Messages

Here is the latest convention update:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qsSZXvYDuQ

Another one bites the dust:  https://wzmq19.com/news/307835/finlandia-university-announces-closure-of-school-after-spring-semester/?fbclid=IwAR3X5CiCfNYr7Kw2wFa45o0sF1NyKKgXP9z5lvq7zj3SXLVSVnNsmlk8698

Finlandia University (formerly Suomi College and Seminary) says they never enrolled more than 650 students. That strikes me as precariously small at any time.

What will become of the Finnish American Heritage Center and the Folk School remains to be seen.

Peace,
Michael

Father, Terveisiä ylemmältä niemimaalta.  650 students is well over 10% of the population of Hancock, Michigan.

Let's not overwork this. Not all highly academic studies lead to a deconstruction of the Christian faith.

No, I never said that they all do, but some do.

An example might be the academic approach that gained the most attention during the Walkout controversy: historical criticism. Some used it without overtly undermining articles of the Faith (though adoption of the method seems automatically to undermine the doctrine of Scripture). Others have used it to undermine doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus, without which one cannot be a Christian.

No one at Concordia Seminary used historical criticism to undermine doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus. Period.   

Peace, JOHN

Happy New Year to all and blessings for 2022!  John, you're absolutely on target with this rejoinder to Ed.  Who are the "others" who taught at the St. Louis Sem in the late 60s and early 70s who used historical criticism to undermine the resurrection of Jesus at the St. Louis seminary?  Nobody.  The dots don't connect.

Dave Benke

I don't think Rev. Engelbrecht said that anyone at St. Louis did.  He said that SOME who used that method did.

Pastor Bohler is correct. In Reply 57 I asked Charles for an example of an academic approach that fit his description. He didn't provide one, so I thought historical criticism might serve as an example of method that turns out very different results depending on the practitioner. I made no accusations about the CSL faculty majority.

However, the Blue Book that Fienen mentions likely includes specific examples of what some faculty majority members said about their use of historical criticism, if anyone wants to explore that.

At the 1973 New Orleans convention of which I was a delegate, time was set aside for four St. Louis seminary professors to answer questions from the convention.  I recall one in particular.  Ed Krentz was asked if he believed Adam was a real person.  He responded, "yes."  Around me, I heard in not so hushed voices, "don't believe him."  Afterwards, President Preus addressed the convention and said much the same in perhaps not so harsh tones:  "we have heard...."  You can read whatever you wish, but I think the writing is skewed to whatever position the writer had to begin with.  I can tell you that as a student at St. Louis from 1968-1972, I never heard any professor attempt to prove to me that any part of Scripture is untrue. 

We had a table set up with a white cloth and encouraged everyone to bring a photo of saints they knew and loved.

The students at the University of California San Diego are the Tritons.  It makes sense living alongside the Pacific Ocean.

At our circuit pastor's meeting (winkel) we discussed marriage and the role of the state in weddings.  Over the last few years I have heard discussion, on an off, about whether churches and pastors should discontinue doing weddings in the sense of signing the official license from the county clerk's office.  With the pending approval of the Equality Act I can only imagine that the state will take much more interest in the church's official willingness or unwillingness to bless same-sex marriages.  Although we can protest any pressure for this to happen, it might be easier and even better to simply step away from it all together, especially since we can recognize the licensing of marriage as a responsibility of the Kingdom of the Left.  I think that this is one area where pastors become agents of the state and it would behoove us to reconsider our role as those agents.

I've been thinking that the US should move to a model where the government does the legal part and the church does the religious part.  Don't want a religious part?  You're still married under the law.  Church doesn't want to perform a religious ceremony for you?  You're still married under the law.

When I was a pastor at a church in Mexico City, Mexico, ex-pats living in Mexico wanted their children who were living in the US to come to their home in Mexico to get married at the parents' home church.  Could they get a wedding license in Mexico?  Well, yes, but it would take considerable time and expense.  Then, whenever there was a legal question of marriage, the ones getting married would have to send off to Mexico to get an official copy of their marriage license (which was only legal when signed by a Mexican judge).  I always counseled the couple to get married at a civil ceremony in the US a few days before traveling to Mexico, and then we would bless their marriage in church.  This two part system separated by a couple of days worked out for the best.  The newly married couple could celebrate in church with their parents and friends in Mexico having been already officially married by the state in the US.  Then, the couple could easily get to Mexican beaches for their honeymoon before returning to the US. 

Koalas are sedentary because they are drugged.  Eucalyptus leaves are narcotic.  How much better to be named after a mighty hunter?  Go Nimrods!

I just received an email sermon reprinted from Ed Schroeder in 1990.  The opening paragraph regarding Epiphany seems to speak to the topic at hand:

"The Magi are not the main characters in the drama of Matthew 2. No, the main characters are the two people in the text who have the same title, King of the Jews— Jesus, called the Christ, and Herod, called the Great. In Matthew's gospel we quickly learn what to ask to find out who is the genuine one: who dies and who lies? The genuine King of the Jews never lies and himself dies for God's people. The phony one regularly lies and makes others do the dying for him. That's true in leadership and authority positions throughout the world. Who dies and who lies—that is the question."

