly conceding that the facts and law are against you.
The orchestrated rise of Greta Thunberg is table pounding of the highest order.
Climate and climate change absolutely must be part of our policy debates. Sadly, so long as those calling for scientific inquiry are smeared as "science deniers" by those whose real commitment is not scientific at all, but rather almost theological, the right debates won't happen.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
The same way we teach other myths that people considered historical, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, and Teutonic gods and goddesses.
The term “history” needs more unpacking. What is history and the historical? I think folks are operating out of different conceptual universes or biases.
Factual might be a better term. Often I've used both: historical and factual. However, even those can be a bit confusing.
"Did it really happen?" What does "it" refer to?
It could refer to the first two human beings who were given the names Adam (Humanity) and Eve (Life) who were created out of dirt and a rib. If someone had a movie camera, they could have filmed these two in a luscious garden. "They really existed."
It could refer to the people's belief in the myth of the first two humans. We have the Jewish/Christian myth; and many other myths (some quite similar to the biblical account) about the genesis of the universe. "People really believed it." It is historical and factual that many children believe Santa Clause comes down the chimney and leaves presents on Christmas morning.
But we haven’t encountered any anxiety at all. Communion went on as usual, which always includes a choice of chalice or individual cups. I didn’t notice anyone changing their normal preference, though I wasn’t really paying attention either. Our exchange of peace included a note in the bulletin about respecting the wishes of those who preferred not to shake hands, but that was in there before thus virus became a thing.
Attendance was light. Could have been the time change, or could have been people wanting avoid crowds. Tough to say.
Democrats ignore the science on embryology literally all the time. Nobody ever calls them "science deniers" even though they literally are.
Honestly, this just smacks of more of the tired old "Republicans are all stupid" line.
As we all learned in grade school, science is not so much a list of established principles as it is a method for testing hypotheses regarding observable phenomena. Applying the scientific method to some phenomena has enabled us to conclude with nearly absolute certainty that hypotheses are correct. Sometimes, this process requires little formal testing. For example, we need no expert help to conclude that gravity will almost certainly keep us attached to the earth. By contrast, most problems studied by professional scientists are enormously complex. This absolutely includes scientific inquiry into climate and the causes of climate change throughout the earth's history.
This brings us to the great irony that almost invariably arises in debates over climate and climate change. Prudent people understand that the climate changes constantly and that sometime those changes are drastic. The land now making up New York City once sat under a mile or two of ice. Just a few thousand years ago, much of the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile. Prudent people also understand that humans can and do effect climate changes. And indeed, the use of fossil fuels certainly does influence and change climate.
That said, prudent people also understand the need for substantially more information than this in deciding what policies make sense in response to the changing climate. What precisely are the causes of particular changes to climate? What are the good and bad consequences of these changes? Who will benefit and who will be harmed? What steps might mitigate the bad changes? At what cost? To whom? And what benefit would each change bring? All these questions and more need to be answered for policy makers to decide wisely.
This is where we often encounter activists screeching "science denier," often motivated by a sincere belief that the end of the world is nigh and that we all need to repent. The deep irony here is that this cri de coeur is generally applied to those who are arguing that we need to apply science to a complex problem in order to arrive at the wisest possible policies. Oddly, many of these folks genuinely believe that a call to follow the scientific method wherever it might lead--in other words, a call to do more science--is a denial of science.
Almost every time I am accused of denying the science, I am met with arguments that are decidedly anti-science. The science is "settled," I'm told. Really? Science related to anything as complex as climate is almost never really settled. But okay. Fine. Tell me, I ask, the answers supplied by science to the questions I've listed above. This usually leads to no substantive response. The science is too complicated to understand, I'm told. Only ourhigh priestsscientists can understand. And among this group, there is consensus. Okay. Fine. What precisely is the consensus? How was it reached? And what policies does it justify? These questions are generally met with nothing of substance, growing frustration, and more name calling.
At this point, with no good scientific responses, activists often fall back on emotionalism of the sort epitomized by the decidedly non-scientific Greta Thunberg.
There's an old saying among lawyers that when the facts or law are on a client's side, the lawyer in court will pound on the facts or the law. But when neither is on the client's side, the lawyer has no choice but to pound the table. You don't resort to pounding the table unless you have no choice because in so doing, you are implicitly conceding that the facts and law are against you.
The orchestrated rise of Greta Thunberg is table pounding of the highest order.
Climate and climate change absolutely must be part of our policy debates. Sadly, so long as those calling for scientific inquiry are smeared as "science deniers" by those whose real commitment is not scientific at all, but rather almost theological, the right debates won't happen.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
The same way we teach other myths that people considered historical, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, and Teutonic gods and goddesses.
The term “history” needs more unpacking. What is history and the historical? I think folks are operating out of different conceptual universes or biases.
Factual might be a better term. Often I've used both: historical and factual. However, even those can be a bit confusing.
"Did it really happen?" What does "it" refer to?
It could refer to the first two human beings who were given the names Adam (Humanity) and Eve (Life) who were created out of dirt and a rib. If someone had a movie camera, they could have filmed these two in a luscious garden. "They really existed."
It could refer to the people's belief in the myth of the first two humans. We have the Jewish/Christian myth; and many other myths (some quite similar to the biblical account) about the genesis of the universe. "People really believed it." It is historical and factual that many children believe Santa Clause comes down the chimney and leaves presents on Christmas morning.
I make a distinction between the time when Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden and prevented from returning into Eden. History begins from the point at which Adam was turned away from Eden to go forward away from Eden never to re-enter Eden again. History occurs when the first person takes up management of his own affairs without noticing or being near God constantly. (However one cannot be really away from God because his nearness is constant and, since his exile, threatening.)
Prior to the exile history and time have no preview but we do “see” into it via the narrative in Genesis 1-3
I think it's even more complicated than you indicate. For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited. So, they compromise, science tells us that certain materials and structures can withstand an earthquake of 8 on the scale; and that they happen only about once a year somewhere in the world. The odds that one might happen close enough to collapse the bridge are slim enough to take the risk and save greatly on the cost of materials and construction. They build bridges that they know will collapse should a catastrophic earthquake happen.Actually, Mr. Gale captured the complexity you're talking about very well. These are the exact kind of tradeoffs the climate crowd which has rallied around Greta won't consider. If the United States and Europe went zero emissions tomorrow, the output of China and India would, according to their models, still cause the warming catastrophe. So even if we met their "demands" it would only be the West which suffered.
Marxism, And a lot of other isms that we don’t like, should be taught in schools. They should be taught as historical happenings. How could you teach history of the 20th century without teaching the history of Marxism?How can you teach Christianity without Genesis and the historical fact that some people regard Genesis as historical?
The same way we teach other myths that people considered historical, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, and Teutonic gods and goddesses.
The term “history” needs more unpacking. What is history and the historical? I think folks are operating out of different conceptual universes or biases.
Factual might be a better term. Often I've used both: historical and factual. However, even those can be a bit confusing.
"Did it really happen?" What does "it" refer to?
It could refer to the first two human beings who were given the names Adam (Humanity) and Eve (Life) who were created out of dirt and a rib. If someone had a movie camera, they could have filmed these two in a luscious garden. "They really existed."
It could refer to the people's belief in the myth of the first two humans. We have the Jewish/Christian myth; and many other myths (some quite similar to the biblical account) about the genesis of the universe. "People really believed it." It is historical and factual that many children believe Santa Clause comes down the chimney and leaves presents on Christmas morning.
I make a distinction between the time when Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden and prevented from returning into Eden. History begins from the point at which Adam was turned away from Eden to go forward away from Eden never to re-enter Eden again. History occurs when the first person takes up management of his own affairs without noticing or being near God constantly. (However one cannot be really away from God because his nearness is constant and, since his exile, threatening.)
Prior to the exile history and time have no preview but we do “see” into it via the narrative in Genesis 1-3
Many outlines I've seen consider Genesis 1-11 as "pre-history". It relates a period of time before there was writing and any written records. They are events that were written down centuries after they might have happened.
I think it's even more complicated than you indicate. For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited. So, they compromise, science tells us that certain materials and structures can withstand an earthquake of 8 on the scale; and that they happen only about once a year somewhere in the world. The odds that one might happen close enough to collapse the bridge are slim enough to take the risk and save greatly on the cost of materials and construction. They build bridges that they know will collapse should a catastrophic earthquake happen.Actually, Mr. Gale captured the complexity you're talking about very well. These are the exact kind of tradeoffs the climate crowd which has rallied around Greta won't consider. If the United States and Europe went zero emissions tomorrow, the output of China and India would, according to their models, still cause the warming catastrophe. So even if we met their "demands" it would only be the West which suffered.
So for example, the kind of "zero emission" vehicle they might approve of isn't technologically possible at a price point affordable to existing car owners. Sure, one is conceivable but at an astronomical price. THAT'S what the science says, including economics. Banning the internal combustion engine in favor of this mythical beast is effectively banning private transport. And as I already explained, it STILL would not prevent the outcome they fear.
For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited.
For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited.
I find it curious how common it is for "science" and engineering to be conflated.
Until a science can find a hypothesis that can accurately predict what is actually happening, there is no "scientific consensus."
Pax, Steven+
For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited.
I find it curious how common it is for "science" and engineering to be conflated.
Until a science can find a hypothesis that can accurately predict what is actually happening, there is no "scientific consensus."
Pax, Steven+
This post is more connected to local congregational life as Eucharistic community at this phase of the coronavirus outbreak. New York's Governor has called a state of emergency; I think the mayor is not far behind.
We took about a half hour of time and then another half hour after church today to work this through, including portions of the message. I spoke about the things that pertain to the Divine Service at our place - the altar servers, the eucharist itself, the sharing of Christ's peace, the interactions among worshipers, the Sunday School, etc. Special emphasis was placed on seniors and those with existing health conditions. Normally in the eucharist we have common cup, intinction cup and individual cup. Today I drank from the common cup and put it out of service, and the blood of Christ was received only through individual cups. This is by no means my preferred practice, but it alleviated substantial anxiety, and is not prohibited at any rate. Two worshipers chose to walk through but not receive the Lord's Meal but only a blessing - the rest including our children who have made their first holy communion received the Meal in both kinds. Prior to setting up the altar during the offertory, all altar servers used sanitizer which was visible to the congregants. They used the sanitizer after the Meal as well in open view.
All of that was painful to me. What was in a sense more painful was that rather than the fifteen minute sharing of the Peace after holding hands in a circle and singing the Lord's Prayer, everyone sang without holding hands and then shared the Peace in far less personal ways (a peace sign, an elbow bump, etc.). After the benediction I ruminated on how hard that was, and later our newer attendees told me that the diverse loving community gathered in worship to hear the Gospel is what drew and keeps them at St. Peter's.
However, after I was done with my sharing, we had a parishioner who is in Health Education with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene speak to us for about fifteen minutes concerning practices and habits, anxiety and interaction, and the need to be wise in our practices at this time. Amazingly pertinent; and she met with us in the parish hall to distribute various pamphlets (how to talk to children) in English and Spanish, and to give us hand sanitizer packets. Next week we'll do some hand-washing practice (it's not as easy as you'd think!). She ended with encouragement to prayer and guidance and dependence on God; we then closed with an Andrea Crouch song, "Through it All," which left things the way they should be "Through it all/Through it all/I've learned to trust in Jesus/I have learned to trust in God." Which are my sentiments to you all.
Dave Benke
This post is more connected to local congregational life as Eucharistic community at this phase of the coronavirus outbreak. New York's Governor has called a state of emergency; I think the mayor is not far behind.
We took about a half hour of time and then another half hour after church today to work this through, including portions of the message. I spoke about the things that pertain to the Divine Service at our place - the altar servers, the eucharist itself, the sharing of Christ's peace, the interactions among worshipers, the Sunday School, etc. Special emphasis was placed on seniors and those with existing health conditions. Normally in the eucharist we have common cup, intinction cup and individual cup. Today I drank from the common cup and put it out of service, and the blood of Christ was received only through individual cups. This is by no means my preferred practice, but it alleviated substantial anxiety, and is not prohibited at any rate. Two worshipers chose to walk through but not receive the Lord's Meal but only a blessing - the rest including our children who have made their first holy communion received the Meal in both kinds. Prior to setting up the altar during the offertory, all altar servers used sanitizer which was visible to the congregants. They used the sanitizer after the Meal as well in open view.
All of that was painful to me. What was in a sense more painful was that rather than the fifteen minute sharing of the Peace after holding hands in a circle and singing the Lord's Prayer, everyone sang without holding hands and then shared the Peace in far less personal ways (a peace sign, an elbow bump, etc.). After the benediction I ruminated on how hard that was, and later our newer attendees told me that the diverse loving community gathered in worship to hear the Gospel is what drew and keeps them at St. Peter's.
However, after I was done with my sharing, we had a parishioner who is in Health Education with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene speak to us for about fifteen minutes concerning practices and habits, anxiety and interaction, and the need to be wise in our practices at this time. Amazingly pertinent; and she met with us in the parish hall to distribute various pamphlets (how to talk to children) in English and Spanish, and to give us hand sanitizer packets. Next week we'll do some hand-washing practice (it's not as easy as you'd think!). She ended with encouragement to prayer and guidance and dependence on God; we then closed with an Andrea Crouch song, "Through it All," which left things the way they should be "Through it all/Through it all/I've learned to trust in Jesus/I have learned to trust in God." Which are my sentiments to you all.
Dave Benke
For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited.
I find it curious how common it is for "science" and engineering to be conflated.
Until a science can find a hypothesis that can accurately predict what is actually happening, there is no "scientific consensus."
Pastor Fienen:It is quite difficult in the early stages of an epidemic like this to have a clear picture of its extent and a clear handle on the level of danger it poses. It is that uncertainty that can be the most unsettling. It may very well be that Trump's hunch will prove to be correct:
Isn't it a little early to render a final verdict on how they managed this crisis. Suggestions on what should be done should be welcome and considered. But rendering judgment that they aren't responding at all adequately and couldn't because they don't have the proper ideology seems premature.
Me:
How’s this for a response? The president, our leader, the one most in charge of managing the crisis, cites statistics from the Center for disease control on the death rate from the virus, and then says “but you know, I’ve got a hunch it’s not that high.”
Then he says, contrary to what the actual suppliers say, that we have enough test kits and everybody has access to one.
Brief amplification concerning today's service in Brooklyn. The first half hour session concerning worship practice was a conversation with those in the congregation. I indicated options, and their response to options was unanimously to utilize the individual cups. Normally we have three options for receiving the blood of Christ - common cup, intinction cup, and individual cups. So the conversation eliminated the intinction cup and common cup, and just enough wine was placed in the common cup by the assistants for me to drink at the beginning of the Eucharist.
The conversational approach, although time-consuming, kept us focused on the desire to receive the Sacrament, on the grace of God which would be there in abundance, and on the need not to fear but approach with faith in God. Good stuff - it's an interesting time, as new folks are entering the fellowship this winter.
Dave Benke
Brief amplification concerning today's service in Brooklyn. The first half hour session concerning worship practice was a conversation with those in the congregation. I indicated options, and their response to options was unanimously to utilize the individual cups. Normally we have three options for receiving the blood of Christ - common cup, intinction cup, and individual cups. So the conversation eliminated the intinction cup and common cup, and just enough wine was placed in the common cup by the assistants for me to drink at the beginning of the Eucharist.
The conversational approach, although time-consuming, kept us focused on the desire to receive the Sacrament, on the grace of God which would be there in abundance, and on the need not to fear but approach with faith in God. Good stuff - it's an interesting time, as new folks are entering the fellowship this winter.
Dave Benke
Thank you for your explanation, but I have to say that I still don't get why -- after the congregation had decided to only use individual cups -- you had the assistants put "just enough" wine in the common cup for you to drink and then "put it out of service". Why not just use the individual cup yourself, as the rest of the congregation? Was there some significance to you drinking from it one last time that I am not getting?
My wife and I are scheduled to take a cruise at the end of April and with the newest State Department advisory will have to reevaluate. It's disappointing, but I have some of those 'underlying health concerns' that they frequently mention. The risk seems to be much larger than my desire for a nice vacation.
At church this morning we implemented our first health safety precautions by eliminating the shaking of hands before service and by me afterwards. One benefit: the line went faster and church emptied out at record speeds as people just moved along without stopping. :)
I plan to retain the common cup for now. Given past tests on disease transmission via the common cup I am not convinced yet that I have to do this. I did notice that the CoE is now advising communing in "one kind." BTW, using individual cups has its own hazzards. If the communicant takes the cup they risk touching those in the immediate proximity to their cup. If the celebrant does it he could inadvertently pass something along via his own hands. Whoever does it you have to touch the rim of the cup to remove it. Not so with a common cup. You cannot remove the risk entirely, whether by suspending the common cup or not.
That the chalice is part of the ceremony, and he did not want it to be empty, lest it be an empty part of the ceremony.Brief amplification concerning today's service in Brooklyn. The first half hour session concerning worship practice was a conversation with those in the congregation. I indicated options, and their response to options was unanimously to utilize the individual cups. Normally we have three options for receiving the blood of Christ - common cup, intinction cup, and individual cups. So the conversation eliminated the intinction cup and common cup, and just enough wine was placed in the common cup by the assistants for me to drink at the beginning of the Eucharist.
The conversational approach, although time-consuming, kept us focused on the desire to receive the Sacrament, on the grace of God which would be there in abundance, and on the need not to fear but approach with faith in God. Good stuff - it's an interesting time, as new folks are entering the fellowship this winter.
Dave Benke
Thank you for your explanation, but I have to say that I still don't get why -- after the congregation had decided to only use individual cups -- you had the assistants put "just enough" wine in the common cup for you to drink and then "put it out of service". Why not just use the individual cup yourself, as the rest of the congregation? Was there some significance to you drinking from it one last time that I am not getting?
That the chalice is part of the ceremony, and he did not want it to be empty, lest it be an empty part of the ceremony.Brief amplification concerning today's service in Brooklyn. The first half hour session concerning worship practice was a conversation with those in the congregation. I indicated options, and their response to options was unanimously to utilize the individual cups. Normally we have three options for receiving the blood of Christ - common cup, intinction cup, and individual cups. So the conversation eliminated the intinction cup and common cup, and just enough wine was placed in the common cup by the assistants for me to drink at the beginning of the Eucharist.
The conversational approach, although time-consuming, kept us focused on the desire to receive the Sacrament, on the grace of God which would be there in abundance, and on the need not to fear but approach with faith in God. Good stuff - it's an interesting time, as new folks are entering the fellowship this winter.
Dave Benke
Thank you for your explanation, but I have to say that I still don't get why -- after the congregation had decided to only use individual cups -- you had the assistants put "just enough" wine in the common cup for you to drink and then "put it out of service". Why not just use the individual cup yourself, as the rest of the congregation? Was there some significance to you drinking from it one last time that I am not getting?
It would seem that the individual cup tray could be elevated in place of the chalice which may be a good opportunity to teach that other than our Lord's Words of Institution the actions involved in the consecration are ceremonial audiophoria.That the chalice is part of the ceremony, and he did not want it to be empty, lest it be an empty part of the ceremony.Brief amplification concerning today's service in Brooklyn. The first half hour session concerning worship practice was a conversation with those in the congregation. I indicated options, and their response to options was unanimously to utilize the individual cups. Normally we have three options for receiving the blood of Christ - common cup, intinction cup, and individual cups. So the conversation eliminated the intinction cup and common cup, and just enough wine was placed in the common cup by the assistants for me to drink at the beginning of the Eucharist.
The conversational approach, although time-consuming, kept us focused on the desire to receive the Sacrament, on the grace of God which would be there in abundance, and on the need not to fear but approach with faith in God. Good stuff - it's an interesting time, as new folks are entering the fellowship this winter.
Dave Benke
Thank you for your explanation, but I have to say that I still don't get why -- after the congregation had decided to only use individual cups -- you had the assistants put "just enough" wine in the common cup for you to drink and then "put it out of service". Why not just use the individual cup yourself, as the rest of the congregation? Was there some significance to you drinking from it one last time that I am not getting?
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
By the way, thank you, Dr. Benke, for your explanations.
Not to belabor the point I made earlier about keeping fear out of the Eucharistic rite, but rather to further it, I wonder if, leaving aside the concerns about whether the Lord's Body and Blood will harm us, there have been any studies about communicating diseases via a common cup?Interesting point especially since the use of individual cups removes the use of the gold/silver vessels and in place introduces glass and/or plastic cups.
It seems to me the antiviral properties of alcohol, gold and silver would alleviate at least some of that concern.
