Messages

1

Your Turn / "Something must be done!!" Are we sure about that?

« on: Today at 11:08:04 AM »

(I apologize in advance if this is too off topic, for I'm struggling to find a very specific theological connection for this point, unless it be the overarching need to submit to God's ways as higher than ours, and to approach all parts of life with the proper humility, rather than thinking that we have all the answers...)

It seems rather plain to me that many, if not all, discussions of societal ills end up boiling down to the same basic outline (in very broad terms): something in the fallen, sinful world goes wrong. (No surprise there.) Group A sees the wrong, and says, "This is horrible! We must do something very drastic immediately to fix this!" Group B sees the wrong, sees what Group A says, and replies, "Yes, I fully agree this is horrible, but the 'something' that you propose doing to fix this problem almost certainly will either: a) not work to fix the problem, or even make it worse, b) cause different, equally bad problems, or c) both. Perhaps we could consider other, less drastic/immediate methods?" And then the argument goes from there, with both sides accusing the other of being uncaring, thoughtless, etc.

I suppose the question I have to put for discussion would be: does it not, on the whole, seem that hasty action, when directed toward broad societal problems, is not advisable? Or put another way: "Don't just sit there, do something!" is proper advice for a specific, immediate, well-defined singular situation in the moment; I would submit that for larger, society-wide discussions, reversing the quote is far more appropriate (with "sit there" not meaning "do nothing," but "gather information and make small movements to attempt to move toward a solution").

2

Your Turn / Re: Greta Thunberg receives honorary doctorate in THEOLOGY

« on: March 21, 2023, 04:18:25 PM »

To return to the OP: I think this honorary degree in theology would be a prime example of what the kids call "saying the quiet part out loud." (And to fuel discussion/stir the pot: any religious stance that requires artificially limiting or reducing the population of the human race, for any reason, is not a Biblical stance.)

3

Your Turn / Re: Rolling Stone Magazine Article About LCMS LC Controversy

« on: March 09, 2023, 01:50:50 PM »

All Lutherans do not despise reason.

Pastor Preus:
Consider the historical church.  The church historically has taught the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Me:
Orthodoxy is the most historic of churches. Apparently it does not teach that as doctrine. Try the Southern Baptists. Oops, not so “historic” are they?

The question is not what today's Orthodox teach about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.  It is what the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches have historically taught, before the advent of the historical critical method, JEDP, etc.

I would also wholeheartedly reject the framing that pits "reason" against Mosaic authorship.

4

Your Turn / Re: Megan Rohrer sues ELCA

« on: March 03, 2023, 01:51:20 PM »

This is complicated. A lot of accusations. A lot of assumptions.

BTW, Rohrer claims that "on his first day as bishop, during a video call, Rohrer said he was misgendered and ridiculed for featuring drag queens at his ordination."  How does a church body handle drag queens as part of an ordination? What are they supposed to contribute? By definition they are essentially entertainers or performers. The costumes are usually quite outlandish, and sometimes rather suggestive.  Again, how does this contribute to what is supposed to be a serious and solemn affair?  Does the ELCA technically see drag queens as acceptable participants in an ordination?

I very much doubt anyone "ridiculed" the presence of drag queens at the ordination the bishop's first day on a video call. Probably someone commented on them while trying to be funny and friendly and wasn't up to speed on the latest linguistic demands. The objection is that any comment (apart from solemn appreciation) was made because the whole point was to normalize it, that is, dare anyone to notice or comment.

This is all the stuff of Monty Python. What one would have to do if the goal was to make a mockery of the service if drag queens don't do the trick?

I'd almost be so bold as to say that a little more ridicule is what this, and many other, situations needed from the outset.

5

Your Turn / Re: God Wants ALL to be saved! But what about Tyre and Sidon?

« on: February 28, 2023, 10:16:18 AM »

Random thoughts:

Is it possible that Christ is making a specific comparison to another heathen city that was called to repentance, and did immediately repent in sackcloth and ashes, for the purpose of giving a concrete example for Chorazin and Bethsaida to look towards...namely, Jonah's call for Nineveh to repent?

Also, I think that Romans 9:19ff would be applicable to the topic as well.