I do not support those who incited violence and invaded the capital building yesterday. Not at all.  That said, I wonder exactly what the motivation was and the desired end result.  I don't think the group was of one single mind and purpose, even though they are generally labeled as Trump supporters. Part of it was the usual mob-induced rush where you are caught up in something and you are pushed along by the excitement of the moment.  Part of it may have been to stop the electoral vote.  But did they really think they could do more than postpone it?  Were many naïve enough to think that they would not be met with great force from law enforcement?  Were there people involved in this that identified as Christians?  Undoubtedly.  What biblical rationale did they use to justify their actions?  That for me is the most perplexing.  We might all become upset by perceived injustices.  Look at the riots earlier last year.  But what motivates one who identifies as a Christian to not only become destructive and violent (assuming they were), but to oppose the very government they are called to support to pray for?  Or do they see it all as godless and evil with a divine mandate to attack it at all costs?  So many questions....

Here are some thoughts about the motivation of the woman who was killed:

"Prominent figures in the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, including L. Lin Wood, the pro-Trump lawyer behind several failed lawsuits to overturn the election results, have also been behind many of the wildest claims, parroted by the president, that the election was somehow stolen.

Babbitt's [the woman who was killed] final tweets included a retweet of Wood, in a call that "Mike Pence@vp @Mike_Pence must resign & thereafter be charged with TREASON," and, "Chief Justice John Roberts must RESIGN." Wood was suspended from Twitter on Wednesday." --By Brandy Zadrozny and Mosheh Gains, NBC news

Yes, in western art, Mary is usually in blue, but even then her blouse is often red.  Up until the beginning of the 16th century, artists had difficulty making a suitable red paint.  Red paint was mostly derived from rust, but then an amazing item arrived from the new world:  cochineal.  Now artists could make a true red paint, and particularly the Italian artists went wild with it.  What is cochineal?  It's an insect found on cactus in Mexico.  Pre-conquest natives used cochineal to paint their buildings.

Professor Edmund Smits at Luther Seminary belonged to a Latvian congregation in Minneapolis.

There is a Slovak Synod in the ELCA, if I am not mistaken.

Peace,
Michael

There is the Slovak district in the LCMS and a Finnish group merged into the LCMS in the 1950s as well.

The NELC (Finnish) merged with the LCMS in 1964.  Since their pastors were being trained at Springfield Seminary, it was JAO Preus who welcomed them.

Bob Woodward Predicts How Historians Will Look Back On The Trump Era
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT

Journalist Bob Woodward said Tuesday that he believes future historians will be scratching their heads over what happened to America during President Donald Trump's time in office.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter was interviewed at the Citizen by CNN conference by the network's president, Jeff Zucker, as part of his ongoing media blitz to promote his new book about Trump, "Rage." The president admitted in taped interviews for the book that he was well aware of the deadly nature of the coronavirus in February, yet he continued to mislead the public that it would magically disappear.

Tuesday's interview took place on a day when the U.S. passed the tragic milestone of 200,000 COVID-19 deaths.
Bob Woodward Predicts How Historians Will Look Back On The Trump Era
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT

The veteran journalist, whose reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate scandal led to the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon, said he'd never seen anything akin to Trump's administration in his coverage of nine presidents.

"This impulse decision-making, I've never seen anything like it in the presidency or any other institution, where it's this one-man band, and he's going to say and do exactly what he wants, often giving no warning to his closest aides," he said, according to CNN.

Despite granting him 19 interviews, Trump has trashed Woodward since the release of unflattering details from the book. Woodward concluded at the end of the book, based on interviews with senior government officials and Trump himself, that Trump was the wrong man for the presidency.

He said Tuesday that Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic was a "monumental failure,"

Go back and read it.  Don't be ignorant Pr. Bohler.

Trump is now saying that he will NOT commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. This is a dictatorship in the making. This doesn't scare any of you? How many times has he "joked" about continuing his presidency in 2024? He doesn't joke.

Perhaps you should cite a specific link substantiating your claim. have NEVER heard the president say he would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power ... perhaps we should accuse Hillary of the same thing since she is discouraging Biden from conceding the election.

Without a link to this alleged statement, you sir are nothing but a bogus prevaricating fear monger.

What do you intend to convey by writing "Perhaps you should cite...." and "As one who views...."  Learn to make "I" statements.  That way you can apologize to Roger.

"As one who views most of his rallies/media events, I..." Why on earth would you write "learn to make I statements" in response to an I statement?

Because it's better as a compound statement:  "I view most of his rallies, and I...."  Also, I think clear "I" statements will help James when he enters counseling.

In the meantime, I want you to begin citing links for James.  I think he might believe you.

Trump is now saying that he will NOT commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. This is a dictatorship in the making. This doesn't scare any of you? How many times has he "joked" about continuing his presidency in 2024? He doesn't joke.

Perhaps you should cite a specific link substantiating your claim. As one who views most of his rallies/media events, I have NEVER heard the president say he would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power ... perhaps we should accuse Hillary of the same thing since she is discouraging Biden from conceding the election.

Without a link to this alleged statement, you sir are nothing but a bogus prevaricating fear monger.

What do you intend to convey by writing "Perhaps you should cite...." and "As one who views...."  Learn to make "I" statements.  That way you can apologize to Roger.