Not to belabor the point I made earlier about keeping fear out of the Eucharistic rite, but rather to further it, I wonder if, leaving aside the concerns about whether the Lord's Body and Blood will harm us, there have been any studies about communicating diseases via a common cup?Interesting point especially since the use of individual cups removes the use of the gold/silver vessels and in place introduces glass and/or plastic cups.
It seems to me the antiviral properties of alcohol, gold and silver would alleviate at least some of that concern.
I think it's even more complicated than you indicate. For example, a civil engineer for the State of California told me that they could build bridges that would withstand earthquakes that reach 10 on the Richter scale. Science tells us how they can do that; but the costs are prohibited. So, they compromise, science tells us that certain materials and structures can withstand an earthquake of 8 on the scale; and that they happen only about once a year somewhere in the world. The odds that one might happen close enough to collapse the bridge are slim enough to take the risk and save greatly on the cost of materials and construction. They build bridges that they know will collapse should a catastrophic earthquake happen.Actually, Mr. Gale captured the complexity you're talking about very well. These are the exact kind of tradeoffs the climate crowd which has rallied around Greta won't consider. If the United States and Europe went zero emissions tomorrow, the output of China and India would, according to their models, still cause the warming catastrophe. So even if we met their "demands" it would only be the West which suffered.
So for example, the kind of "zero emission" vehicle they might approve of isn't technologically possible at a price point affordable to existing car owners. Sure, one is conceivable but at an astronomical price. THAT'S what the science says, including economics. Banning the internal combustion engine in favor of this mythical beast is effectively banning private transport. And as I already explained, it STILL would not prevent the outcome they fear.
However, there are things we can do, that are cost efficient, that can reduce our carbon footprint. Whether or not it slows climate change remains to be seen. People could make greater use of mass transit rather than thousands of individuals driving their own cars. (Neither of our sons own cars.) People could switch to low cost (and low energy use) LED lights throughout their houses. That can reduce the emissions of power plants.
Michigan has so far been spared a Covid-19 outbreak so we are not yet taking serious precautions. But here is a thought, what about moistening the napkin used to wipe the common cup between tables with vodka as a disinfectant. Not only would the alcohol in the vodka provide some germ killing properties, but a damp cloth would do a more efficient job of wiping the cup.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
So the President’s concern is not to “harm those industries”?
When his - repeat his - health officials advise what to do to protect people?
This bothers me. Probably not you.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
Correct .... and at the Lord's time, the fruit of the vine could be nothing but wine at the passover time.OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
From today’s New York Times (emphasis added):
The State Department on Sunday advised Americans against traveling on cruise ships, warning that they presented a higher risk of coronavirus infection and made U.S. citizens vulnerable to possible international travel restrictions, including quarantines.
The decision came after President Trump resisted requests from administration officials to publicly urge older travelers to avoid cruise ships and plane travel, saying he thought it would harm those industries, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
“U.S. citizens, particularly travelers with underlying health conditions, should not travel by cruise ship,” the State Department wrote in an alert posted to its website Sunday.
Americans should not rely on being evacuated if other countries subject them to quarantine, the department said.
The guidance signaled another escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to ward off the fast-growing spread of the virus, and another instance of what appeared to be separation between health officials and the president, who has repeatedly registered skepticism over making statements he believes are alarmist.
I comment:
So the President’s concern is not to “harm those industries”?
When his - repeat his - health officials advise what to do to protect people?
This bothers me. Probably not you.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
Which has absolutely NO bearing on what prompted my question.
Correct .... and at the Lord's time, the fruit of the vine could be nothing but wine at the passover time.OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
With an NYC Department of Education Day Care Center, we receive multiple communications on coronavirus daily from various city departments. As this becomes more real here, what is happening on the ground is that it's becoming extremely difficult to get bleach, other deep cleaning agents, sanitizer, wipe cloths, paper towels and toilet paper. Costco was basically sold out this morning by the time we got there. My advice to those in other precincts not yet in the middle of this is to stock up now.
Dave Benke
One of the most boneheaded criticisms of any leader that a person with zero comprehension of leadership often makes is that the leader disregarded the advice of his experts in some specific decision. Experts, by definition, are not generalists; they're hired for their expertise, and their expertise is in only one or two of the factors that go any decision. The leader, then, takes their expertise into account, along with the input of experts in other fields focused on other facets of the decision, so he weigh it all and decide things based on all the factors.Just to follow up, my son was born with heart defects needing surgery. One of the problems needed immediate attention and could be handled with heart surgery that didn't require the full opening the chest cavity. Another was less urgent and could wait a few years, but required full open heart surgery. Furthermore, the doctors didn't want to do any surgery on a infant until one year because the blood pressure changes can do brain damage. So the question was whether to do two surgeries, one now and one later, or do both at once and hold off as long as possible while treating with medication. All the various kinds of doctors involved made their case, and then the head of the huge committee made the call.
If you're a CEO, you listen to Marketing, R & D, Legal, and Accounting before making a decision on which versions of which products to launch, and on what scale. The odds are slim that all those experts-- and they are genuine experts, paid by you for their expertise-- agree with each other on what to recommend. Most of the time, your decision goes against the advice of at least one set of the experts. If you're a general deciding whether to launch a strike, you have expert military personnel in both ears telling you to do it and telling you not to do it. Leaders are always valuing the input of and then deliberately disregarding the advice of experts, in the best sense of the word deliberately.
Truman could drop the bomb or not. Either way he was ignoring the very top experts in some field.
With an NYC Department of Education Day Care Center, we receive multiple communications on coronavirus daily from various city departments. As this becomes more real here, what is happening on the ground is that it's becoming extremely difficult to get bleach, other deep cleaning agents, sanitizer, wipe cloths, paper towels and toilet paper. Costco was basically sold out this morning by the time we got there. My advice to those in other precincts not yet in the middle of this is to stock up now.That's the problem with recommending people run on anything and stock up. It is self-fulfilling good advice. There might be no need whatsoever for you to go out and buy toilet paper. But if all your neighbors think they need to, they'll do so, and then you'll wish you had, too, and will be forced to admit should have listened. You should have bought toilet paper not because it would help you any way beyond the obvious, but because you have panicky neighbors.
Dave Benke
With an NYC Department of Education Day Care Center, we receive multiple communications on coronavirus daily from various city departments. As this becomes more real here, what is happening on the ground is that it's becoming extremely difficult to get bleach, other deep cleaning agents, sanitizer, wipe cloths, paper towels and toilet paper. Costco was basically sold out this morning by the time we got there. My advice to those in other precincts not yet in the middle of this is to stock up now.
Dave Benke
I'm still perplexed by the run on toilet paper. I understand the demand for cleaning products and even for paper towels. Health officials are telling us that its best to dry our hands after washing them with disposable towels. But toilet paper? I don't really get it.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
Which has absolutely NO bearing on what prompted my question.
What then do the words "This CUP is the new covenant in my blood" refer to? We don't say, "These cups". If the contents of the cup are not important, then the presider could use an empty chalice. But if there's no chalice, there is no cup that is being blessed.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.
My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
I agree. Good response
With an NYC Department of Education Day Care Center, we receive multiple communications on coronavirus daily from various city departments. As this becomes more real here, what is happening on the ground is that it's becoming extremely difficult to get bleach, other deep cleaning agents, sanitizer, wipe cloths, paper towels and toilet paper. Costco was basically sold out this morning by the time we got there. My advice to those in other precincts not yet in the middle of this is to stock up now.
Dave Benke
I'm still perplexed by the run on toilet paper. I understand the demand for cleaning products and even for paper towels. Health officials are telling us that its best to dry our hands after washing them with disposable towels. But toilet paper? I don't really get it.
Anxiety. When you gotta go, you gotta go? Driven by anxiety.
In December 1999 one of my elderly members who owned a home filled the entire basement with bottled water and toilet paper, because Y2K would end her ability to get those two things. On January 1, she recognized that she had purchased her lifetime supply of those two items.
There should be books written on panic purchasing. One of my favorites in NYC is salt and snow shovels. Today, as our changing climate allows us a day when we'll be over 70 degrees in early March, the salt and snow shovel marketers are sunbathing on a beach of debt. There were no panics on which to capitalize, because it ain't snowing any more in the Big Apple. (of course, that jinx means we'll have 3 feet in April).
Dave Benke
Mr. Gale:
I don't think that President Trump has done very well in his public statements. But then, I've thought that about his public statements about most things. That aside, you've done us all a service by giving us a prototypical example of how the NYT covers the current president. Despite the absence of clear evidence either way, the reporter decides to share the completely subjective conclusion that there "appeared to be" a separation between the president and "health officials." That subjective observation is bizarre.
me:
No, it’s not subjective nor is it bizarre. I did not post the entire story. The rest of the story, and in other places it is clear that the president’s advisers were saying things other than what he was saying to the public. Now, it seems that doesn’t bother anybody, so I guess it’s no big deal.
I just commented that it seem to Me his first and primary concern was for the industry rather than for the people who might get sick.
Mr. Gale:
In the context of providing information in a manner that offers neither unwarranted complacency or unwarranted panic, any president would have to decide what to say personally and what to say through subordinates. (And indeed, in this case, this president probably would be well served by having most information delivered by qualified subordinates.)
Me:
This president does not choose to be well served by having information delivered by qualified subordinates. He would rather tell people about his “hunches,” and information that he thinks he has a “natural ability“ to discern and provide.
Mr. Gale:
I don't think that President Trump has done very well in his public statements. But then, I've thought that about his public statements about most things. That aside, you've done us all a service by giving us a prototypical example of how the NYT covers the current president. Despite the absence of clear evidence either way, the reporter decides to share the completely subjective conclusion that there "appeared to be" a separation between the president and "health officials." That subjective observation is bizarre.
me:
No, it’s not subjective nor is it bizarre. I did not post the entire story. The rest of the story, and in other places it is clear that the president’s advisers were saying things other than what he was saying to the public. Now, it seems that doesn’t bother anybody, so I guess it’s no big deal.
I just commented that it seem to Me his first and primary concern was for the industry rather than for the people who might get sick.
Mr. Gale:
In the context of providing information in a manner that offers neither unwarranted complacency or unwarranted panic, any president would have to decide what to say personally and what to say through subordinates. (And indeed, in this case, this president probably would be well served by having most information delivered by qualified subordinates.)
Me:
This president does not choose to be well served by having information delivered by qualified subordinates. He would rather tell people about his “hunches,” and information that he thinks he has a “natural ability“ to discern and provide.
Once again, you take a comment out of context and project onto it the least charitable interpretation. President Trump certainly lacks eloquence. He lacks charm and modesty. His concern for specificity and accuracy is often limited. However, his "hunch" was not based on any sense of his own "natural ability" to discern facts about diseases. He expressly said as part of the same remark that his "hunch" was "based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people who do this" -- i.e, CDC and NIH officials. But hey, don't let the facts interfere with your unshakeable prejudices.
His response (He never says 'wine') leaves open the Baptist use of grape juice. Do you agree with grape juice in the Sacrament??OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
I agree. Good response
Michigan has so far been spared a Covid-19 outbreak so we are not yet taking serious precautions. But here is a thought, what about moistening the napkin used to wipe the common cup between tables with vodka as a disinfectant. Not only would the alcohol in the vodka provide some germ killing properties, but a damp cloth would do a more efficient job of wiping the cup.
I asked why the pastor chose to use the common cup just for himself and then "put it out of service" before communing others with the individual cups.
I asked why the pastor chose to use the common cup just for himself and then "put it out of service" before communing others with the individual cups.
How many more times do you plan on posting the same words?
His response (He never says 'wine') leaves open the Baptist use of grape juice. Do you agree with grape juice in the Sacrament??OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
I agree. Good response
It would seem that the significance of 'one cup' is lost when the 'one cup' is used by one sacrament recipient only ... the use of the chalice ended up being an individual chalice for one person ... so the 'I agreed. Good response' is an agreement that the individual chalice practice for one communicant is an acceptable practice and apparently Biblical?
Michigan has so far been spared a Covid-19 outbreak so we are not yet taking serious precautions. But here is a thought, what about moistening the napkin used to wipe the common cup between tables with vodka as a disinfectant. Not only would the alcohol in the vodka provide some germ killing properties, but a damp cloth would do a more efficient job of wiping the cup.
Tito's Vodka issued a PSA that 80 proof vodka is not a disinfectant. You would need about 180 proof (90%) and that puts you in Everclear territory.
His response (He never says 'wine') leaves open the Baptist use of grape juice. Do you agree with grape juice in the Sacrament??OK. But why not just remove the chalice before-hand since the determination had already been made to use only individual cups? Certainly the lifting of the chalice -- empty or full -- is not essential to the consecration (or what will they do next week)? In any case, not a big deal. It just caught my curiosity.My answer is: Jesus’ words of institution uses the word “cup”. (He never says, “wine”.) The biblical symbols that Paul emphasizes is eating from ONE loaf and drinking from the cup. Many wafers and many cups counter the symbolism of unity that comes from the many receiving from one loaf and one cup.
I agree. Good response
It would seem that the significance of 'one cup' is lost when the 'one cup' is used by one sacrament recipient only ... the use of the chalice ended up being an individual chalice for one person ... so the 'I agreed. Good response' is an agreement that the individual chalice practice for one communicant is an acceptable practice and apparently Biblical?
Why wouldn't grape juice be fine? (Hint: I do prefer the use of wine, however)In the time of our Lord, it was biologically impossible at passover time for the 'fruit of the vine' not to be fermented into wine.
Why wouldn't grape juice be fine? (Hint: I do prefer the use of wine, however)In the time of our Lord, it was biologically impossible at passover time for the 'fruit of the vine' not to be fermented into wine.
Using grape juice is not following the Lord's institution of the Sacrament ... ergo no sacrament when unfermented pasteurized grape juice is used.
Pastor Preus writes:
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
I comment:
Alcoholics in recovery, Pastor Preus, are not "afraid" of the alcohol in the wine, but know that there is a chance it will flip that switch in their brain that takes them back to potentially fatal drinking. "Watering it down" is not going to help. An alcoholic in recovery would laugh at that suggestion.
Yes, receiving in one kind is still receiving, but that marks a certain separation from the rest of the community (which is also the body of our Lord), and often doesn't seem pastoral and "right."
Do you contend that when grape juice is used or received it cannot be the "true … blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Pastor Preus writes:
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
I comment:
Alcoholics in recovery, Pastor Preus, are not "afraid" of the alcohol in the wine, but know that there is a chance it will flip that switch in their brain that takes them back to potentially fatal drinking. "Watering it down" is not going to help. An alcoholic in recovery would laugh at that suggestion.
Yes, receiving in one kind is still receiving, but that marks a certain separation from the rest of the community (which is also the body of our Lord), and often doesn't seem pastoral and "right."
Do you contend that when grape juice is used or received it cannot be the "true … blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
From the LCMS's Commission on Theology and Church Relations' "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper" (1983):
"....All four accounts of the Lord's Supper speak of 'the cup.' The content of this cup was most definitely wine. The references in Matt. 26:29 and parallels to the 'fruit of the vine' would not have suggested anything else to Jesus' listeners than the grape wine of the Jewish Passover ritual. In 1 Cor. 11:21 there is corroboration that the early Christian church understood wine for 'fruit of the vine.' Some of the Corinthians, sadly, had abused the Holy Supper by becoming drunk.
The color, type, or origin of the grape wine is a matter which Christians can select in accord with their situation.
In the oft-cited pastoral circumstance of an alcoholic communicant, the counsel of foregoing Communion for a period of time or the action of diluting the wine with water (perhaps done at the Lord's Supper itself) are preferable. In the extreme situation where even greatly diluted wine may lead to severe temptation, no fully satisfactory answer, in the opinion of the CTCR, can· be formulated. The counsel of completely foregoing Communion is clearly unsatisfactory. In this situation, too, the actions of diluting the wine with water or intinction would be preferable. The substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded. Luther's openness to Communion in one kind is difficult in view of confessional texts which strongly urge the Biblical paradigm of both kinds, though the Confessions do not address the extreme situation.
A similar pastoral problem is posed by those rare instances where a severe physical reaction is caused by the elements (as, for example, when the recipient is concurrently taking certain medications, or is simply allergic to one or the other of the elements). The pastor, in such cases, will surely stress the Gospel's power and total effectiveness in the individual's life and patiently seek a practical solution that both honors Christ's word and satisfies the desire to partake in the Lord's Supper...."
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
And there are reasons, though they may be rare, for using grape juice.
Who here believes that makes the sacrament invalid or not “Real Presence”?
Re your 37-year old CTCR report: I wonder if that same report would be written today. I guess it probably would.
The ELCA's Social Statement on the Use of the Means of Grace Provides:
44 In accordance with the words of institution, this church uses bread and wine in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Communicants normally receive both elements, bread and wine, in the Holy Communion.
. . . . . . . .
Application
44c For pressing reasons of health, individuals may commune under one element. In certain circumstances, congregations might decide to place small amounts of non-wheat bread or non-alcoholic wine or grape juice on the altar. Such pastoral and congregational decisions are delicate, and must honor both the tradition of the Church and the people of each local assembly.
Pastor Preus writes:
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
I comment:
Alcoholics in recovery, Pastor Preus, are not "afraid" of the alcohol in the wine, but know that there is a chance it will flip that switch in their brain that takes them back to potentially fatal drinking. "Watering it down" is not going to help. An alcoholic in recovery would laugh at that suggestion.
Yes, receiving in one kind is still receiving, but that marks a certain separation from the rest of the community (which is also the body of our Lord), and often doesn't seem pastoral and "right."
Do you contend that when grape juice is used or received it cannot be the "true … blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
From the LCMS's Commission on Theology and Church Relations' "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper" (1983):
"....All four accounts of the Lord's Supper speak of 'the cup.' The content of this cup was most definitely wine. The references in Matt. 26:29 and parallels to the 'fruit of the vine' would not have suggested anything else to Jesus' listeners than the grape wine of the Jewish Passover ritual. In 1 Cor. 11:21 there is corroboration that the early Christian church understood wine for 'fruit of the vine.' Some of the Corinthians, sadly, had abused the Holy Supper by becoming drunk.
The color, type, or origin of the grape wine is a matter which Christians can select in accord with their situation.
In the oft-cited pastoral circumstance of an alcoholic communicant, the counsel of foregoing Communion for a period of time or the action of diluting the wine with water (perhaps done at the Lord's Supper itself) are preferable. In the extreme situation where even greatly diluted wine may lead to severe temptation, no fully satisfactory answer, in the opinion of the CTCR, can· be formulated. The counsel of completely foregoing Communion is clearly unsatisfactory. In this situation, too, the actions of diluting the wine with water or intinction would be preferable. The substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded. Luther's openness to Communion in one kind is difficult in view of confessional texts which strongly urge the Biblical paradigm of both kinds, though the Confessions do not address the extreme situation.
A similar pastoral problem is posed by those rare instances where a severe physical reaction is caused by the elements (as, for example, when the recipient is concurrently taking certain medications, or is simply allergic to one or the other of the elements). The pastor, in such cases, will surely stress the Gospel's power and total effectiveness in the individual's life and patiently seek a practical solution that both honors Christ's word and satisfies the desire to partake in the Lord's Supper...."
Pastor Preus writes:That isn't the issue. Anything CAN be the true blood of Christ if He says so. The question is, does He say so? With consecrated wine, the answer is yes. With consecrated something else, the answer is who knows, maybe.
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
I comment:
Alcoholics in recovery, Pastor Preus, are not "afraid" of the alcohol in the wine, but know that there is a chance it will flip that switch in their brain that takes them back to potentially fatal drinking. "Watering it down" is not going to help. An alcoholic in recovery would laugh at that suggestion.
Yes, receiving in one kind is still receiving, but that marks a certain separation from the rest of the community (which is also the body of our Lord), and often doesn't seem pastoral and "right."
Do you contend that when grape juice is used or received it cannot be the "true … blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Pastor Preus writes:That isn't the issue. Anything CAN be the true blood of Christ if He says so. The question is, does He say so? With consecrated wine, the answer is yes. With consecrated something else, the answer is who knows, maybe.
When the Bible uses the term "fruit of the vine" in connection with the Lord's Supper it refers to wine. It refers to real wine. This is why we use wine. If this were the church's supper, then the church would be free to change the elements, but since it is the Lord's Supper, we use what he used: bread and wine. For those who are afraid of the alcohol in the wine we may water it down for them. When we Lutherans confess what the Lord's Supper is we say that it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.
I comment:
Alcoholics in recovery, Pastor Preus, are not "afraid" of the alcohol in the wine, but know that there is a chance it will flip that switch in their brain that takes them back to potentially fatal drinking. "Watering it down" is not going to help. An alcoholic in recovery would laugh at that suggestion.
Yes, receiving in one kind is still receiving, but that marks a certain separation from the rest of the community (which is also the body of our Lord), and often doesn't seem pastoral and "right."
Do you contend that when grape juice is used or received it cannot be the "true … blood of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Pastor Preus:That is not what he's saying. And neither does the Sacrament depend upon what you believe it is. Just because you believe that grape juice is a perfectly suitable substitute for wine doesn't make it so. If you're ministering to a sick person and you have a bottle of medicine. You think it might cure him but it could also make him worse. You're not sure. Do you go ahead and give it to him?
I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is.
Me:
So now the Sacrament depends upon what you believe it is?
Pastor Preus:
I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is.
Me:
So now the Sacrament depends upon what you believe it is?
Pastor Preus:
I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this.
Me:
Not outwardly at least. But say that to most and to addiction professionals and see what happens.
Pastor Preus:
I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible.
Me:
You have a lot to learn about the disease today. I urge you to go learn it.
Pastor Preus:
Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.
Me:
I have worked with people in recovery for nearly 20 years, and still do so in retirement. People may decide that they have “nothing to fear,” (but I doubt that many will). I do seriously doubt they would “assure” others thusly.
Pastor Preus:
I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is.
Me:
So now the Sacrament depends upon what you believe it is?
Pastor Preus:
I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this.
Me:
Not outwardly at least. But say that to most and to addiction professionals and see what happens.
Pastor Preus:
I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible.
Me:
You have a lot to learn about the disease today. I urge you to go learn it.
Pastor Preus:
Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.
Me:
I have worked with people in recovery for nearly 20 years, and still do so in retirement. People may decide that they have “nothing to fear,” (but I doubt that many will). I do seriously doubt they would “assure” others thusly.
Rev. Austin, I suggest you consider the possibility that your experiences do not constitute the norm for others. All pastors deal with alcoholism in various contexts among their parishioners. I doubt that you know more about this than does the typical pastor. I've served as a pastor for alcoholics for over forty years and I have never heard of a Christian alcoholic who was driven back to the bottle by receiving Christ's blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. Have you?
We also hold that it is not to be administered in one form only. We need not resort to the specious learning of the sophists and the Council of Constance that as much is included under one form as under both. Even if it were true that as much is included under one form as under both, yet administration in one form is not the whole order and institution as it was established and commanded by Christ. Especially do we condemn and curse in God's name those who not oniy omit both forms but even go so far as autocratically to prohibit, condemn, and slander the use of both as heresy and thus set themselves against and over Christ, our Lord and God, etc. (SA III, vi, 2-4).
If grape juice is not the Blood of Christ in the Sacrament then millions, possibly hundreds of millions brothers and sisters in Christ never receive the Sacrament. What shall we tell them when we meet in glory?
The 1983 CTCR document correctly says that the "substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded." I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is. I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this. I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible. Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.
to RD's query, yes, there are alcoholics and those with multiple chemical dependencies who cannot be around alcohol at all. I have encountered that multiple times, up to and including currently. <Emphasis Added>The choice of ‘query’ above is at best misleading.
<snip>
Dave benke
The 1983 CTCR document correctly says that the "substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded." I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is. I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this. I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible. Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.to RD's query, yes, there are alcoholics and those with multiple chemical dependencies who cannot be around alcohol at all. I have encountered that multiple times, up to and including currently. <Emphasis Added>The choice of ‘query’ above is at best misleading.
<snip>
Dave benke
Following the reading of Rev. Benke’s post, Rev. Preus’s post was reviewed to identify the question (query) Rev. Preus addressed to the forum.
Unable to find a question mark in Rev. Preus’s post (quoted above for the reader’s convenience), it is apparent that Rev. Preus is sharing his personal experience ... NOT posing a question as Rev. Benke alleged.
Apparently Rev. Preus’s rural ministry experiences and Rev. Benke’s urban experiences differ greatly ... and it is beneficial for both to share these experiences with the forum.
I’m confident that if I have misinterpreted Rev. Preus’s post above, he will clarify his post.
In 27 years of ministry, I have never had a recovering alcoholic tell me he could not handle ANY wine. That is, all have been agreeable to either diluting the wine, or only drinking a small portion, or intinction. How much alcohol do you think there is in a drop or two of wine? My guess -- which I am sure Rev. Austin will tell me is ignorant -- is that physically, such an amount is not a problem.
The 1983 CTCR document correctly says that the "substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded." I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is. I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this. I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible. Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.to RD's query, yes, there are alcoholics and those with multiple chemical dependencies who cannot be around alcohol at all. I have encountered that multiple times, up to and including currently. <Emphasis Added>The choice of ‘query’ above is at best misleading.
<snip>
Dave benke
Following the reading of Rev. Benke’s post, Rev. Preus’s post was reviewed to identify the question (query) Rev. Preus addressed to the forum.
Unable to find a question mark in Rev. Preus’s post (quoted above for the reader’s convenience), it is apparent that Rev. Preus is sharing his personal experience ... NOT posing a question as Rev. Benke alleged.
Apparently Rev. Preus’s rural ministry experiences and Rev. Benke’s urban experiences differ greatly ... and it is beneficial for both to share these experiences with the forum.
I’m confident that if I have misinterpreted Rev. Preus’s post above, he will clarify his post.
OK - to RD's comment, then.
What could be misleading in your response here is that there is some inherent difference in alcoholism or alcoholics by geography - rural and urban in this case. That's untrue. It's a progressive disease that cuts through all indicators of race, class, gender, religion and location.
Second, alcoholics have not come to me stating that they were "taught" a "not one drop doctrine." They have come with specific and personal reasons for not touching/tasting/drinking alcohol, and not all have been in AA anyway.
Finally, receiving the Eucharist in one kind is, to me, a better alternative to faithful reception than having grape juice and wine both available.
And to add an item, there are also folks who desire and need gluten free hosts/wafers because of specific health issues.
Dave Benke
The 1983 CTCR document correctly says that the "substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded." I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is. I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this. I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible. Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.to RD's query, yes, there are alcoholics and those with multiple chemical dependencies who cannot be around alcohol at all. I have encountered that multiple times, up to and including currently. <Emphasis Added>The choice of ‘query’ above is at best misleading.
<snip>
Dave benke
Following the reading of Rev. Benke’s post, Rev. Preus’s post was reviewed to identify the question (query) Rev. Preus addressed to the forum.
Unable to find a question mark in Rev. Preus’s post (quoted above for the reader’s convenience), it is apparent that Rev. Preus is sharing his personal experience ... NOT posing a question as Rev. Benke alleged.
Apparently Rev. Preus’s rural ministry experiences and Rev. Benke’s urban experiences differ greatly ... and it is beneficial for both to share these experiences with the forum.
I’m confident that if I have misinterpreted Rev. Preus’s post above, he will clarify his post.
OK - to RD's comment, then.
What could be misleading in your response here is that there is some inherent difference in alcoholism or alcoholics by geography - rural and urban in this case. That's untrue. It's a progressive disease that cuts through all indicators of race, class, gender, religion and location.
Second, alcoholics have not come to me stating that they were "taught" a "not one drop doctrine." They have come with specific and personal reasons for not touching/tasting/drinking alcohol, and not all have been in AA anyway.
Finally, receiving the Eucharist in one kind is, to me, a better alternative to faithful reception than having grape juice and wine both available.
And to add an item, there are also folks who desire and need gluten free hosts/wafers because of specific health issues.
Dave Benke
David, if by putting the words "taught" and "not one drop doctrine" within quotation marks you are saying that these specific words have not been spoken to you by alcoholics, I am not surprised. They have not been spoken to me either. Those were my words accurately describing what alcoholics over the years have communicated to me. AA groups differ. I have talked to many parishioners who have attended AA meetings in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Montana, in both rural and urban communities, over the past forty years or so. I listen to what they say.
Y'all realize you two aren't really disagreeing, right? You both are responding pastorally to the situation, trying to meet the needs of the alcoholic. Based off of what he wrote, Pastor Bohler has had alcoholics who have made that known to him, and he has worked through with them how to give them Holy Communion in a way that works for their disease. He did not say anything about emotional or mental problems with the consumption of a drop or two of wine, only physical - and it is quite likely that he is right. Also, Pastor Bohler did not say that if an alcoholic refused to drink even diluted wine or refused intinction that he would tell the person, "Tough taters, YOU DRINK THAT WINE NOW!" or anything else along those lines.
Pastor Benke is also responding to the needs of the people he is serving, in that if an alcoholic refused to drink any wine at all, he is giving them communion in one kind. And it is good that the response of the alcoholic matters to him, as it must to Pastor Bohler, as well, based off of his post.
In 27 years of ministry, I have never had a recovering alcoholic tell me he could not handle ANY wine. That is, all have been agreeable to either diluting the wine, or only drinking a small portion, or intinction. How much alcohol do you think there is in a drop or two of wine? My guess -- which I am sure Rev. Austin will tell me is ignorant -- is that physically, such an amount is not a problem.
In 27 years of ministry, I have never had a recovering alcoholic tell me he could not handle ANY wine. That is, all have been agreeable to either diluting the wine, or only drinking a small portion, or intinction. How much alcohol do you think there is in a drop or two of wine? My guess -- which I am sure Rev. Austin will tell me is ignorant -- is that physically, such an amount is not a problem.
I heartily agree here.
In 27 years of ministry, I have never had a recovering alcoholic tell me he could not handle ANY wine. That is, all have been agreeable to either diluting the wine, or only drinking a small portion, or intinction. How much alcohol do you think there is in a drop or two of wine? My guess -- which I am sure Rev. Austin will tell me is ignorant -- is that physically, such an amount is not a problem.
I heartily agree here.
The practice I've most often heard of in the Orthodox Church is a piece of the bread with just a very tiny amount of wine dropped onto it. Some priests reserve this for people with such issues. The opposite is true of people with gluten allergies. The wine with maybe a tiny crumb of bread (if that -- it all being mingled there is a certain amount of bread in there anyway) would be offered.
Anyone can quibble about anything. For example, it says, "take, drink." It eating moist bread really drinking? Nearly all food as some moisture in it, but we still distinguish eating and drinking. So by that logic, intinction should be invalid.
When I teach the Sacrament, I always go back to Passover and ask the class to image themselves as the firstborn son. All of them are going to die unless a lamb dies in their place according to God's institution of the Passover. What will make them sleep soundly? Doing it like God says. If someone says, "I just painted this doorpost. How much blood do I have to put on it? Is one tiny dot sufficient?" Or, "This lamb is two years old and has a very slight, hardly noticeable defect. Can I still use it?" the appropriate, pastoral response is to tell them they're asking silly questions that are beside the point, and they should just do it the normal way.
However, if someone is in bed and worried. "What if the neighbor's dog licks the blood off our doorpost? Will I die tonight?" or, "I can't remember exactly when our lamb was born-- are we sure it was a year old?" then the appropriate pastoral response would be more like, "I'm sure the dog won't get every molecule. God will know what happened."
The key is to not resist the nearly overwhelming tendency for exceptions to become the norm. Just do it the way it was instituted. And if there needs to be some exception, make sure it remains exceptional.
Anyone can quibble about anything. For example, it says, "take, drink." It eating moist bread really drinking? Nearly all food as some moisture in it, but we still distinguish eating and drinking. So by that logic, intinction should be invalid.
When I teach the Sacrament, I always go back to Passover and ask the class to image themselves as the firstborn son. All of them are going to die unless a lamb dies in their place according to God's institution of the Passover. What will make them sleep soundly? Doing it like God says. If someone says, "I just painted this doorpost. How much blood do I have to put on it? Is one tiny dot sufficient?" Or, "This lamb is two years old and has a very slight, hardly noticeable defect. Can I still use it?" the appropriate, pastoral response is to tell them they're asking silly questions that are beside the point, and they should just do it the normal way.
However, if someone is in bed and worried. "What if the neighbor's dog licks the blood off our doorpost? Will I die tonight?" or, "I can't remember exactly when our lamb was born-- are we sure it was a year old?" then the appropriate pastoral response would be more like, "I'm sure the dog won't get every molecule. God will know what happened."
The key is to not resist the nearly overwhelming tendency for exceptions to become the norm. Just do it the way it was instituted. And if there needs to be some exception, make sure it remains exceptional.
Here is the link to the announcement from the Diocese of Virginia: http://www.thediocese.net/news/covid-19-and-worship/ (http://www.thediocese.net/news/covid-19-and-worship/)
Thank you for your ‘OK to RD’s comment’.The 1983 CTCR document correctly says that the "substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded." I cannot in good conscience give grape juice to communicants while saying that it is the true blood of Christ when I don't know for sure that it is. I have suggested to alcoholics who wanted grape juice that I could give them watered down wine and no one has yet laughed at this. I do know that some AA groups teach the "not one drop" doctrine that frightens their members away from the Sacrament. I believe this is irresponsible. Other AA groups assure their members that there is nothing to fear from the tiny bit of alcohol received in the Lord's Supper.to RD's query, yes, there are alcoholics and those with multiple chemical dependencies who cannot be around alcohol at all. I have encountered that multiple times, up to and including currently. <Emphasis Added>The choice of ‘query’ above is at best misleading.
<snip>
Dave benke
Following the reading of Rev. Benke’s post, Rev. Preus’s post was reviewed to identify the question (query) Rev. Preus addressed to the forum.
Unable to find a question mark in Rev. Preus’s post (quoted above for the reader’s convenience), it is apparent that Rev. Preus is sharing his personal experience ... NOT posing a question as Rev. Benke alleged.
Apparently Rev. Preus’s rural ministry experiences and Rev. Benke’s urban experiences differ greatly ... and it is beneficial for both to share these experiences with the forum.
I’m confident that if I have misinterpreted Rev. Preus’s post above, he will clarify his post.
OK - to RD's comment, then.
What could be misleading in your response here is that there is some inherent difference in alcoholism or alcoholics by geography - rural and urban in this case. That's untrue. It's a progressive disease that cuts through all indicators of race, class, gender, religion and location. <Emphasis added >
Second, alcoholics have not come to me stating that they were "taught" a "not one drop doctrine." They have come with specific and personal reasons for not touching/tasting/drinking alcohol, and not all have been in AA anyway.
Finally, receiving the Eucharist in one kind is, to me, a better alternative to faithful reception than having grape juice and wine both available.
And to add an item, there are also folks who desire and need gluten free hosts/wafers because of specific health issues.
Dave Benke
Our rector has mentioned a couple of times that one of his predecessors at Emmanuel was arrested in 1918 for holding services during the flu epidemic in spite of governmental instruction not to do so. I've got to look that up!
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html.
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html.
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
In California the governor "urged an end to gatherings of more than 250 people to counter the spread of new coronavirus." Such limits would not impact me as I am lucky most Sundays to get 150. Likewise the majority of LCMS churches. The article also says "smaller events can proceed only if organizers can keep people at least six feet apart to avoid transmission of the virus. The policy does not apply to school classes. Gatherings that include those at higher risk for severe illness should be limited to no more than 10 people no closer than six feet apart." That part would be hardly to comply with.
https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html (https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html)
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html).
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
My daughter is waiting to hear about how she will be getting home from Paris. Given the state of things here and there, I still think she’d be just as safe staying put, and without the added dangers of international air travel. But given that staying isn’t proving to be a realistic option, I will say that Valpo has been very responsive and cooperative with queries and guidance despite the enormous logistical headaches involved.
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html.
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
In California the governor "urged an end to gatherings of more than 250 people to counter the spread of new coronavirus." Such limits would not impact me as I am lucky most Sundays to get 150. Likewise the majority of LCMS churches. The article also says "smaller events can proceed only if organizers can keep people at least six feet apart to avoid transmission of the virus. The policy does not apply to school classes. Gatherings that include those at higher risk for severe illness should be limited to no more than 10 people no closer than six feet apart." That part would be hardly to comply with.
https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html (https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html)
This is unfolding on an hour by hour basis here in NY. I'm listening in as our task force and bishop/president converse on what we're going to do in the Atlantic District LCMS congregations. I'll get you that bulletin as it's produced. There are more specific measures that may be taken by governmental leaders, which I'll also communicate as they are received.
This morning I went back in our parish records to the Death Register in the time of the global flu pandemic in the late 19teens. St. Peter's had 36 funerals from the flu/pneumonia/complications over a year and a half, at that time among maybe 400 members.
I'm reminded of "Wie Schon Leuchtet der Morgenstern," written by Philip Nicolai in 1597 during an outbreak of the black plague that decimated his congregation. "Turn your eyes upon Jesus" is our watchword.
Dave Benke
My daughter is waiting to hear about how she will be getting home from Paris. Given the state of things here and there, I still think she’d be just as safe staying put, and without the added dangers of international air travel. But given that staying isn’t proving to be a realistic option, I will say that Valpo has been very responsive and cooperative with queries and guidance despite the enormous logistical headaches involved.
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html.
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
In California the governor "urged an end to gatherings of more than 250 people to counter the spread of new coronavirus." Such limits would not impact me as I am lucky most Sundays to get 150. Likewise the majority of LCMS churches. The article also says "smaller events can proceed only if organizers can keep people at least six feet apart to avoid transmission of the virus. The policy does not apply to school classes. Gatherings that include those at higher risk for severe illness should be limited to no more than 10 people no closer than six feet apart." That part would be hardly to comply with.
https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html (https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html)
This is unfolding on an hour by hour basis here in NY. I'm listening in as our task force and bishop/president converse on what we're going to do in the Atlantic District LCMS congregations. I'll get you that bulletin as it's produced. There are more specific measures that may be taken by governmental leaders, which I'll also communicate as they are received.
This morning I went back in our parish records to the Death Register in the time of the global flu pandemic in the late 19teens. St. Peter's had 36 funerals from the flu/pneumonia/complications over a year and a half, at that time among maybe 400 members.
I'm reminded of "Wie Schon Leuchtet der Morgenstern," written by Philip Nicolai in 1597 during an outbreak of the black plague that decimated his congregation. "Turn your eyes upon Jesus" is our watchword.
Dave Benke
The governor of my state has just declared a public health emergency in Wisconsin and we have only 6 confirmed cases of caronavirus. The declaration opens the Department of Health Services to "use all the resources necessary to respond to and contain the outbreak." Also, DHS will be able to purchase, store or distribute medications "regardless of insurance or other health coverage." State funds can be used to support local health departments. It also allows the use of the Wisconsin National Guard in case of emergency.
Dr. Ashok Rai, Prevea Health President/CEO was also quoted as saying the United States health care infrastructure is not designed for a pandemic.
https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-Gov-Evers-declares-public-health-emergency-for-coronavirus-568739761.html (https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-Gov-Evers-declares-public-health-emergency-for-coronavirus-568739761.html)
The other day I did my Bible study for our Men's Club on the caronavirus. I noted some things Luther said regarding the plague in 1527 when it hit Wittenberg. In a letter to George Spalatin he wrote: "A pestilence has broken out here, but it is rather mild. Still the fear of men and their flight before it are remarkable. I have never before seen such a marvel of satanic power, greatly is he terrifying everybody.” How little things have changed in over 500 years....
As a religious congregation and as a church with a licensed day care center, we are informed regularly and daily about the coronavirus, including receiving materials and goods for cleaning as well as methods for information sharing. It's been very helpful, and our Atlantic District Task Force on Disasters and Emergencies is also getting out information for our congregations including whether to hold services and how to take precautions. All non-confusing and adding knowledge that can be used wisely.
I am not a Fox News watcher, but if the information in this NYTimes article is correct, I have concerns for those who are, because they're receiving a conflicting/confusing information stream:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/coronavirus-conservative-media.html.
As the NBA has suspended its season, as the presidential candidates, finally including the incumbent, are canceling large gatherings/rallies, it does seem that at some point in many parts of the country, there will be more advice not to hold religious worship services.
Dave Benke
In California the governor "urged an end to gatherings of more than 250 people to counter the spread of new coronavirus." Such limits would not impact me as I am lucky most Sundays to get 150. Likewise the majority of LCMS churches. The article also says "smaller events can proceed only if organizers can keep people at least six feet apart to avoid transmission of the virus. The policy does not apply to school classes. Gatherings that include those at higher risk for severe illness should be limited to no more than 10 people no closer than six feet apart." That part would be hardly to comply with.
https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html (https://www.heraldonline.com/news/article241122446.html)
This is unfolding on an hour by hour basis here in NY. I'm listening in as our task force and bishop/president converse on what we're going to do in the Atlantic District LCMS congregations. I'll get you that bulletin as it's produced. There are more specific measures that may be taken by governmental leaders, which I'll also communicate as they are received.
This morning I went back in our parish records to the Death Register in the time of the global flu pandemic in the late 19teens. St. Peter's had 36 funerals from the flu/pneumonia/complications over a year and a half, at that time among maybe 400 members.
I'm reminded of "Wie Schon Leuchtet der Morgenstern," written by Philip Nicolai in 1597 during an outbreak of the black plague that decimated his congregation. "Turn your eyes upon Jesus" is our watchword.
Dave Benke
The governor of my state has just declared a public health emergency in Wisconsin and we have only 6 confirmed cases of caronavirus. The declaration opens the Department of Health Services to "use all the resources necessary to respond to and contain the outbreak." Also, DHS will be able to purchase, store or distribute medications "regardless of insurance or other health coverage." State funds can be used to support local health departments. It also allows the use of the Wisconsin National Guard in case of emergency.
Dr. Ashok Rai, Prevea Health President/CEO was also quoted as saying the United States health care infrastructure is not designed for a pandemic.
https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-Gov-Evers-declares-public-health-emergency-for-coronavirus-568739761.html (https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisconsin-Gov-Evers-declares-public-health-emergency-for-coronavirus-568739761.html)
The other day I did my Bible study for our Men's Club on the caronavirus. I noted some things Luther said regarding the plague in 1527 when it hit Wittenberg. In a letter to George Spalatin he wrote: "A pestilence has broken out here, but it is rather mild. Still the fear of men and their flight before it are remarkable. I have never before seen such a marvel of satanic power, greatly is he terrifying everybody.” How little things have changed in over 500 years....
I think it's safe to say the plague was not a hoax, Don. Nor is this. MLB Spring Training was just cancelled - we were down there just a week and a half ago for the Metsies. We have many more cases at this time here in New York, but it is being taken seriously and mediated to us through health professionals. Wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution?
Dave Benke
Rev. Austin, you write: "I have no means by which I can either adequately explain to you what flaws I find in your attitudes or query you about the quantity or depth or length of your experiences with people in recovery. So I will not try. I will simply try not to worry too much about how your views might affect people that you might meet in recovery or in need of recovery."
You want Rev. Bohler and me to know that there are flaws in our attitudes and that our views might harm people we may meet in recovery or in need of recovery, but you will not deign to tell us what our flaws are. You don't have the means to do that adequately, you say. Trying to figure out why you would want to tell us that we're wrong without telling us how this is so I was reminded of my own distinction between German pietists and Norwegian pietists. The German pietists are quite open about telling you what you are doing that is wrong and showing you the right way to do it. It's the least they can do. Correcting people makes Germans very happy, you know. The Norwegian pietists are, on the surface, much nicer than the German pietists. They don't tell you what to do. They let you figure it out for yourself. It would be rude of them to tell you clearly. But they do let you know when you're doing something wrong. It's the least they can do.
Rev. Austin, you write: "I have no means by which I can either adequately explain to you what flaws I find in your attitudes or query you about the quantity or depth or length of your experiences with people in recovery. So I will not try. I will simply try not to worry too much about how your views might affect people that you might meet in recovery or in need of recovery."
You want Rev. Bohler and me to know that there are flaws in our attitudes and that our views might harm people we may meet in recovery or in need of recovery, but you will not deign to tell us what our flaws are. You don't have the means to do that adequately, you say. Trying to figure out why you would want to tell us that we're wrong without telling us how this is so I was reminded of my own distinction between German pietists and Norwegian pietists. The German pietists are quite open about telling you what you are doing that is wrong and showing you the right way to do it. It's the least they can do. Correcting people makes Germans very happy, you know. The Norwegian pietists are, on the surface, much nicer than the German pietists. They don't tell you what to do. They let you figure it out for yourself. It would be rude of them to tell you clearly. But they do let you know when you're doing something wrong. It's the least they can do.
... My way of explaining it is that in conflicted situations in Brooklyn we'd rather punch you in the nose than stab you in the back.
Dave Benke
There is a fine line, Pastor Bohler, between precaution and panic. I would not be inclined to make fun of those who find that line blurry.
In a downloadable bulletin insert provided from the LCMS on their website, they write:"Keep Gathering: It should be our aim to continue to hold regular, physical services while possible. Come if you are well; stay home if you are sick or at increased risk."
https://files.lcms.org/wl/?id=PPGxCFoiWktIxANF5SrI9CXBHXASpnfs (https://files.lcms.org/wl/?id=PPGxCFoiWktIxANF5SrI9CXBHXASpnfs)
This afternoon the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California directed all churches to suspend worship and other meetings (with a few exceptions, like 12-Step groups) for the immediate future. The Diocese of California had taken the same action earlier today.
I believe what the Sierra Pacific ELCA synod bishop has said is "I support whatever you decide to do in your local context."
Our plan at present is to do a liturgy with priests, musician, and maybe a couple of others on Sunday morning and post it on YouTube. We'll also do our remaining midweek Lenten studies on YouTube (but without the soup).
This afternoon the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California directed all churches to suspend worship and other meetings (with a few exceptions, like 12-Step groups) for the immediate future. The Diocese of California had taken the same action earlier today.
I believe what the Sierra Pacific ELCA synod bishop has said is "I support whatever you decide to do in your local context."
Our plan at present is to do a liturgy with priests, musician, and maybe a couple of others on Sunday morning and post it on YouTube. We'll also do our remaining midweek Lenten studies on YouTube (but without the soup).
Interesting. 12-Step is necessary but worship is not?
This afternoon the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California directed all churches to suspend worship and other meetings (with a few exceptions, like 12-Step groups) for the immediate future. The Diocese of California had taken the same action earlier today.
I believe what the Sierra Pacific ELCA synod bishop has said is "I support whatever you decide to do in your local context."
Our plan at present is to do a liturgy with priests, musician, and maybe a couple of others on Sunday morning and post it on YouTube. We'll also do our remaining midweek Lenten studies on YouTube (but without the soup).
Interesting. 12-Step is necessary but worship is not?
Apparently. I wonder if we're supposed to do funerals?
This afternoon the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California directed all churches to suspend worship and other meetings (with a few exceptions, like 12-Step groups) for the immediate future. The Diocese of California had taken the same action earlier today.
I believe what the Sierra Pacific ELCA synod bishop has said is "I support whatever you decide to do in your local context."
Our plan at present is to do a liturgy with priests, musician, and maybe a couple of others on Sunday morning and post it on YouTube. We'll also do our remaining midweek Lenten studies on YouTube (but without the soup).
Interesting. 12-Step is necessary but worship is not?
Apparently. I wonder if we're supposed to do funerals?
Pastor Bohler:
Interesting. 12-Step is necessary but worship is not?
Me:
Actually, yes. At least if you’re talking about something that is likely to keep a sick, troubled person alive for another day. Or to keep that person from starting down a very dangerous and potentially fatal road.
I am meeting this week with some people who might need to find an alternate place for their A.A. meeting. They will meet. Whether they will meet in the church where they usually meet may be up for grabs, but they will meet. Some, especially those new to the program, need their daily meetings.
Pastor Bohler:
You mean someone will literally die if they miss a meeting? But no one has a similar need for worship, the Word of God, the Lord's Supper? That woud be a sad commentary on the churches you frequent, but then, you know them better than I....
Me:
I mean that, yes, for people in recovery - especially those facing difficulties or new in recovery - one day without the full support of the program and the people in it could be the day that they pick up a drink, the drink that could take them deeper into the potentially fatal disease. We saw some of this in the chaos following 9/11. You probably didn’t.
I am not going to “lose my faith” if I face a period of time without corporate worship. I do not believe God will kill me if I am without the sacrament for some time.
A person in recovery can lose their sobriety if they do not have the fullness of their recovery program. And the disease can kill them. I have seen it happen.
This is not the time to be playing off 12 step meetings against gathering for worship. As anyone knows who has been in recovery from alcoholism or around people who are recovering and in groups, those groups and the individual sponsor are lifelines.
As anyone knows who has preached the Gospel, given absolution, consecrated and distributed the Sacrament, been in a vital and dynamic assembly of believers, those are all lifelines, and we could add, eternal lifelines.
There are and will be discouragements from gathering for worship in this period of time. Most of the fellowships represented on this board do not make it to the level of mass gatherings of 500 or more people. That doesn't mean there is no danger connected to our smaller gatherings. But I would state that those of us who are shepherds of a flock will gather whoever assembles and bring hope and comfort to them. Further, we will find other ways to stay connected to them, and to calm troubled hearts with the assurances given to us from Scripture, and given to us in the relationships we treasure among our friends, family and fellow believers locally. Lifelines will be thrown, because we will continue to "cast all our care upon God, because He cares for us."
Dave Benke
This is not the time to be playing off 12 step meetings against gathering for worship. As anyone knows who has been in recovery from alcoholism or around people who are recovering and in groups, those groups and the individual sponsor are lifelines.
As anyone knows who has preached the Gospel, given absolution, consecrated and distributed the Sacrament, been in a vital and dynamic assembly of believers, those are all lifelines, and we could add, eternal lifelines.
There are and will be discouragements from gathering for worship in this period of time. Most of the fellowships represented on this board do not make it to the level of mass gatherings of 500 or more people. That doesn't mean there is no danger connected to our smaller gatherings. But I would state that those of us who are shepherds of a flock will gather whoever assembles and bring hope and comfort to them. Further, we will find other ways to stay connected to them, and to calm troubled hearts with the assurances given to us from Scripture, and given to us in the relationships we treasure among our friends, family and fellow believers locally. Lifelines will be thrown, because we will continue to "cast all our care upon God, because He cares for us."
Dave Benke
I agree with this, except that I would change "and we could add" in your second paragraph to "and we should add".
Do whatever you want to do, Pastor Bohler.
Believe whatever you want to believe.
Ignore or dismiss the concerns of others if you wish.
Hang on tightly to your favorite concepts.
My advice to others in this modest forum: if you have an AA meeting in your church, do not prevent them from meeting during these difficult times.
As for worship: I would not cancel services under these circumstances. I would lead worship for whoever shows up, certainly taking some additional precautions against contact, contagion and/or infection.
Pastor Bohler:
You mean someone will literally die if they miss a meeting? But no one has a similar need for worship, the Word of God, the Lord's Supper? That woud be a sad commentary on the churches you frequent, but then, you know them better than I....
Me:
I mean that, yes, for people in recovery - especially those facing difficulties or new in recovery - one day without the full support of the program and the people in it could be the day that they pick up a drink, the drink that could take them deeper into the potentially fatal disease. We saw some of this in the chaos following 9/11. You probably didn’t.
I am not going to “lose my faith” if I face a period of time without corporate worship. I do not believe God will kill me if I am without the sacrament for some time.
A person in recovery can lose their sobriety if they do not have the fullness of their recovery program. And the disease can kill them. I have seen it happen.
You say YOU will not lose your faith if you miss corporate worship for a while. OK. And I will not die if I miss 12-Step programs for a while. So what? Oh, you say, there are possibly SOME who will suffer so if they miss a day without the support of a 12-Step Program. And, I counter, do you think there are none whose faith will not suffer similarly if they are forced to be without worship, preaching, and the Supper for an extended period of time? Do you so little value what God does for us there?
Bottom line: it appears that some in the Church (including the aforesaid bishop and you) who see a 12-Step program as more vital and necessary than corporate worship. And that is extremely sad.
Pastor Bohler:
You mean someone will literally die if they miss a meeting? But no one has a similar need for worship, the Word of God, the Lord's Supper? That woud be a sad commentary on the churches you frequent, but then, you know them better than I....
Me:
I mean that, yes, for people in recovery - especially those facing difficulties or new in recovery - one day without the full support of the program and the people in it could be the day that they pick up a drink, the drink that could take them deeper into the potentially fatal disease. We saw some of this in the chaos following 9/11. You probably didn’t.
I am not going to “lose my faith” if I face a period of time without corporate worship. I do not believe God will kill me if I am without the sacrament for some time.
A person in recovery can lose their sobriety if they do not have the fullness of their recovery program. And the disease can kill them. I have seen it happen.
You say YOU will not lose your faith if you miss corporate worship for a while. OK. And I will not die if I miss 12-Step programs for a while. So what? Oh, you say, there are possibly SOME who will suffer so if they miss a day without the support of a 12-Step Program. And, I counter, do you think there are none whose faith will not suffer similarly if they are forced to be without worship, preaching, and the Supper for an extended period of time? Do you so little value what God does for us there?
Bottom line: it appears that some in the Church (including the aforesaid bishop and you) who see a 12-Step program as more vital and necessary than corporate worship. And that is extremely sad.
One can receive a worship service through streaming. A female clergy (on leave from call) I know was ordered by her doctor to stay home with her new-born for health reasons. She sought out a Lutheran worship that was streamed so she could participate, to some extent, in a worship while she was quarantined.
For at least two reasons, it's not feasible to stream an AA meeting. The second "A" is one reason. Another reason is: these groups do not have income. They don't have the funds to buy the equipment needed to do streaming. Congregations receive funds to operate.
I would hope that should a recovering alcoholic need their sponsor, a phone call would bring the help that was needed - just like parishioners having a crisis in faith should call their pastor who should bring help.
Pastor Bohler writes:I agree, and we are. But why not apply the same reasoning to worship? Why is resisting addiction more important than the spiritual things involved in a church service? How set on earthly things and the health of the body can the church become before it isn’t the church?
One could also conduct an AA meeting via streaming. Audio only, for instance. As for cost, I am sure funding could be obtained somewhere.
I comment:
Brzzzz! Wrong again.
And it is a cardinal tenet of AA that groups do not get "funding" from anywhere. They must be totally self-supporting.
I repeat: If your church hosts an AA meeting, let them keep meeting.
I would not cancel worship this Sunday.
I would not cancel worship this Sunday.
But why not apply the same reasoning to worship? Why is resisting addiction more important than the spiritual things involved in a church service? How set on earthly things and the health of the body can the church become before it isn’t the church?
And this from NALC Bp. Dan Selbo:I think that hits the right tone. We live with concern for others, but not fear. In that light, I think it makes perfect sense to continue having worship while encouraging those who would rather not come for health reasons to remain in contact and offer in home communion to them.
https://thenalc.org/projects/pastoral-letter-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0aZCqwaoWgrjNg2hbiqCo6syLRJxtHEqFM1mK22LNQFgO79R7N7LMFSFc (https://thenalc.org/projects/pastoral-letter-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0aZCqwaoWgrjNg2hbiqCo6syLRJxtHEqFM1mK22LNQFgO79R7N7LMFSFc)
Unfortunately, both Lutheran churches I attend here have canceled everything, including worship, until the end of March. One church is live streaming an online worship service, without worshipers present of course, and the other church is likely to do that but just hasn’t announced it yet.I agree with this entirely, including the part about not troubling them now. Maybe bring it up at a fall Bible study when the topic seems appropriate.
As noted upstream, I don’t approve of this. I would offer a service, with extra precautions in place, and hold it for whoever came. We could do it maintaining “social distance”, and with no touching.* Certain sanitary measures would, I believe, make receiving holy Communion safe.
I might send a message to The Pastors and congregation councils, but I’m not sure I want to trouble them at a time of difficult decision making.
*I’m a Swede, and while we might, at extreme times, hug a family member; mostly we do not approve of touching another person unless you were going to actually have sex.
And this from NALC Bp. Dan Selbo:I think that hits the right tone. We live with concern for others, but not fear. In that light, I think it makes perfect sense to continue having worship while encouraging those who would rather not come for health reasons to remain in contact and offer in home communion to them.
https://thenalc.org/projects/pastoral-letter-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0aZCqwaoWgrjNg2hbiqCo6syLRJxtHEqFM1mK22LNQFgO79R7N7LMFSFc (https://thenalc.org/projects/pastoral-letter-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0aZCqwaoWgrjNg2hbiqCo6syLRJxtHEqFM1mK22LNQFgO79R7N7LMFSFc)
Canceling services sends a signal. Yes, it says that we’re taking this outbreak seriously and people’s health matters. But that isn’t the only signal it sends, and we don’t get to determine for people what general impression cancelling church makes in their overall view of things, even subconsciously.
Is worship something that can be moved online? To a degree the Service of the Word can, of course, but not the service of the Sacrament. One cannot be e-baptized or take e-communion. Incarnational theology requires the actual real presence of our bodies for the real presence of Christ's body to accomplish His purposes. That's why shut-ins who can watch Worship Anew still need to be visited with communion.
At the very least, though, holding the services without the congregation present and live-streaming them is a better solution than cancelling the services altogether. But then you run into issues of clericalism, private masses, etc.
I once cancelled church due to a blizzard when a state of emergency had been declared, and the police had closed all the roads. I walked to church early, then called the organist and secretary and cancelled, which set up a mass email and phone tree about an hour before the service. Then I got a ride in a snow plow most of the way back home (about 1.5 miles). I suppose if the state of Indiana goes on lock-down such that it would be illegal for people to come to church, we'd still do services online for a time. But then we also wouldn't be hosting AA meetings or any other groups.
Is worship something that can be moved online? To a degree the Service of the Word can, of course, but not the service of the Sacrament.
As the coronavirus spreads across the US, tens of millions of Americans may not seek medical help either because they are uninsured or undocumented. That puts everyone in society at greater risk.The article includes two actual examples.
. . . .
No US citizenship means no US health insurance.
Even the language of Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act makes it very clear that undocumented immigrants are excluded.
Is worship something that can be moved online? To a degree the Service of the Word can, of course, but not the service of the Sacrament.
That's the rub, isn't it? As the plan is developing at Emmanuel, I think what will happen is that the clergy will be there, the organist, an altar guild person, and maybe a couple of others. We'll do the liturgy as usual, and I think what we'll do is that those present will receive communion, and then the chalice will be extended toward the camera and the words will be spoken that we normally would speak if one is refraining from taking the wine: "The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you unto everlasting life." Does that give the viewer the "benefit of the Sacrament"? I'm inclined to say "no," but I'm not sure I could make a cogent theological argument to defend that position.
Frank Senn posted an essay in which he urged that people in the video not commune, as it would stoke the sense of exclusion among those watching. Not sure I buy that either, though it is worth considering. One Episcopal bishop has suggested doing only the ante communion, moving directly from the offertory to concluding prayers. In other words, what many Lutherans typically do, though it is rare among Episcopalians.
Is worship something that can be moved online? To a degree the Service of the Word can, of course, but not the service of the Sacrament.
That's the rub, isn't it? As the plan is developing at Emmanuel, I think what will happen is that the clergy will be there, the organist, an altar guild person, and maybe a couple of others. We'll do the liturgy as usual, and I think what we'll do is that those present will receive communion, and then the chalice will be extended toward the camera and the words will be spoken that we normally would speak if one is refraining from taking the wine: "The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you unto everlasting life." Does that give the viewer the "benefit of the Sacrament"? I'm inclined to say "no," but I'm not sure I could make a cogent theological argument to defend that position.
Frank Senn posted an essay in which he urged that people in the video not commune, as it would stoke the sense of exclusion among those watching. Not sure I buy that either, though it is worth considering. One Episcopal bishop has suggested doing only the ante communion, moving directly from the offertory to concluding prayers. In other words, what many Lutherans typically do, though it is rare among Episcopalians.
I think this is a wonderful compromise.
I also think that the point of the liturgy, indeed, the point of the Christian life, is communion. So I support the decision to allow those there to commune. Those who are not there can rest easy in the knowledge that the very point of communion is that it is a communal act.
In my idleness and age, I check several foreign news sites. I just saw this on the BBC and it made me aware of some aspects of the current problem which I hadn't figured out: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51840233 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51840233)QuoteAs the coronavirus spreads across the US, tens of millions of Americans may not seek medical help either because they are uninsured or undocumented. That puts everyone in society at greater risk.The article includes two actual examples.
. . . .
No US citizenship means no US health insurance.
Even the language of Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act makes it very clear that undocumented immigrants are excluded.
Tomorrow at noon Mass I plan to ask my francophone African congregation, mostly immigrants, whether any of them experienced the Ebola outbreaks.
Peace,
Michael
Job 14:5--Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you [God], and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass …."
For those of us who take the Scripture to be the Word of God in its entirety, this seems to answer the worries people are having quite well. You and I are going to die the appointed day--not before and not after. So we'll be in worship tomorrow morning.
I appreciate these thoughts on the Eucharist and its celebration. We have wrestled mightily at my parish with offering the Eucharist in one kind or with individual cups and how to distribute. Communion is a communal act. And it hurts people not to be in that community, from the expressions I receive from parishioners. Nonetheless, we must make every effort to be community even when absent in the flesh, so to speak. Our younger members put that concept out there very strongly this morning at a gathering. <emphasis added>From the small catechism we read
My counsel to them was that this is really week one, or at most week one and a half. What it will be in six weeks is not known. I do notice the videos of the lockdown/quarantine in Rome, which is comparable to NYC. Having been there, it's just stunning to see all that absence of humanity, the emptiness in the public squares. As that takes place here in our cities, and I think of my own first, the need for other kinds of communication and contact from Christians is going to accelerate, because we are a communion of saints. For now, we're meeting in person. That may well change.
Dave Benke
I break my long ALPB fast to share this prayer from Loehe’s Seed Grains for those who cannot orally receive the Eucharist this weekend:Will, thanks for posting this. I think captures perfectly the sense that people shouldn’t forgo the sacrament to avoid making the ones watching via live-stream feel their absence more keenly. That would be a good thing. But not should they feel abandoned by God.
My Savior, God and Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, thought of me in great love before His death in the Last Supper, and made a rich, good testament with me, a poor sinner, that I should remember Him. He ordered and made for me a testament, forgiveness of sins, confirmed and sealed this testament with His body, wounds, and blood, as He Himself says in the institution of this Sacrament and testament, and as the holy evangelists and apostles write. For as the Lord Jesus ate the last passover lamb with his 12 apostles on the day before His Passion, He spoke to them, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” Then He lifted His eyes toward heaven, to God His Father, took the bread in His holy hands, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples, and said: “Take, eat. This is My body, which is given for you.” After the same manner also He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them and spoke: “Drink ye all of it. This is the cup of the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”
O Lord Jesus Christ, my God and my Savior, these are the noble, comforting words in which Thou Thyself dost witness to us the truth, that Thy body and Thy blood, which were given and shed for us, are truly here. I believe, O Lord, that Thy words are truth and that heaven and earth must pass away before Thy words would be false. O Lord God, preserve, increase, and strengthen in me faith, love and devotion toward Thee in this Sacrament, for in the form of bread and wine Thy holy body and Thy precious blood are present—the body which Thou gavest into death for me; the blood which Thou sheddest for the forgiveness of my sins. Thou offerest this body and blood to me, a poor sinner, out of love and grace as a true food, as a true drink of my soul, whereby it is most certainly obtains forgiveness of all sins, unification with Thee, and incorporation into Thy spiritual body and the communion of all saints; strength, comfort, and help in all temptation of the enemy; confirmation in love, in faith, and in hope; also preparation for the long road to an unknown land which standeth before me. O Lord, Thou hast known well that I am a poor sinner; but still Thou hast esteemed me so highly in this Thy last testament. Therefore I come, full of trust and desire, and because I cannot receive it today with my mouth, let me receive its sweet fruit spiritually into my soul, while other of my brethren go also bodily to Thine altar. I bessech Thee, my God and Savior, that Thou wouldst not shut me out of Thy Supper, but according to Thy merciful promise (John 6), wouldst feed me now with Thy holy body and wouldst give me to drink with Thy blood, so that I may receive Thee thus spiritually into my soul and all my sins may be forgiven me; and so that a living faith, love, and hope be raised up, strengthened and confirmed: so that Thou only mayest reign in me mightily, and I may remain steadfast in Thee with my whole mind and heart. I want also, my God and Lord, to believe fully in Thy holy words without doubt. And because Thou art present to forgive sins, and I appear before Thee poor and hungry for Thy mercy, Thou wilt give me, and I shall receive: no one can prevent this—the fruit of the Sacrament ought and shall be accomplished in me. For this be praise and glory unto Thee forever and ever. Amen.
Job 14:5--Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you [God], and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass …."
For those of us who take the Scripture to be the Word of God in its entirety, this seems to answer the worries people are having quite well. You and I are going to die the appointed day--not before and not after. So we'll be in worship tomorrow morning.
God's sovereign decisions about our life expectancy is not limited to pastors or even Christians, Job was neither. I can't make anyone die before the time set for them to do so. I am frankly appalled by the number of churches that are cancelling worship services. If only a very few come, the pastor/priest should be there to lead them and proclaim the Gospel. Television just doesn't do the same thing, nor does streaming online. We are not to cease to meet together and should believe God's Word in that as in all things.
The issue is not really about when I am going to die, but whether I do something that will cause suffering and possible death to another person. The precautions people are taking will not get rid of the virus, but will slow the spread of it so that the health care facilities are not overwhelmed with all the sick people at once.
Yes to Will's post all the way. Many denominations including the Archdiocese of New York are not conducting Mass/Divine Service tomorrow. We will conduct the Divine Service and live-stream. Our forgiven and forgiving community portion of the Divine Service, that is the service of the Sacrament, is dear to all in attendance, even - and this may sound strange to traditional Lutheran ears - to those who are not catechized to the level of receiving the Sacrament. They come for a blessing, they share the Peace of the Lord, they participate in the prayers of the people, the offering and offertory, and they hold hands (not tomorrow) for the singing of the Lord's Prayer.
So those live-streaming are left without touch, without touching/tasting/receiving the forgiveness and strength and common union found in the Sacrament. But - they will celebrate that forgiveness and strength from afar for those who are receiving it, and treasure the opportunity to return to the flesh and blood fellowship of the saints at a future date. To withhold the Sacrament because of those who are only able to watch on live-stream would disallow those folks the opportunity to celebrate the living fellowship as it takes place.
Dave Benke
:) Peace, JOHN
Job 14:5--Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you [God], and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass …."
For those of us who take the Scripture to be the Word of God in its entirety, this seems to answer the worries people are having quite well. You and I are going to die the appointed day--not before and not after. So we'll be in worship tomorrow morning.
God's sovereign decisions about our life expectancy is not limited to pastors or even Christians, Job was neither. I can't make anyone die before the time set for them to do so. I am frankly appalled by the number of churches that are cancelling worship services. If only a very few come, the pastor/priest should be there to lead them and proclaim the Gospel. Television just doesn't do the same thing, nor does streaming online. We are not to cease to meet together and should believe God's Word in that as in all things.
The issue is not really about when I am going to die, but whether I do something that will cause suffering and possible death to another person. The precautions people are taking will not get rid of the virus, but will slow the spread of it so that the health care facilities are not overwhelmed with all the sick people at once.
Yes to Will's post all the way. Many denominations including the Archdiocese of New York are not conducting Mass/Divine Service tomorrow. We will conduct the Divine Service and live-stream. Our forgiven and forgiving community portion of the Divine Service, that is the service of the Sacrament, is dear to all in attendance, even - and this may sound strange to traditional Lutheran ears - to those who are not catechized to the level of receiving the Sacrament. They come for a blessing, they share the Peace of the Lord, they participate in the prayers of the people, the offering and offertory, and they hold hands (not tomorrow) for the singing of the Lord's Prayer.
So those live-streaming are left without touch, without touching/tasting/receiving the forgiveness and strength and common union found in the Sacrament. But - they will celebrate that forgiveness and strength from afar for those who are receiving it, and treasure the opportunity to return to the flesh and blood fellowship of the saints at a future date. To withhold the Sacrament because of those who are only able to watch on live-stream would disallow those folks the opportunity to celebrate the living fellowship as it takes place.
Dave Benke
Btw, Islam retreated back to the Bosporus and Europe was spared.
Btw, Islam retreated back to the Bosporus and Europe was spared.
Btw, Islam retreated back to the Bosporus and Europe was spared.
Was it because they saw a vision of God guarding Germany? And after 500 years, we still haven't gotten rid of Islamic terrorists. We hope to rid ourselves of the coronavirus in much less time than 500 years.
Rev. Austin, repentance is always the appropriate response to natural disasters.
My rector commented that if the coronavirus threat enables us to think and talk about death, it will be a good thing. That would embody repentance, I imagine.
We've been streaming live on Facebook at Faith, Oak Lawn for a few years now, and I've had several inquiries from pastors as to how best to provide this service.
I'm also involved with an RSO that provides church services to area nursing homes. We'll be recording a few services tomorrow to distribute electronically to the sites we serve.
I'm trying something new on Thursday evening, an online prayer vigil. At times like these we would normally invite the community to come together for a time of prayer. Since public gatherings are being discouraged, I'll be doing this online, streaming live from our church. It will be an informal time of Bible Readings, Prayers, and Hymns. Folks can provide requests in advance, and we'll try to field them live in the comments as well.
Here's the link, if anyone's interested. Feel free to share:
https://www.facebook.com/events/2622841554489023/ (https://www.facebook.com/events/2622841554489023/)
Our services can be found at http://www.oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org/From-the-Pastor.html and then scrolling down the page.
Our services can be found at http://www.oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org/From-the-Pastor.html and then scrolling down the page.
Good sermon, Steve! Did you know that you have developed a Minnesota accent?
To offer public worship services should be done in the context of the local parish.
It is not possible to have one guideline which applies to every congregation.
To have both public worship services as well as a live stream of the service meets
the needs of everyone. Obviously, extreme care should be taken when offering the
Sacrament of Holy Communion. Sanitary conditions would make the individual cups
the preferred method of distribution.
God willing, the coronavirus will have a limited lifespan and our nation and world
can return to normal in 3 or 4 months.
Sanitary conditions would make the individual cups
the preferred method of distribution.
To offer public worship services should be done in the context of the local parish.
It is not possible to have one guideline which applies to every congregation.
To have both public worship services as well as a live stream of the service meets
the needs of everyone. Obviously, extreme care should be taken when offering the
Sacrament of Holy Communion. Sanitary conditions would make the individual cups
the preferred method of distribution.
God willing, the coronavirus will have a limited lifespan and our nation and world
can return to normal in 3 or 4 months.
I believe studies have shown that the common cup actually has less germs than individual cups.
BTW, one result of all this is a spike in my appreciation for the altar guild. We arrived this morning to find that nothing had been prepared (which we expected), but watching the deacon and I try to find all the things we needed (and remember all the things we needed) would have made for a funny YouTube video. We were pretty clueless. Of course the average Episcopalian altar guild probably has a more complex task than the average Lutheran one, but even so. ;DCould you briefly describe how the Episcopalian Eucharist practice is more complex than the average Lutheran one. Thanks
Here's St. Peter's from today - https://www.facebook.com/St.PetersLutheranBrooklyn/videos/234681917720528/.
We're going to have a song and prayer service streaming on Wednesdays at 7 during Lent, as our "normal" Lenten practice of journeying to our circuit parishes has been suspended.
In our part of the world, we have a lot of folks who can't get to church from our fellowship, and a lot of Caribbean folks from the various islands who tune in during the week. We're going to move toward expanding our network because so many are unable to get to us in person.
Dave Benke
St. Paul’s FB-live service from 7:45 this a.m., for those who could not attend service today. https://www.facebook.com/bill.weedon.9887/videos/203951570951955/
Sanitary conditions would make the individual cups the preferred method of distribution.
I believe studies have shown that the common cup actually has less germs than individual cups.
I remember reading one over ten years ago that reached that conclusion. (And if I recall correctly, intinction was worse than individual cups.) I've been hesitating to mention it because I can't find it anywhere.
Perhaps this article on Common Cup (https://www.ntnl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Common-Cup-CDC.pdf) usage is the article is the article you read ten years ago .... or this article from the The Journal of Infectious Diseases concerning the use of the Silver Common Cup (http://rechurch.org/resources/CommonCupBacteria.pdf).I remember reading one over ten years ago that reached that conclusion. (And if I recall correctly, intinction was worse than individual cups.) I've been hesitating to mention it because I can't find it anywhere.To offer public worship services should be done in the context of the local parish.I believe studies have shown that the common cup actually has less germs than individual cups.
It is not possible to have one guideline which applies to every congregation.
To have both public worship services as well as a live stream of the service meets
the needs of everyone. Obviously, extreme care should be taken when offering the
Sacrament of Holy Communion. Sanitary conditions would make the individual cups
the preferred method of distribution.
God willing, the coronavirus will have a limited lifespan and our nation and world
can return to normal in 3 or 4 months.
Not to be alarmist, but late this afternoon the CDC revised its "mass gathering" threshold significantly DOWNWARD, from the 250 a few days ago to 50.A California Bay Area (https://www.lcos.org/) congregation cancelled their Sunday Divine Service (https://www.lcos.org/docs/NOTICE.pdf) because their Sunday attendance exceeded the 100 limit ... but will still conduct their two Wednesday Lenten services since neither service attendance is expected to exceed 100. Perhaps the solution to their Sunday Divine Service cancellation is an additional service with planned attendance (http://locator.lcms.org/nchurches_frm/c_detail.asp?C217723) split accordimgly.
The CDC would like to restrict such gatherings for eight weeks.
The Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh wasted no time in making a decree.
The noose is being tightened, or, to use another well known metaphor, the water holding the frog just warmed another 20 degrees F.
Rev. Austin, repentance is always the appropriate response to natural disasters.
It would have been really helpful if the CDC and other government entities could have started a year ago getting us ready to combat this pandemic.
STATEMENT ON THE CORONA VIRUS, 3-14-20
There has been a lot of misinformation and downright panic regarding the Corona virus of late. While it is a serious threat, especially to our older and more vulnerable members with compromised immune systems, the highly conflicting information out there doesn't give a clear picture of the real nature of the potential threat. We've been taking precautions in church since the beginning of the year to prevent the spread of the flu, and such measures will continue. As the situation changes day by day, we will continue to monitor and evaluate the need to increase our safety measures.
In essence, continue to use the common sense that this congregation and it's members all share. If you think you've been exposed to anything or are sick, by all means, stay at home and participate with the live stream. If you are concerned due to your own underlying health issues, by all means do the same. We will continue to limit contact in church, but will also continue with our regular services until we must do otherwise. And above all, as the pastor, I will be paying very close attention to my own health, so as not to inadvertently cause the spread of any sort of disease.
Above all, we do not want to give in to fear. Fear is Satan's greatest weapon against us, and no matter what the outcome of COVID-19 will be, God is still fully in control.
BTW, one result of all this is a spike in my appreciation for the altar guild. We arrived this morning to find that nothing had been prepared (which we expected), but watching the deacon and I try to find all the things we needed (and remember all the things we needed) would have made for a funny YouTube video. We were pretty clueless. Of course the average Episcopalian altar guild probably has a more complex task than the average Lutheran one, but even so. ;DCould you briefly describe how the Episcopalian Eucharist practice is more complex than the average Lutheran one. Thanks
BTW, one result of all this is a spike in my appreciation for the altar guild. We arrived this morning to find that nothing had been prepared (which we expected), but watching the deacon and I try to find all the things we needed (and remember all the things we needed) would have made for a funny YouTube video. We were pretty clueless. Of course the average Episcopalian altar guild probably has a more complex task than the average Lutheran one, but even so. ;DCould you briefly describe how the Episcopalian Eucharist practice is more complex than the average Lutheran one. Thanks
Oh, just more details, things that typically weren't done by the altar guild at least at my congregation. I'm talking about set up tasks here. So, for instance, the altar guild at Emmanuel deals with putting the gospel book on the altar along with gloves for the assistant who will be carrying it; cruets both of wine and water on the credence table; lavabo bowl and purificators; a groovy case that has hosts separated in slots of varying count, so the deacon can take for consecration only the number needed (45 here today? OK, one group of 25 and two of 10). The altar guild also sets out the vestments needed for the priest, so he doesn't have to go looking for them in the closet. I realize some of these things may be characteristic of some Lutheran congregations as well, but the precision and accuracy with which it is done at Emmanuel is impressive.
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Pastor Fienen:
It would have been really helpful if the CDC and other government entities could have started a year ago getting us ready to combat this pandemic. They could have been stockpiling masks and other supplies and preparing a vaccine. So, is this an example of Trump's short sightedness and general incompetence?
Me:
Did you not read that more than a year ago, the White House virtually closed the office in the CDC that was to plan for and deal with pandemics?
Or this:https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/)Pastor Fienen:
It would have been really helpful if the CDC and other government entities could have started a year ago getting us ready to combat this pandemic. They could have been stockpiling masks and other supplies and preparing a vaccine. So, is this an example of Trump's short sightedness and general incompetence?
Me:
Did you not read that more than a year ago, the White House virtually closed the office in the CDC that was to plan for and deal with pandemics?
Read this: https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/03/16/washington-post-flip-flop-no-the-trump-white-house-did-not-dissolve-the-pandemic-response-office/ (https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/03/16/washington-post-flip-flop-no-the-trump-white-house-did-not-dissolve-the-pandemic-response-office/)
Personal note on the virus:
I suppose because we are a 250-member community of elderly people, Trillium Woods management today made drastic changes to our life. Our fine dining room and charming pub are closed. We now order in advance from menus more limited than usual and food is delivered to our residences. (This has been possible, but with an extra charge.) Beloved Spouse and I stocked up on soups and other foods for at home preparation.
All activities and groups are cancelled. Fitness classes are limited to 4 people and will be shorter, but the pool and gym remain open. They plan additional “deep cleaning” and sanitizing of common areas. No “outsiders” may visit. In my external life, rehearsals for both my choruses have been cancelled.
Beloved Spouse and I will go to parks for walks and fresh air; and we will attend movies if they stay open. (I have about 15 movies on Netflix that we want to see.) The “indoor walk” from our residence to the far end of our building and back is 1.3 miles, so we can do that if weather is bad.
In New Jersey, our former next-door neighbor and two children across the street are infected along with some others; and virtually the whole town is on lock-down.
The Trillium Woods changes are grim because the “social” part of our life here will suffer. Groups may gather, but we are advised to limit the size. And it is, of course, clear to those of us in this place that others have it much worse.
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Yeah, that surprises me. It has been a Lutheran practice for a very long time.
Peace, JOHN
Newspapers print the information available at the time and provided by what they consider to be reliable sources. And it appears that The Washington Post published an update and a correction when other information became available. Good for them.
Sometimes you get bad information or information that is mis-used; and have to admit that you got it wrong or gave an improper slant to it. I would be pleased if the White House did this too.
Six counties in SF Bay Area are under "shelter in place" order. No travel by any means except for when is deemed "essential" (trips to buy food, medicine, medical appointments, caring for family members). Doesn't apply to people in essential jobs (law enforcement, health and safety job, grocery clerks, sanitation workers, etc.). Others are supposed to stay home for the next three weeks. Over 6 million people affected.
Six counties in SF Bay Area are under "shelter in place" order. No travel by any means except for when is deemed "essential" (trips to buy food, medicine, medical appointments, caring for family members). Doesn't apply to people in essential jobs (law enforcement, health and safety job, grocery clerks, sanitation workers, etc.). Others are supposed to stay home for the next three weeks. Over 6 million people affected.
Are clergy considered "essential"? Serious question. If a member is dying, would a pastor be permitted to travel to the bedside? Or is that not as necessary as, say, a garbage collector?
Six counties in SF Bay Area are under "shelter in place" order. No travel by any means except for when is deemed "essential" (trips to buy food, medicine, medical appointments, caring for family members). Doesn't apply to people in essential jobs (law enforcement, health and safety job, grocery clerks, sanitation workers, etc.). Others are supposed to stay home for the next three weeks. Over 6 million people affected.
Are clergy considered "essential"? Serious question. If a member is dying, would a pastor be permitted to travel to the bedside? Or is that not as necessary as, say, a garbage collector?
Pastor Bohler writes (to me, unfortunately):
Yep, newspapers print the information available to them at the time. But YOU continue to repeat the falsehood, even after it has been shown to be false and those newspapers acknowledged their error. And somehow, somehow, you manage to turn YOUR continued falsehoods into an attack on President Trump. Bravo. You are the master. Of what, I won't say. But you ARE the master of it.
I comment:
So whatever, in the name of Aunt Gertie’s goat, happened to that “best construction” hoobie-doobie?
Until I read the items cited just upstream, I did not know the news had been updated. I was not, therefore, willfully repeating a “falsehood.” Now we could discuss whether the first account,until now the only one known by this humble correspondent, was totally wrong, but let’s not do that.
My apologies for not knowing everything.
P.S. I do not need this particular event to justify criticism of the man in the Oval Office. Plenty of other stuff in that bag of atrocities.
Six counties in SF Bay Area are under "shelter in place" order. No travel by any means except for when is deemed "essential" (trips to buy food, medicine, medical appointments, caring for family members). Doesn't apply to people in essential jobs (law enforcement, health and safety job, grocery clerks, sanitation workers, etc.). Others are supposed to stay home for the next three weeks. Over 6 million people affected.
Are clergy considered "essential"? Serious question. If a member is dying, would a pastor be permitted to travel to the bedside? Or is that not as necessary as, say, a garbage collector?
One could probably slip that in under the category of traveling to care for someone (doesn't actually have to be a family member). In any event, it sounds as if they're not looking to arrest people indiscriminately; they are mostly relying on people obeying the order voluntarily. Obviously at any given moment hundreds of people could be on the way to the grocery store, and nobody's going to be pulling them over to see if they have a grocery list.
Pastor Bohler writes (to me, unfortunately):OK, let's discuss whether the first account was totally wrong. Whether or not you were aware of it, it has been shown to have been false and has been retracted. Do you contend that it was not totally wrong (whatever that means) and if so, what do you contend was correct about it?
Yep, newspapers print the information available to them at the time. But YOU continue to repeat the falsehood, even after it has been shown to be false and those newspapers acknowledged their error. And somehow, somehow, you manage to turn YOUR continued falsehoods into an attack on President Trump. Bravo. You are the master. Of what, I won't say. But you ARE the master of it.
I comment:
So whatever, in the name of Aunt Gertie’s goat, happened to that “best construction” hoobie-doobie?
Until I read the items cited just upstream, I did not know the news had been updated. I was not, therefore, willfully repeating a “falsehood.” Now we could discuss whether the first account,until now the only one known by this humble correspondent, was totally wrong, but let’s not do that.
My apologies for not knowing everything.
P.S. I do not need this particular event to justify criticism of the man in the Oval Office. Plenty of other stuff in that bag of atrocities.
If nothing else, the example should help penetrate the wall of denial about media bias. It was a bad report. Nobody is perfect. But the mainstream media errors always land on the side of making Republicans look bad. And in this case there was no excuse for it. The person writing it clearly had an agenda and clearly viewed truth as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of that agenda. No surprise there in the world of politics. But let's at least put away the pretense that WaPo and the NYT are not political players on the side of the Left, and read accordingly.Pastor Bohler writes (to me, unfortunately):OK, let's discuss whether the first account was totally wrong. Whether or not you were aware of it, it has been shown to have been false and has been retracted. Do you contend that it was not totally wrong (whatever that means) and if so, what do you contend was correct about it?
Yep, newspapers print the information available to them at the time. But YOU continue to repeat the falsehood, even after it has been shown to be false and those newspapers acknowledged their error. And somehow, somehow, you manage to turn YOUR continued falsehoods into an attack on President Trump. Bravo. You are the master. Of what, I won't say. But you ARE the master of it.
I comment:
So whatever, in the name of Aunt Gertie’s goat, happened to that “best construction” hoobie-doobie?
Until I read the items cited just upstream, I did not know the news had been updated. I was not, therefore, willfully repeating a “falsehood.” Now we could discuss whether the first account,until now the only one known by this humble correspondent, was totally wrong, but let’s not do that.
My apologies for not knowing everything.
P.S. I do not need this particular event to justify criticism of the man in the Oval Office. Plenty of other stuff in that bag of atrocities.
If nothing else, the example should help penetrate the wall of denial about media bias. It was a bad report. Nobody is perfect. But the mainstream media errors always land on the side of making Republicans look bad. And in this case there was no excuse for it. The person writing it clearly had an agenda and clearly viewed truth as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of that agenda. No surprise there in the world of politics. But let's at least put away the pretense that WaPo and the NYT are not political players on the side of the Left, and read accordingly.Pastor Bohler writes (to me, unfortunately):OK, let's discuss whether the first account was totally wrong. Whether or not you were aware of it, it has been shown to have been false and has been retracted. Do you contend that it was not totally wrong (whatever that means) and if so, what do you contend was correct about it?
Yep, newspapers print the information available to them at the time. But YOU continue to repeat the falsehood, even after it has been shown to be false and those newspapers acknowledged their error. And somehow, somehow, you manage to turn YOUR continued falsehoods into an attack on President Trump. Bravo. You are the master. Of what, I won't say. But you ARE the master of it.
I comment:
So whatever, in the name of Aunt Gertie’s goat, happened to that “best construction” hoobie-doobie?
Until I read the items cited just upstream, I did not know the news had been updated. I was not, therefore, willfully repeating a “falsehood.” Now we could discuss whether the first account,until now the only one known by this humble correspondent, was totally wrong, but let’s not do that.
My apologies for not knowing everything.
P.S. I do not need this particular event to justify criticism of the man in the Oval Office. Plenty of other stuff in that bag of atrocities.
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Yeah, that surprises me. It has been a Lutheran practice for a very long time.
Peace, JOHN
This glaring difference is an old disparity of practice between the LCA and ALC. Isn't it?
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Yeah, that surprises me. It has been a Lutheran practice for a very long time.
Peace, JOHN
This glaring difference is an old disparity of practice between the LCA and ALC. Isn't it?
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Yeah, that surprises me. It has been a Lutheran practice for a very long time.
Peace, JOHN
This glaring difference is an old disparity of practice between the LCA and ALC. Isn't it?
Nope. Both the ALC and LCA approved A Statement on Communion Practices in 1978 that says:
Only enough bread and wine should be brought to the altar to serve the congregation. Should the supply need to be replenished, it is not necessary to repeat the Words of Institution. (C.2.)
One rare instance where Use of the Means of Grace got it wrong . . .
Yeah, that surprises me. It has been a Lutheran practice for a very long time.
Peace, JOHN
This glaring difference is an old disparity of practice between the LCA and ALC. Isn't it?
Nope. Both the ALC and LCA approved A Statement on Communion Practices in 1978 that says:
Only enough bread and wine should be brought to the altar to serve the congregation. Should the supply need to be replenished, it is not necessary to repeat the Words of Institution. (C.2.)
Perhaps by 1978 this may have been the case. I’m thinking prior to that... perhaps the 1960s. Seems to me the German ALC was way more conservative than East coast LCA. But I could be mistaken.
Nope. Both the ALC and LCA approved A Statement on Communion Practices in 1978 that says:
Only enough bread and wine should be brought to the altar to serve the congregation. Should the supply need to be replenished, it is not necessary to repeat the Words of Institution. (C.2.)
Perhaps by 1978 this may have been the case. I’m thinking prior to that... perhaps the 1960s. Seems to me the German ALC was way more conservative than East coast LCA. But I could be mistaken.
Nope. Both the ALC and LCA approved A Statement on Communion Practices in 1978 that says:
Only enough bread and wine should be brought to the altar to serve the congregation. Should the supply need to be replenished, it is not necessary to repeat the Words of Institution. (C.2.)
Perhaps by 1978 this may have been the case. I’m thinking prior to that... perhaps the 1960s. Seems to me the German ALC was way more conservative than East coast LCA. But I could be mistaken.
The rubrics of the Common Service stated, "If the consecrated Bread or Wine be spent befroe all have communed, the Minister shall set apart more, saying aloud so much of the Words of Institution as pertaineth to the Element to be consecreated."
In his Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship, Pfatteicher follows the Statement on Communion Practices. "Many Lutherans find such a consecration unnecessary," he writes, noting that no directions are in SBH or LBW rubrics, and in The Lutheran Liturgy Luther Reed dismisses the Nachkonsekration. Although as I look it up, Reed describes how "some authorities (Theodore Harnack, Höfling; H. E. Jacobs, E. T. Horn) "reject the so-called Nach Konsekration ... though admitting that this has always been a Lutheran custom," then gives their reasoning. A few pages later Reed repeats the Common Service rubric without any commentary at all.
I was taught the Nachkonsekration as a young LCA layman (perhaps when I was an acolyte), and have always practiced it myself since being ordained. I served as Sacristan for the Mass during which Paull Spring was installed as the NALC's first Bishop -- he had been an LCA pastor when elected as the first Bishop of the ELCA's Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod -- and was directly charged by him to consecrate any additional elements if they were needed.
Pax, Steven+
Nope. Both the ALC and LCA approved A Statement on Communion Practices in 1978 that says:
Only enough bread and wine should be brought to the altar to serve the congregation. Should the supply need to be replenished, it is not necessary to repeat the Words of Institution. (C.2.)
Perhaps by 1978 this may have been the case. I’m thinking prior to that... perhaps the 1960s. Seems to me the German ALC was way more conservative than East coast LCA. But I could be mistaken.
The rubrics of the Common Service stated, "If the consecrated Bread or Wine be spent befroe all have communed, the Minister shall set apart more, saying aloud so much of the Words of Institution as pertaineth to the Element to be consecreated."
In his Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship, Pfatteicher follows the Statement on Communion Practices. "Many Lutherans find such a consecration unnecessary," he writes, noting that no directions are in SBH or LBW rubrics, and in The Lutheran Liturgy Luther Reed dismisses the Nachkonsekration. Or does he? As I look it up (I have the 1947 edition), Reed describes how "some authorities (Theodore Harnack, Höfling; H. E. Jacobs, E. T. Horn) reject the so-called Nach Konsekration ... though admitting that this has always been a Lutheran custom," then gives their reasoning. A few pages later Reed highlights the Common Service rubric without any further commentary.
I was taught the Nachkonsekration as a young LCA layman (perhaps when I was an acolyte), and have always practiced it myself since being ordained. I served as Sacristan for the Mass during which Paull Spring was installed as the NALC's first Bishop -- he had been an LCA pastor when elected as the first Bishop of the ELCA's Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod -- and was directly charged by him to consecrate any additional elements if they were needed.
Pax, Steven+
The rubric in the Book of Common Prayer:
If the consecrated Bread or Wine does not suffice for the number of communicants, the celebrant is to return to the Holy Table, and consecrate more of either or both, by saying
Hear us, O heavenly Father, and with thy (your) Word and Holy Spirit, bless and sanctify this bread (wine) that it, also, may be the Sacrament of the precious Body (Blood) of thy (your) Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who took bread (the cup) and said, "This is my Body (Blood)." Amen. Note: This formula is to be used only in the context of a celebration of the Holy Eucharist, not separately.
Just been watching update by our Gov., Gavin Newsom. Not a fan of his, but I have to say he is doing an excellent job--offering frank information, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation but doing so in a way that is honest and sober, not hysterical, with a strong note of reassurance that things will eventually be OK. Even just had something positive to say about the President.
Under extraordinary circumstance (and these days it might be so) I would think any baptized Christian would be able to say the Words of Institution for the Sacrament of Holy Communion to be valid. This would certainly be the case for infant baptism should there be any imminent death of the infant present. Why wouldn't this practice be valid in this case?
Nobody can get into college today unless they have a high-quality computer. No one can function efficiently in high school today unless they have a laptop computer. And if they don’t have one, The school should provide it.We didn’t have to buy textbooks back in the day, why should kids today have to buy computers?
Same as textbook fees. If you qualify for free/reduced lunch, the fees are waived. Many school computers are rented, not purchased, and nobody is excluded.Nobody can get into college today unless they have a high-quality computer. No one can function efficiently in high school today unless they have a laptop computer. And if they don’t have one, The school should provide it.We didn’t have to buy textbooks back in the day, why should kids today have to buy computers?
My sister is a recently retired kindergarten teacher in an upper middle class suburb. Her kids were required to have iPads. I don't know what the school district did for students whose families could not afford one.
Sounds refreshing! In my second assignment (1967-8) in Minneapolis, at our local public high school students shared textbooks--you could take it home alternate evenings. Of course, the students were mainly Black and Native American. That's the first thing I think of when I hear the phrase "learning gap."Same as textbook fees. If you qualify for free/reduced lunch, the fees are waived. Many school computers are rented, not purchased, and nobody is excluded.Nobody can get into college today unless they have a high-quality computer. No one can function efficiently in high school today unless they have a laptop computer. And if they don’t have one, The school should provide it.We didn’t have to buy textbooks back in the day, why should kids today have to buy computers?My sister is a recently retired kindergarten teacher in an upper middle class suburb. Her kids were required to have iPads. I don't know what the school district did for students whose families could not afford one.
The Board of Trustees at Our Savior’s, Crookston, has voted to cancel all services and activities effective immediately. An abbreviated, congregation-less service will be available on KROX 1260AM Sunday mornings at 8:00 and on the church’s website: oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org. The same type of services will be done for midweek Lent (starting tonight) and put up on the website. The Eldred congregation also decided to cancel all services and activities.
I am sad to have to write that. My feeling was that, unless we were forced to stop services, we should continue for any that wished to come. But the board felt otherwise.
A close up view of the potential economic impact. We went out to run a couple of errands, one of which was to pick up something at JC Penny which we had ordered on line for our granddaughter. The local JCP is a small store, and we'd ordered on line because they didn't have the size and color we needed. Got there at 11 to find a sign on the door that they have "temporarily" reduced hours to noon to 7 (instead of 10 to 8 p.m.). Did some other errands and came back just after noon. Sign at the pick up desk said go to front cashier. There were only two sales people in the store, and I was the only customer. So one of them fetched my item. "Pretty busy today, huh?" I said. "Yeah. I can hardly keep up. It's a good thing you came in today; I'm just waiting for confirmation that we're going to be closed effective tomorrow until April 1." I asked if that was just this store, or all of them. "I don't know," she said. "The virus, plus the weather (it's been a little snowy) has really hit us hard. Absolutely no traffic except returns."
If this store were to close, it would be a major impact on our town; the only other thing approaching a "department store" is a KMart. We were wondering about the impact of all this on different kinds of businesses. Grocery stores are OK. Gyms are probably OK for a while; even if patrons are staying away, they're not a "pay per use" business so they can maintain things unless people start canceling. Movie theaters--well, one of them has already closed for at least the rest of the month, and the others are restricting the number of tickets sold. Non-essential retail, like JCP, is no doubt on the edge, which means laying people off.
I think those who are saying the economic impact may be a bigger problem than the health impact may be correct. I wonder how this will impact churches that are really living close to the edge and depend on a healthy Easter offering to keep afloat?
The Board of Trustees at Our Savior’s, Crookston, has voted to cancel all services and activities effective immediately. An abbreviated, congregation-less service will be available on KROX 1260AM Sunday mornings at 8:00 and on the church’s website: oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org. The same type of services will be done for midweek Lent (starting tonight) and put up on the website. The Eldred congregation also decided to cancel all services and activities.
I am sad to have to write that. My feeling was that, unless we were forced to stop services, we should continue for any that wished to come. But the board felt otherwise.
The Board of Trustees at Our Savior’s, Crookston, has voted to cancel all services and activities effective immediately. An abbreviated, congregation-less service will be available on KROX 1260AM Sunday mornings at 8:00 and on the church’s website: oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org. The same type of services will be done for midweek Lent (starting tonight) and put up on the website. The Eldred congregation also decided to cancel all services and activities.
I am sad to have to write that. My feeling was that, unless we were forced to stop services, we should continue for any that wished to come. But the board felt otherwise.
I received a private message, asking why it was the trustees who made the decision rather than elders. I will paste my answer below:
"Sorry, I should have made that clear. In our congregation, the church council as a whole is called the Board of Trustees. 9 members in total. 3 are elders, 3 are stewardship/education committee, 3 are maintenance committee. So, while I discussed this with the vice-chairman (who is one of the elders) first, it was the entire 9-man Board of Trustees that made the decision. The chairman (another of the elders) is away on vacation in Florida, but was included in the conference call discussion/vote of the entire board, which the vice-chairman chaired."
The Board of Trustees at Our Savior’s, Crookston, has voted to cancel all services and activities effective immediately. An abbreviated, congregation-less service will be available on KROX 1260AM Sunday mornings at 8:00 and on the church’s website: oursaviorslutheranchurchcrookston.org. The same type of services will be done for midweek Lent (starting tonight) and put up on the website. The Eldred congregation also decided to cancel all services and activities.
I am sad to have to write that. My feeling was that, unless we were forced to stop services, we should continue for any that wished to come. But the board felt otherwise.
I received a private message, asking why it was the trustees who made the decision rather than elders. I will paste my answer below:
"Sorry, I should have made that clear. In our congregation, the church council as a whole is called the Board of Trustees. 9 members in total. 3 are elders, 3 are stewardship/education committee, 3 are maintenance committee. So, while I discussed this with the vice-chairman (who is one of the elders) first, it was the entire 9-man Board of Trustees that made the decision. The chairman (another of the elders) is away on vacation in Florida, but was included in the conference call discussion/vote of the entire board, which the vice-chairman chaired."
In your congregation, what roles are played by elders, trustees, and council? It sounds as if responsibility is divided in ways with which I am not familiar.
Pasgolf writes:Mailing everyone $1000 would do nothing for the economy? Okay, how would you stimulate spending and relieve economic stress on those living hand to mouth who can’t work during all this?
The Federal Government seems to be poised to send out checks to everyone. Speaking only for myself, this is "found money" that I will not need for my personal health and wellbeing.
I comment:
True also for this humble correspondent. This “checks to everyone” at this time is a crass ploy to curry favor. It would do nothing for the economy and not much for most families.
So, Peter, you are all of a sudden in favor of uncontrolled, massive federal help to individuals? And I am not? Wha’ happened?Could it be that Trump is on board with this, whoever first floated the idea, so since Trump is in favor of it, it cannot be good?
So, Peter, you are all of a sudden in favor of uncontrolled, massive federal help to individuals? And I am not? Wha’ happened?No, not at all. In general I oppose bailouts and massive deficit spending. But I don’t know how else to deal with this unprecedented, bizarre, sudden threat to the economy. So I’m willing to withhold judgment. It seems to have bipartisan support, with a few very fiscally conservative Republicans opposed. If anything, the Democratic leadership seems to be pushing for the checks to be larger. Apparently in your those Democrats are holding out for an even more shameless ploy.
“Government infused a lot of money ...”. And where does that money come from?
“Government infused a lot of money ...”. And where does that money come from? From taxpayers. The economy. It is rather like taking from our household’s grocery fund to pay the electric bill. In the end, such “government checks” are just income re-distribution. Unless it is just borrowing on the future with no real hope of repaying the debt. So let’s at least be honest about that.I'm not an expert in economics, but I think the theory is that in this crisis situation, there may be millions of Americans who are actually good credit risks and simply need cash flow to get them through the next few months of uncertainty. While each could individually try to arrange credit, the delay and uncertainty could lead to unnecessary financial disruption. Like it or not, Uncle Sam is able to borrow money more quickly and easily than even the most creditworthy individuals, and time is of the essence. In effect, Uncle Sam borrows on behalf of everyone for the sake of speed and predictability. It does mean that some (maybe a lot) of money goes to people with no particular need, but it hopefully staves off the scenario of cascading defaults from a temporary interruption of cash flow.
Peter writes:There is a big difference between being suspicious about something and declaring with certainty that it won’t do any good and is nothing more than a political ploy, which is what you did. Go ahead and be suspicious this plan, Trump, and his motives. But learn to be suspicious of your own motives, too. My guess is that some economic experts care up with the plan. If Trump overruled them, you’d see that as another sign of his reckless irresponsibility and disregard for the little guy.
When I don’t know what I would do or see done, I consent to be led, or at least try not to bite at the heels of whoever is leading.
I comment:
Well, I do not always “consent to be led.” This might be a good idea, and I’m glad it has bipartisan support. I can still be suspicious about it, can’t I?
As for our leadership, Does his babbling, sometimes incoherent, “it’s all about me” performance at these news conferences give you any comfort? Do his potshots at certain people, which I think he means to be lighthearted, seem appropriate? Does he show any sign of grasping the real situation? He did have praise for some of his people this time, and that’s good. I could be led by some of the doctors I have heard from, but I don’t think I can be led by him.
Thanks for the descriptives, Peter - we're calling it the "four corner" offensive against the virus. The few who attend will head to the four corners of the sanctuary where they can sit at six foot intervals. 9 of us last night conducted our FaceTime live Lenten service; congregants served as the choir and we just sang and sang between prayers and Scripture, enlisting those at home to do the same.
Our DP/Bishop has twice weekly Zoom meetings for pastors where we are learning some of the techniques that can be of use outside of the minimal in person gatherings. With Zoom meeting, Google classroom, FaceTime, Facebook live, and then with the implementation of online giving it's possible to have a "congregation" of sorts. But - workers are not working, the solutions to that, although being passed, are not implemented, the frail are isolated, and the pastoral needs are expanding exponentially. Our "front line" pastoral and leadership efforts are to stay in touch with as many people in as many ways as possible for the purpose of prayer and the "mutual consolation and conversation of the brethren." That little phrase from the Schmalkald Articles is listed as an article of the Gospel. It's apparent to me more than ever that it was appropriately placed there.
Dave Benke
We added communion to our Lenten services and held them yesterday at 2:30 and 6:30 p.m. with 34 and 30 in attendance, respectively. I'm glad to say that the changes we made to the service allowed everyone to worship and commune without anyone violating civil guidelines. Nobody needed to touch any hard surface that had been touched by anyone else, nobody had to come within six feet of anyone else, and we had no more than ten to a large room, counting each large section of pews and the balcony as rooms.Trinity Lutheran Sheboygan WI (https://www.trinitysheboygan.org/covid-19-church-info) has scheduled a extensive number of additional Divine Services throughout the week limited to ten in attendance. Quite a schedule ... even with 2 rostered pastors.
The three doors into the sanctuary were kept open, the inner doors into the church were propped open, and a volunteer opened the out door for everyone so that nobody had to touch a door handle. People picked up their own bulletin rather than have an usher hand it to them, and they took the bulletins home or put them in recycling after the service so they wouldn't be reused. There were no hymnals, papers, or writing utensils in the pews, and no attendance pads. There were no hangers in the coat rack (since they would be a pain to disinfect between services) so everybody took their coats into the pews. We did one line of continuous communion with respectable space between each person in line. I wore protective gloves to distribute the host into the hands of each communicant. People took their own individual cup from the tray, and placed the empty cup in a bowl to either side of the table. Between services, volunteers helped disinfect and wipe down the pews, which didn't take long. I really don't think anyone who attended put themselves or anyone else at risk.
With people seated in the narthex we could have about 60 at each service without even needing flexibility in the guidelines, which means we could serve 240 people if attendance were evenly distributed across the services. Still not nearly enough to meet the usual need, but getting close to the ballpark. If new mandates come down preventing people from leaving their homes at all, then of course this won't work and we'll have to figure something else out.
This interesting reflection from Preet Bharara on the current situation.....
Thanks for the descriptives, Peter - we're calling it the "four corner" offensive against the virus. The few who attend will head to the four corners of the sanctuary where they can sit at six foot intervals. 9 of us last night conducted our FaceTime live Lenten service; congregants served as the choir and we just sang and sang between prayers and Scripture, enlisting those at home to do the same.
Our DP/Bishop has twice weekly Zoom meetings for pastors where we are learning some of the techniques that can be of use outside of the minimal in person gatherings. With Zoom meeting, Google classroom, FaceTime, Facebook live, and then with the implementation of online giving it's possible to have a "congregation" of sorts. But - workers are not working, the solutions to that, although being passed, are not implemented, the frail are isolated, and the pastoral needs are expanding exponentially. Our "front line" pastoral and leadership efforts are to stay in touch with as many people in as many ways as possible for the purpose of prayer and the "mutual consolation and conversation of the brethren." That little phrase from the Schmalkald Articles is listed as an article of the Gospel. It's apparent to me more than ever that it was appropriately placed there.
Dave BenkeWe added communion to our Lenten services and held them yesterday at 2:30 and 6:30 p.m. with 34 and 30 in attendance, respectively. I'm glad to say that the changes we made to the service allowed everyone to worship and commune without anyone violating civil guidelines. Nobody needed to touch any hard surface that had been touched by anyone else, nobody had to come within six feet of anyone else, and we had no more than ten to a large room, counting each large section of pews and the balcony as rooms.Trinity Lutheran Sheboygan WI (https://www.trinitysheboygan.org/covid-19-church-info) has scheduled a extensive number of additional Divine Services throughout the week limited to ten in attendance. Quite a schedule ... even with 2 rostered pastors.
The three doors into the sanctuary were kept open, the inner doors into the church were propped open, and a volunteer opened the out door for everyone so that nobody had to touch a door handle. People picked up their own bulletin rather than have an usher hand it to them, and they took the bulletins home or put them in recycling after the service so they wouldn't be reused. There were no hymnals, papers, or writing utensils in the pews, and no attendance pads. There were no hangers in the coat rack (since they would be a pain to disinfect between services) so everybody took their coats into the pews. We did one line of continuous communion with respectable space between each person in line. I wore protective gloves to distribute the host into the hands of each communicant. People took their own individual cup from the tray, and placed the empty cup in a bowl to either side of the table. Between services, volunteers helped disinfect and wipe down the pews, which didn't take long. I really don't think anyone who attended put themselves or anyone else at risk.
With people seated in the narthex we could have about 60 at each service without even needing flexibility in the guidelines, which means we could serve 240 people if attendance were evenly distributed across the services. Still not nearly enough to meet the usual need, but getting close to the ballpark. If new mandates come down preventing people from leaving their homes at all, then of course this won't work and we'll have to figure something else out.
The pastor of the congregation I currently attend cut his family spring break vacation short in order to to assist with the first streamed Lenten Service last night.
May God continue to bless the pastors and their families who often sacrifice family time of the benefit of the Church.
New York is now going to stay home/shelter in place. We're going to have a two or three person facetime/online option for prayer and song. And communicate with everyone as often as possible by God's grace.
Dave Benke
New York is now going to stay home/shelter in place. We're going to have a two or three person facetime/online option for prayer and song. And communicate with everyone as often as possible by God's grace.
Dave Benke
As I said on another thread yesterday:
I have been amazed at how quickly, and with so little push-back, the government has taken control of everything. It scares me (in an earthly sense) more than a little. There is no known case of the virus anywhere near here -- the closest, I believe, is 250 miles away from my location. Yet virtually every business has been shut down (many, I fear, will never re-open). Corporate worship has been effectively eliminated. Groups or gatherings greater than 10 more or less outlawed (effectively preventing opposition to current policy). The economy devastated. Life savings wiped out. I am waiting for travel to be forbidden, food rationing to begin, and control of production/distribution of other necessities to be proclaimed -- all in the interest of public safety.
Graphs charting the projected spread of the virus have been widely shared, with the proverbial hockey-stick line. Well, I think you could make a similar graph of freedoms/liberties lost.
Pasgolf writes:
The Federal Government seems to be poised to send out checks to everyone. Speaking only for myself, this is "found money" that I will not need for my personal health and wellbeing.
I comment:
True also for this humble correspondent. This “checks to everyone” at this time is a crass ploy to curry favor. It would do nothing for the economy and not much for most families.
Just my two cents and it's just an opinion: I think we need to rethink what we are doing. According to reports I've read, while COVID-19 has a higher degree of communicability than other viruses, its not as lethal as many others. The vast majority of deaths are among the very aged or individuals with pre-existing conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems. Indeed, a Bloomberg report states that 99% of those dying in Italy had pre-existent conditions. Only 0.8% had no known prior medical problems. Of the 7 people under 40 who died, all had major medical problems. The fact of the matter is that most people will experience only mild or moderate symptoms and then recover.
I think such statistics tell us that we need to rethink our approach. While those in high risks categories should take special care- and while we should all take care with those in such categories- I believe that for the most part we should go on living life, maybe going the extra mile to keep everything clean and sanitary and reducing visitors and activities where necessary- such as nursing homes and senior centers.
Indeed, Pr. Engebretson. Kind of reminds one of the comments by the irresponsible youth on the Florida beaches, demanding their freedom to party.As the last of those links reminds us and we Minnesotans heard again from Gov. Walz's news conference this afternoon, one reason so many counties record no known cases of COVID19 is that no one there has been tested yet. The medical authorities have reason to think that there are hundreds or even thousands of Minnesotans who have the disease in its incubation phase, when they probably aren't feeling symptoms but they are already contagious. That's behind the requirement that restaurants and other gathering places throughout the state close for now.
https://youtu.be/o_cImRzKXOs
BTW, Moorhead in Clay County is 69.3 miles from Crookston.
https://claycountymn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9928/317-CCPH-1st-Confirmed-Case?bidId=
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html
Just my two cents and it's just an opinion: I think we need to rethink what we are doing. According to reports I've read, while COVID-19 has a higher degree of communicability than other viruses, its not as lethal as many others. The vast majority of deaths are among the very aged or individuals with pre-existing conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems. Indeed, a Bloomberg report states that 99% of those dying in Italy had pre-existent conditions. Only 0.8% had no known prior medical problems. Of the 7 people under 40 who died, all had major medical problems. The fact of the matter is that most people will experience only mild or moderate symptoms and then recover.
I think such statistics tell us that we need to rethink our approach. While those in high risks categories should take special care- and while we should all take care with those in such categories- I believe that for the most part we should go on living life, maybe going the extra mile to keep everything clean and sanitary and reducing visitors and activities where necessary- such as nursing homes and senior centers.
Jeff Berndt
The Governor of Illinois has now issued a stay-at-home order effective 5 pm Saturday through the end of day Tuesday, April 7.
As I prepare for my live streamed service tomorrow I realize that this is a unique experience in more ways than just the changed setting. I am addressing my flock at a time of national crisis. At this point our immediate area is not identified as being infected with the coronavirus. But we know it's coming; it may already be here and we just don't know. We hear the national reports. We know cities and states are closing down in response to strict "shelter at place" orders. Our state has incrementally limited our interactions and we know this is probably next.
Tomorrow's Gospel reading in the three year series for Lent 4 is the healing of the man born blind in John 9. While we do not want to manipulate the text to simply be a message directed to a national crisis, this story still has a message for such a time as this. It contains themes of how we choose to see God and his mercy or how we distort the picture of who God is. The disciples begin by musing on the sin that could have caused God to specifically punish this man with blindness, even from birth. The Pharisees and other Jews refuse to believe that the man had actually been blind and thus healed. They are blind to the work of God right in front of them. So they discipline the once blind man by expelling him from the synagogue, attempting to remove him from fellowship with God's people and from hearing God's word. In stubborn unbelief they conclude that Jesus is no more than a common sinner. The once blind man, however, not only has his physical eyes healed, he is given faith and worships Jesus. He is excluded in one way and included in another. Banished from the synagogue he is welcomed into the true Temple. The Lord concludes by noting that He has come into the world that the "blind will see and those who see will be blind." The Pharisees cannot see their own spiritual blindness and thus their guilt remains. They close their eyes, both physical and spiritual, to what God is doing in Jesus. They cannot see the mercy of God being played out before them, and see only a hollow and sterile law that condemns.
A crisis such as ours brings out fear in people, and in that fear they either turn in faith to the God who delivers and preserves, or they turn within themselves in denial and self-preservation. We are seeing both as this drama unfolds. Incredible acts of selflessness to ones neighbor, both in the epicenter of the hospitals as well as in communities responding to people's simple needs of food - and deeply saddening acts of selfishness as people hoard and thus take from their neighbor. The are blind to a God who is merciful even to sinners.
As death looms over the future people may dread what is coming, even if it never arrives. They desperately need to know that the God in the midst of this suffering is a truly merciful and loving God. The man who is healed becomes the recipient of God's mercy, but that does not end his suffering. He is removed from God's house of prayer by people who refuse to believe in the savior who delivered him. He is confronted by hate and blind unbelief. Yet, he does not appear bitter - or fearful. He is amazed at the 'blindness' of his detractors. How can they not 'see' what he now sees? How can they not see the acts of a merciful God played out so clearly in his healing? Why do they shut their eyes to this divine act of love?
In the midst of this crisis we need to continue to 'see' the work of our merciful God in faith, even if seemingly 'hidden' at times under pain and suffering and human indifference. We must continue to see it as God comes to us through His Son in Word and Sacrament to feed us the Bread of Life for our salvation and strength of faith to endure. Even remotely through artificial means of technology they will see our faces and hear our voices and know that God still speaks. He is not silent. He is not inactive. He has not left us alone. God is here and He remains merciful to sinners just like you and me.
New York governor Cuomo for president! Here is a man who knows how to lead and who knows how to talk and inspire and inform people. Is it too late to get him to run?
But did you listen to what he has to say? I doubt that you did. The governor was giving out considerable amount of information, and offering honest words of inspiration and warning.
BTW - Beloved spouse wonders why the president and vice president are even allowed to be in the same building together, let alone standing shoulder to shoulder. Shouldn’t they be completely separated?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-top-10-lies-about-president-trumps-response-to-the-coronavirus/
Check them out and come to your own conclusion.
With all the concentration on the health affects of this virus, there is little to no real news about the coming economic fallout. According to Goldman-Sachs they predict the US GDP will shrink 24% next quarter amid the coronavirus pandemic and that could therefore be 2.5 times bigger than any decline in history. The economic effects could be just as jarring to our churches as the virus itself.Indiana now on stay-at-home orders, but interpreted pretty loosely as not going out for any unimportant reason.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24 (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24)
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
With all the concentration on the health affects of this virus, there is little to no real news about the coming economic fallout. According to Goldman-Sachs they predict the US GDP will shrink 24% next quarter amid the coronavirus pandemic and that could therefore be 2.5 times bigger than any decline in history. The economic effects could be just as jarring to our churches as the virus itself.Indiana now on stay-at-home orders, but interpreted pretty loosely as not going out for any unimportant reason.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24 (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24)
Governor Lamont issued his list of Essential activities last night, and - thanks be to God - religious services (under 50 in size) is on the list! I was completely surprised, as up till now CT has followed NY's lead almost exactly.
So at least for now, the state of CT has agreed that religious services are essential (not words I thought I would ever type). And worshipping will not be a Class D felony after all(also not words I ever expected to type).
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
The Governors (and Hierarchs) fail to understand that not everyone has access to the latest technology, including access to broadband internet capable of supporting live-streaming.
The digital divide is greatest among the elderly and those living in rural areas.
With all the concentration on the health affects of this virus, there is little to no real news about the coming economic fallout. According to Goldman-Sachs they predict the US GDP will shrink 24% next quarter amid the coronavirus pandemic and that could therefore be 2.5 times bigger than any decline in history. The economic effects could be just as jarring to our churches as the virus itself.Indiana now on stay-at-home orders, but interpreted pretty loosely as not going out for any unimportant reason.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24 (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-gdp-drop-record-2q-amid-coronavirus-recession-goldman-sachs-2020-3-1029018308?fbclid=iwar1yb-gcmj5x8rr11yczzrlj_thsbajovkv90yj3bsban5t2hjjujyewx24)
Governor Lamont issued his list of Essential activities last night, and - thanks be to God - religious services (under 50 in size) is on the list! I was completely surprised, as up till now CT has followed NY's lead almost exactly.
So at least for now, the state of CT has agreed that religious services are essential (not words I thought I would ever type). And worshipping will not be a Class D felony after all(also not words I ever expected to type).
We thank God for our freedom of worship frequently in our congregational prayers, but I don't know if I have ever cheered out loud for it like I did last night when I read the governor's list.
For the rest of you for whom the news has not been so good, God grant you wisdom, courage, and comfort.
**One point for those who have members who have access to a computer and the internet but do not do Facebook or have a Facebook account. If you live stream your service through FB, simply copy the link address of that video and send it to the people who have access to the internet. They do not have to have an account to access it. They should just paste it into the address bar and hit enter.
The link address should look like mine - E.g.: https://www.facebook.com/stpeterpolar/videos/1107346419607571/
**One point for those who have members who have access to a computer and the internet but do not do Facebook or have a Facebook account. If you live stream your service through FB, simply copy the link address of that video and send it to the people who have access to the internet. They do not have to have an account to access it. They should just paste it into the address bar and hit enter.
The link address should look like mine - E.g.: https://www.facebook.com/stpeterpolar/videos/1107346419607571/
Need to be clear, though, that one not signed on to Facebook needs the exact URL of the live stream/video to see it.
Pax, Steven+
**One point for those who have members who have access to a computer and the internet but do not do Facebook or have a Facebook account. If you live stream your service through FB, simply copy the link address of that video and send it to the people who have access to the internet. They do not have to have an account to access it. They should just paste it into the address bar and hit enter.
The link address should look like mine - E.g.: https://www.facebook.com/stpeterpolar/videos/1107346419607571/
Need to be clear, though, that one not signed on to Facebook needs the exact URL of the live stream/video to see it.
Pax, Steven+
Steven,
Would my link in that form work? Or do I need a different one? If so, how might I go about determining it?
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
So of course now businesses will declare themselves to be "essential" and stay open.
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
So of course now businesses will declare themselves to be "essential" and stay open.
I challenge people to find any bits of truth in the words the president just spoke concerning the future of this pandemic.I challenge people to find any bits of value in your persistent fact-free diatribes.
I challenge people to find any bits of truth in the words the president just spoke concerning the future of this pandemic.I didn't see it live, but the gist I gathered from a few articles and clips was that he was optimistic about the disruption being on the shorter rather than the longer end of the spectrum and said, "We're going to win this battle." Is it your opinion that we're going to lose? If anything, he and Cuomo sound like they say pretty much the same things, or at least try to adopt the same attitude by projecting confidence.
Governor Evers has issued his own "safer-at-home" order shutting down all non-essential services in the state of Wisconsin. I knew it was only a matter of time and predicted it would happen this week after Illinois had their 'shelter-at-home' order. Well, there went my little Friday morning Bible class. The last part of my ministry that wasn't remote.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/ (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/wisconsin-gov-tony-evers-issues-safer-place-order/2897821001/)
So of course now businesses will declare themselves to be "essential" and stay open.
As I expected, the company I work for and the company my wife works for are both indicating that they are "essential". I'll find out from my son when he gets home from work tonight if his is also "essential".
Still not as bad as it could be. I've been working at home for over a week now and my wife has some banked time she's going to use.
Once again, Peter, different worlds, we live in different worlds.I guess so. In my world, people who need their political leader to be their mommy are unworthy of self-government. In yours, they are a voice of reason.
Once again, Peter, different worlds, we live in different worlds.
Speaking of different worlds, here is an excellent article from First Things linked via realclearreligion
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/03/creation-fall-and-coronavirus
Here in our part of Minnesota, Peter, we are learning from experience that the president’s cheery optimism, minimizing of the dangers, Speaking of a ‘treatment” are simply dangerous lies.Far LESS disturbing than your almost daily despicable screeds against the President and those with whom you disagree.
What the president said about what industries are doing is already been proven false.
At this time, Steven, when the number of deaths in spreading, you make a joke?
I am not at all hopeless. I’m one of the most hopeful people around. But I put no confidence in this president and his “leadership.” I see no reason to respect him. I do respect the scientists.
But I’ll try to sign off this discussion. You people with unquestioning and uncritical support the president is simply too disturbing.
Here in our part of Minnesota, Peter, we are learning from experience that the president’s cheery optimism, minimizing of the dangers, Speaking of a ‘treatment” are simply dangerous lies.
What the president said about what industries are doing is already been proven false.
At this time, Steven, when the number of deaths in spreading, you make a joke?
I am not at all hopeless. I’m one of the most hopeful people around. But I put no confidence in this president and his “leadership.” I see no reason to respect him. I do respect the scientists.
But I’ll try to sign off this discussion. You people with unquestioning and uncritical support the president is simply too disturbing.
One has to throw some compliment towards the White House to avoid the nasty Tweets and not feed the petulant, ego-driven anger of the beast.Hmmm. Yet the governor of Illinois, another Democrat leading a large, blue state, does no such thing, but publicly derides the president's leadership in this. So you're saying he is foolish to do so?
You people with unquestioning and uncritical support the president is simply too disturbing.
You people with unquestioning and uncritical support the president is simply too disturbing.
<sigh!>
feelsHere's the problem.
These are complicated times, Peter, and often the actions of individuals cannot be explained.Eagerness to defend the president from attack in a time of crisis is much easier to explain charitably than eagerness to attack the president. I don't think anyone ever brings him up out of the blue except to respond to your almost maniacal obsession and hatred (just admit it, it is hatred) of him. Stop attacking him and no on will defend him.
You seek cold logic and consistency. Those things do not always apply.
I keep pondering why some in this modest forum, whom I believe to be intelligent, sensible, perceptive people, hold opinions I find inconsistent, illogical and incomprehensible; and whose eagerness to defend The president and his actions I simply do not understand.
You are an exception, because, as I have said often, I do not believe we share the same planet.
A long phone conversation yesterday with another occasional participant in this forum suggests that I’m not the only one who feels that way.
These are complicated times, Peter, and often the actions of individuals cannot be explained.
You seek cold logic and consistency. Those things do not always apply.
I keep pondering why some in this modest forum, whom I believe to be intelligent, sensible, perceptive people, hold opinions I find inconsistent, illogical and incomprehensible; and whose eagerness to defend The president and his actions I simply do not understand.
You are an exception, because, as I have said often, I do not believe we share the same planet.
A long phone conversation yesterday with another occasional participant in this forum suggests that I’m not the only one who feels that way.
ok, James Eivan, but until I get some verification, I Still think it’s a phony name. And, based on some textual criticism, I even have some suspicions as to who you might be.
But carry-on. The diversion about this kind of deception is probably not worth the trouble unless we cared about keeping the forum truly open and honest and populated by people of integrity.
Hi, James Eivan! How is your quarantine going? ;)
Someone writes:
Share your dismay for the president your wife ... unless she is more put off with your negativity than we are.
I comment:
Hoo hah! ...
Pastor Bohler, I first went online in 1983. In those early days and ever since the presence in certain forums of people with phony identities has been a serious problem. And it has expanded in very extreme ways in recent years.
I can see a couple reasons for people wanting to remain anonymous. But anonymity should not be generally allowed in a forum such as this one. We are supposed to be fellow Lutherans, fellow Christians discussing our concerns in a brotherly and sisterly way.
But my views here do not prevail. I understand that. When necessary, I shall call that particular poster by the name posted.
Happy now?
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
So, just a wonderment...is the MN/ND nice really unkind and therefore a fake nice? lol. 8)
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
Never lived in Minnesota or North Dakota. However, the origin of the word "nice" are quite interesting (from New Oxford American Dictionary):
Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’. Other early senses included ‘coy, reserved’, giving rise to ‘fastidious, scrupulous’: this led both to the sense ‘fine, subtle’ (regarded by some as the ‘correct’ sense), and to the main current senses.
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
Never lived in Minnesota or North Dakota. However, the origin of the word "nice" are quite interesting (from New Oxford American Dictionary):
Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’. Other early senses included ‘coy, reserved’, giving rise to ‘fastidious, scrupulous’: this led both to the sense ‘fine, subtle’ (regarded by some as the ‘correct’ sense), and to the main current senses.
A Norwegian American who has never lived in Minnesota or North Dakota? Where are you from? Washington State?
Pastor Bohler, to me unfortunately:“One sick puppy” is a common phrase meaning nothing more than, “that’s messed up” or “you’re over the top” or some such. Certainly not nasty or anything to get worked up about.
As I said, you are one sick puppy.
Me:
Nice. I said something much less nasty earlier today, In response to a snotty remark about myself and my wife, and my post was deleted.
Pastor Bohler, to me unfortunately:“One sick puppy” is a common phrase meaning nothing more than, “that’s messed up” or “you’re over the top” or some such. Certainly not nasty or anything to get worked up about.
As I said, you are one sick puppy.
Me:
Nice. I said something much less nasty earlier today, In response to a snotty remark about myself and my wife, and my post was deleted.
“Messed up,” “over the top,” and “crazy” seem to me in context to be fairly interchangeable colloquialisms. As I said, nothing to get worked up about.Pastor Bohler, to me unfortunately:“One sick puppy” is a common phrase meaning nothing more than, “that’s messed up” or “you’re over the top” or some such. Certainly not nasty or anything to get worked up about.
As I said, you are one sick puppy.
Me:
Nice. I said something much less nasty earlier today, In response to a snotty remark about myself and my wife, and my post was deleted.
Merriman-Webster doesn't mention your definitions:
"Definition of one sick puppy
informal: a person who is crazy, cruel, or disgusting
Anybody who would do that has to be one sick puppy."
Pastor Bohler, to me unfortunately:“One sick puppy” is a common phrase meaning nothing more than, “that’s messed up” or “you’re over the top” or some such. Certainly not nasty or anything to get worked up about.
As I said, you are one sick puppy.
Me:
Nice. I said something much less nasty earlier today, In response to a snotty remark about myself and my wife, and my post was deleted.
Merriman-Webster doesn't mention your definitions:
"Definition of one sick puppy
informal: a person who is crazy, cruel, or disgusting
Anybody who would do that has to be one sick puppy."
Then why did you get upset about my exchange with Pastor Cottingham, and his snotty remark about mE and my wife?
My response disappeared. So far as I know his insult stayed.
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
So, just a wonderment...is the MN/ND nice really unkind and therefore a fake nice? lol. 8)
Fake nice, yes, that's it. When I retire, I think I'll write a book about Minnesota Nice, translating it into plain English. For example, if Bill says something to Bob and Bob replies, "That's interesting," what he really means is, "I disagree," or put into New Yorkese, "You're an idiot!"
Having spent so much time within the decidedly unkind culture of "Minnesota nice" and "North Dakota nice," I recommend that we get rid of the word "nice" to talk about kindness and use the word "kind" instead.
Never lived in Minnesota or North Dakota. However, the origin of the word "nice" are quite interesting (from New Oxford American Dictionary):
Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’. Other early senses included ‘coy, reserved’, giving rise to ‘fastidious, scrupulous’: this led both to the sense ‘fine, subtle’ (regarded by some as the ‘correct’ sense), and to the main current senses.
Yes and we can be grateful to the Democrats for their herculean efforts to include in the phase three bill such measures to help us deal with the Covid-19 crisis medically and economically as such medically necessary measures and measures to help people through the economic crisis as an appropriation for the Lincoln Center, same day voter registration, demanding that all states authorize and strongly encourage early voting, carbon neutral mandates for the airlines, and the like. Those measures will do so much to fight the pandemic, help people and businesses survive through the economic upheaval of the pandemic, and help ensure that there will be jobs still after things return to normalcy. 8)
Charles:
Please keep your promise and sign off on this discussion. Most people are discussing. You are not.
The very fact that you post 4 times AFTER claiming you were going to sign off says it all.
I can't keep up with the half truths in everything you write, nor do I want to.
As to "beloved spouse," sounds like you were MFEO, so screed away between the two of you. I (and many here) are sick of hearing it. I'll just go back to blindly defending everything the president does (at least in your eyes) ::) ???
<emphasis added>
Then why did you get upset about my exchange with Pastor Cottingham, and his snotty remark about mE and my wife?Really Rev. Austin .... Rev.-Coach made a snotty remark about you and your wife ... MFEO (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MFEO) ...Made For Each Other ... snooty really?
My response disappeared. So far as I know his insult stayed. <emphasis added>
Perhaps he was listening to Senate debate on CSPAN when that information was released on the Senate floor. I know I heard that from the Senate floor ... and reported in the news media.Yes and we can be grateful to the Democrats for their herculean efforts to include in the phase three bill such measures to help us deal with the Covid-19 crisis medically and economically as such medically necessary measures and measures to help people through the economic crisis as an appropriation for the Lincoln Center, same day voter registration, demanding that all states authorize and strongly encourage early voting, carbon neutral mandates for the airlines, and the like. Those measures will do so much to fight the pandemic, help people and businesses survive through the economic upheaval of the pandemic, and help ensure that there will be jobs still after things return to normalcy. 8)How do you know what's in the bill that hasn't been revealed yet?
Perhaps he was listening to Senate debate on CSPAN when that information was released on the Senate floor. I know I heard that from the Senate floor ... and reported in the news media.Yes and we can be grateful to the Democrats for their herculean efforts to include in the phase three bill such measures to help us deal with the Covid-19 crisis medically and economically as such medically necessary measures and measures to help people through the economic crisis as an appropriation for the Lincoln Center, same day voter registration, demanding that all states authorize and strongly encourage early voting, carbon neutral mandates for the airlines, and the like. Those measures will do so much to fight the pandemic, help people and businesses survive through the economic upheaval of the pandemic, and help ensure that there will be jobs still after things return to normalcy. 8)How do you know what's in the bill that hasn't been revealed yet?
Yeah ... I thought of that ... but figured those of that ilk probably never benefited from knowing about that statement ... or are exercising selective memory. ;DPerhaps he was listening to Senate debate on CSPAN when that information was released on the Senate floor. I know I heard that from the Senate floor ... and reported in the news media.Yes and we can be grateful to the Democrats for their herculean efforts to include in the phase three bill such measures to help us deal with the Covid-19 crisis medically and economically as such medically necessary measures and measures to help people through the economic crisis as an appropriation for the Lincoln Center, same day voter registration, demanding that all states authorize and strongly encourage early voting, carbon neutral mandates for the airlines, and the like. Those measures will do so much to fight the pandemic, help people and businesses survive through the economic upheaval of the pandemic, and help ensure that there will be jobs still after things return to normalcy. 8)How do you know what's in the bill that hasn't been revealed yet?
Being fair, it is Speaker Pelosi's bill.
So you have to pass it first to know what's in it.
Then why did you get upset about my exchange with Pastor Cottingham, and his snotty remark about mE and my wife?His insult, as I recall (or someone's) also disappeared. I deleted two posts. I can't find the insult you're referring to in this thread. You said going off on Trump was justified. You brought your wife into it by telling everyone that if they think your views on Trump are a screed, they ought to hear your wife. Then Pr. Cottingham said it sounds like you and your wife were made for each other, but in any event he was not interested in hearing more screeds about the president. Is that the insult?
My response disappeared. So far as I know his insult stayed.
Rolf: you forgot the large number of Norwegians who settled in the Fox River area of Illinois. If I'm not wrong, that was the first center of Norwegian immigration to the US. On another subject, the fellow that taught pastoral counseling when I was in the seminary (he was from Indiana) said that Minnesota nice was really classic passive aggressive behavior. Still, I prefer it to the northeastern version.
Pastor Cottingham and I have a "history," and for some reason my comments fry some of his circuits.
sometimes I like to speak/post bluntly and with a bit of color.
PLEASE apologize to Rev-Coach for accusing him of making a snooty comment
How do you know what's in the bill that hasn't been revealed yet?
From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)'
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
OK folks. I have a question for you.
What do the people in your congregations say? Do any of them run restaurants? Small businesses? Do any of them work in those places or in industries where their job and livelihood is in peril now? And what do your farmers say? Can they get their crops to market? Will there be a market? Will they be able to obtain what they need to even harvest their crops?
We can approach this from a “pastoral” or “theological” perspective, but how does it look for people who are really on the ground? And whose future now seems uncertain?
How do you know what's in the bill that hasn't been revealed yet?
I"m sure the reference is to the proposed House Bill, which has been made public by House Republicans, because of the outlandish things in it. As many news sources are calling it "a Liberal Christmas wish list."
That's a sensible read of this quote. The other way to read it is that he's signaling voters: "Vote for the Democrats, and the free exercise of religion in America is done," which may not be far from the mark.From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
1. Well, we all know that President Trump is given to hyperbole. At the same time, you also left off the last part of his sentence in your quote: "...as far as I am concerned". We also know that President Trump tends to view virtually everything through his own eyes/perspective (which is NOT unique to him, by the way!), so with that last part of the sentence included, it may well be true. That is, as far as HE is concerned, that is going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion.
As I understand it, A-B Saint louis is only running can and Bottle beer since kegs are not needed for the food industry at this time. they are also shifting to making hand sanitizer. Many of the local distilleries in STL are doing the same. On another note, talking to someone that had three jobs and is down to one and waiting for the other shoe to drop. My industry, security manufacturing, is exempt and we have been shipping hardware to hospitals as they rework usage in the facilities.
John
That's a sensible read of this quote. The other way to read it is that he's signaling voters: "Vote for the Democrats, and the free exercise of religion in America is done," which may not be far from the mark.From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
1. Well, we all know that President Trump is given to hyperbole. At the same time, you also left off the last part of his sentence in your quote: "...as far as I am concerned". We also know that President Trump tends to view virtually everything through his own eyes/perspective (which is NOT unique to him, by the way!), so with that last part of the sentence included, it may well be true. That is, as far as HE is concerned, that is going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion.
WJV:While Trump may not have much personal interest in the freedom of religion, he does care what voters think, and a sizable chunk of voters have that perception of the Democrats. Do you really think, given the attacks on civil liberties (and the sheer number of citizens cheering it on) in the last couple weeks, that the "checks and balances of our constitutional system and our republic" mean absolute squat to either party, when power and getting their way are only an emergency away? After all the fearmongering surrounding Trump these past few years, what has he actually done to take away the rights of citizens? Non-citizens may not be too pleased with him, nor citizens who seek to use non-citizens for their own ends, but he seems to have little interest in getting into people's lives, unlike the grand plans to dig into the nooks and crannies of everyone's business put forward and approved by the top tier of Democratic Candidate-for-President vote-getters. Not everything he says and does is a world-ending threat; put on some big-boy pants and cope instead of going into a tizzy whenever he breathes in public.
The other way to read it is that he's signaling voters: "Vote for the Democrats, and the free exercise of religion in America is done," which may not be far from the mark.
Me:
The president cares as much about freedom of religion as I care about what color socks he wears on any given morning. So the Democrats are going to end freedom of religion? Comments like that are not only silly, they contribute nothing to the discussion. And they indicate a lack of faith in the checks and balances of our constitutional system and our republic. But hey! I am at times inclined to think that freedom of everything is going to be threatened if the Republicans win the November election. Or worry that because of the screwup’s in dealing with this virus, there may not be enough of us around to care.
+++That's a sensible read of this quote. The other way to read it is that he's signaling voters: "Vote for the Democrats, and the free exercise of religion in America is done," which may not be far from the mark.From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
1. Well, we all know that President Trump is given to hyperbole. At the same time, you also left off the last part of his sentence in your quote: "...as far as I am concerned". We also know that President Trump tends to view virtually everything through his own eyes/perspective (which is NOT unique to him, by the way!), so with that last part of the sentence included, it may well be true. That is, as far as HE is concerned, that is going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion.
I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce. I'd say it's pretty close to the mark.
Is it possible to surface the entire RNS report?
Marie Meyer
I also find the overall tone of the CNN article interesting. My impression of the underlying theme is that the public is giving Trump much more credit than he deserves.
1. Well, we all know that President Trump is given to hyperbole.
My impression of the underlying theme is that the public is giving Trump much more credit than he deserves.I have long observed that the public always gives the president much more credit (or blame) than he deserves, regardless of who he/she is or to which party he/she belongs. This is evident from the fact that the single most reliable factor in predicting presidential elections historically is the overall state of the economy. What bothers me these days is the obvious desire of the current president's opponents for him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. I say this as someone who did not and will not vote for him, since I have always considered him to be temperamentally unfit for the office.
From Religion News Service, re: a phone call the President had with "religious leaders" (any of you on it?)
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which organized the Friday call, wrote about it on the conservative Christian group’s website and included a link to the hourlong discussion that featured Pence and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson along with, Perkins said, 700 pastors.
Trump thanked the leaders for their prayers for the country. But when asked by Perkins, who hosted the call, what he most wanted pastors to pray for, the president sought petitions for the country’s health and strength and “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3.”
“It’s a big day, Nov. 3; that’s going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion, as far as I’m concerned,” the president said before Perkins asked for Trump’s prayer requests.
I certainly agree that we should pray that God's will be done on Nov. 3 (and every day). But really? "One of the biggest dates in the history of religion"?
1. Well, we all know that President Trump is given to hyperbole. At the same time, you also left off the last part of his sentence in your quote: "...as far as I am concerned". We also know that President Trump tends to view virtually everything through his own eyes/perspective (which is NOT unique to him, by the way!), so with that last part of the sentence included, it may well be true. That is, as far as HE is concerned, that is going to be one of the biggest dates in the history of religion.
2. You are starting to sound like Rev. Austin, nitpicking every little thing President Trump says.
I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce. I'd say it's pretty close to the mark.
My impression of the underlying theme is that the public is giving Trump much more credit than he deserves.I have long observed that the public always gives the president much more credit (or blame) than he deserves, regardless of who he/she is or to which party he/she belongs. This is evident from the fact that the single most reliable factor in predicting presidential elections historically is the overall state of the economy. What bothers me these days is the obvious desire of the current president's opponents for him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. I say this as someone who did not and will not vote for him, since I have always considered him to be temperamentally unfit for the office.
David Garner:
I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce.
Me:
That is, of course, ridiculous and wrong. Show me where anyone has said that. What we have said is it if you are going to engage in public commerce, you have to obey the law. Now you tell me what’s wrong with that?
Let me put it as bluntly as possible. If a baker believes his faith means he cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, . . . then that Baker needs to face the full force of the law.
The "public," sad to say, also has a short memory and seems to not be able to consider several things at the same time. The president bollixed up the initial response to the virus. He was inactive, dismissive, and casual about it. Earlier and more decisive action would have put us in a much better condition today.
And he gets no credit for what is happening now, except for, I suppose, not tweeting it to death. He wasn't negotiating with Congress. He had no specific plans. Those came from elsewhere, and he stood and took credit.
If it's "the economy" that matters, the president can have little direct effect on it.
The public can now look at what's being done, but it cannot remember what was not done, and - while looking at what's being done - cannot grasp the four or five other things going on that matter. We are easily distracted; and those among us who want to like him find an easy focus. Those of us like aletheist, who consider him "temperamentally unfit for office" cannot seem to pull people way from those other "easy focus" items.
We are also lacking honest, open, debate and support from the Republican party, as those in office seem to be in thrall to the president. The party is nothing but Him. Privately, we hear, they shake their heads, but in public... My uncharitable suspicion is that most think speaking too much opposition would cost them votes, and to me this makes them moral cowards and the worst kind of political opportunists.
The fact that, when asked about what to pray for in these troubled, deadly times, he has the chutzpah to include requests for prayer for his own re-election goes on this humble correspondent's now painfully long list of statements indicating his immorality, incompetence and unfitness for office.
OTOH if we pray as he asked “that we make the right choice on Nov. 3," and if God is merciful and just....
(BTW, Pastor Bohler, it is not "nitpicking" to point out lies and inconsistencies on matters of life and death.)
I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce. I'd say it's pretty close to the mark.
Well, the leftist sexual politics are now the laws of the land. Same-sex couples can get married and live together. If folks are not on board with the laws of our country, what should happen?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-top-10-lies-about-president-trumps-response-to-the-coronavirus/
Check them out and come to your own conclusion.
I've come to the conclusion that one here who constantly fear mongers and spreads several of the top ten lies, will likely not be changed. It'll be business as usual.
...The president bollixed up the initial response to the virus. He was inactive, dismissive, and casual about it. Earlier and more decisive action would have put us in a much better condition today.
And he gets no credit for what is happening now...
Please read more carefully. I said nothing whatsoever about whether anyone should "believe that his way of dealing with the crisis is the correct way." I said that his opponents quite obviously want him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. The question that I would ask them is this: If the best possible outcome of the current pandemic (however that is defined) happens to include Donald Trump's reelection, are you okay with that? If the answer is no, then it confirms my suspicion that they are literally seeking his removal from office at all costs, including both loss of lives and economic hardship. I find that unconscionable, my personal dislike of the president notwithstanding.Why should be we believe that his way of dealing with the crisis is the correct way when the medical experts continually disagree with much of what he has said?My impression of the underlying theme is that the public is giving Trump much more credit than he deserves.I have long observed that the public always gives the president much more credit (or blame) than he deserves, regardless of who he/she is or to which party he/she belongs. This is evident from the fact that the single most reliable factor in predicting presidential elections historically is the overall state of the economy. What bothers me these days is the obvious desire of the current president's opponents for him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. I say this as someone who did not and will not vote for him, since I have always considered him to be temperamentally unfit for the office.
The Biblical admonition of Acts 5:29 “We ought to obey God rather than man” rings clear and true though your perverted exegesis that claims that faithfulness to your wife is not a biblical requirement will lead you to some convoluted contrary conclusion.I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce. I'd say it's pretty close to the mark.Well, the leftist sexual politics are now the laws of the land. Same-sex couples can get married and live together. If folks are not on board with the laws of our country, what should happen?
That is, of course, ridiculous and wrong. Show me where anyone has said that. What we have said is it if you are going to engage in public commerce, you have to obey the law. Now you tell me what’s wrong with that?
No, Steven, nobody has to “honor” any kind of marriage. But our laws of public accommodation say you cannot discriminate against classes of people that you don’t happen to like. As noted upstream, this is thread drift. Why does this little item about obeying the law have to come up under every single discussion? Save it. This is not the place.You've been caught with your own words. Own up to them for once. And it's not off-topic, by any means: we have to consider what the aftermath of all this will look like, and what the various power-seeking groups are planning to do with the unsettled state we're going to be in for a while. Easily transmissible diseases, such as COVID-19, have real-world political ramifications, and you're seeking to quash discussions of such. I wonder why.
No, Steven, nobody has to “honor” any kind of marriage. But our laws of public accommodation say you cannot discriminate against classes of people that you don’t happen to like. As noted upstream, this is thread drift. Why does this little item about obeying the law have to come up under every single discussion? Save it. This is not the place.
Please read more carefully. I said nothing whatsoever about whether anyone should "believe that his way of dealing with the crisis is the correct way." I said that his opponents quite obviously want him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. The question that I would ask them is this: If the best possible outcome of the current pandemic (however that is defined) happens to include Donald Trump's reelection, are you okay with that? If the answer is no, then it confirms my suspicion that they are literally seeking his removal from office at all costs, including both loss of lives and economic hardship. I find that unconscionable, my personal dislike of the president notwithstanding.Why should be we believe that his way of dealing with the crisis is the correct way when the medical experts continually disagree with much of what he has said?My impression of the underlying theme is that the public is giving Trump much more credit than he deserves.I have long observed that the public always gives the president much more credit (or blame) than he deserves, regardless of who he/she is or to which party he/she belongs. This is evident from the fact that the single most reliable factor in predicting presidential elections historically is the overall state of the economy. What bothers me these days is the obvious desire of the current president's opponents for him to fail this enormous test, rather than rooting for him to succeed for the good of the nation and its people. I say this as someone who did not and will not vote for him, since I have always considered him to be temperamentally unfit for the office.
The Biblical admonition of Acts 5:29 “We ought to obey God rather than man” rings clear and true though your perverted exegesis that claims that faithfulness to your wife is not a biblical requirement will lead you to some convoluted contrary conclusion.I mean, people here on this religious board have actually said that if you aren't on board with leftist sexual politics, you should not be allowed to engage in commerce. I'd say it's pretty close to the mark.Well, the leftist sexual politics are now the laws of the land. Same-sex couples can get married and live together. If folks are not on board with the laws of our country, what should happen?
No.