6

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 18, 2023, 09:49:59 AM »

There is a group of people, perhaps several groups of people, who are planning to do major changes within your church body, some of them specifically directed at particular leaders. You want to handle this as if it were a dispute within a congregation? Very bad idea.

This has taken on a new level of high concern at the national level of our denomination within the last 12 hours.   I wrote this yesterday afternoon:  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.  I have heard now that those words were somewhat prophetic.

The analysis provided in the link is that the LCMS has been selected by this "dedicated tribe" because of perceived alignment on issues of Christian Nationalism and Patriarchalism as they have appeared in other settings and venues articulated by clergy and other leaders.  That assessment is most difficult to deny.

Dave Benke

Rev. Benke, I ask that you check your DMs if you haven't in the past several days.

7

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 14, 2023, 02:41:17 PM »

Chris Schelp,

I'm really not following you. Who are you suggesting is defaming whom?

I think I just answered you at the same time you were asking the question, up above.

8

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 14, 2023, 02:39:25 PM »

You might begin by urging the attackers who started this to repent and seek opportunities to reconcile with the persons they have offended. That would help restore peace. Arguing that they are now being treated unfairly will only prolong the trouble.

Again, I have seen people live in anger and vindictivenes to the point of self destruction. The outcomes are very sad.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: my argument here has never been specifically about "the attackers;" that's a discussion for a separate time. This blog post tarred congregations, pastors, and others with guilt by association; they are the ones who are being treated incredibly unfairly. Forgive me if I continue to argue their case.

9

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 14, 2023, 02:02:26 PM »

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

Are you surprised that people are researching those who attacked a project worth tens of thousands of dollars (at least) and the personnel who made it? You can't be that nieve, Chris.  If you are, you're in for a rough ride.

Please believe me when I say that I truly ask you this now not to be mean or snarky in any way, and not as a way of "scoring points" in an online argument or of being rude or disrespectful: if a member of your congregation came to you distraught over either themselves, or one of their friends or family, being slandered in a public forum, is this the sort of counsel or response you would give to them?

I  might ask why that person is slandering,  which would open up a broader discussion of how that came about.

The accusations and calls for resignation were over the top. I've been in the situation of the authors and editors on more than one occasion. My instinct is to meet people and try to talk things through.  But some in the church will react with anger, threats, intimidation and worse because they feel threatened.  I don't condone that response but you've got to understand it will happen.

I understand that I will continue sinning while I remain here in this life, as will all people, even believers; that does not mean that I should no longer strive against the works of the flesh, or that the Church should no longer preach the Law. (Not accusing you or anyone of doing that...just attempting to make a comparison that hopefully explains my point of view at least a little.)

10

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 14, 2023, 10:37:02 AM »

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

Are you surprised that people are researching those who attacked a project worth tens of thousands of dollars (at least) and the personnel who made it? You can't be that nieve, Chris.  If you are, you're in for a rough ride.

Please believe me when I say that I truly ask you this now not to be mean or snarky in any way, and not as a way of "scoring points" in an online argument or of being rude or disrespectful: if a member of your congregation came to you distraught over either themselves, or one of their friends or family, being slandered in a public forum, is this the sort of counsel or response you would give to them?

11

Your Turn / Re: He Gets Us

« on: February 13, 2023, 06:06:55 PM »

I went back and read the Wiki article on "Lift Every Voice and Sing" for some background, and actually read the hymn itself. As a meditation on the Exodus and in connection to the Black American experience (a combination frequently made in Black spirituals) I found it a good hymn, certainly not offensive.

Don't misunderstand me: I don't have any particular objection to the hymn at all...I just have never seen it used in a worship setting, and I wonder if there are other spirituals that could have been substituted here that would have found more use in our church body. If it actually is used in the LCMS in a more widespread manner than I realize, I'm happy to admit my error.

12

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 13, 2023, 05:40:36 PM »

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

13

Your Turn / Re: He Gets Us

« on: February 13, 2023, 04:07:33 PM »

This may be too far afield (and if it is, my apologies, and feel free to migrate this to another discussion), but the "other" national anthem, Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing, is, of course, in LSB at #964. I fully realize I do not have the full experience of all people everywhere, but as a church musician, I would hope to have a decent amount of experience. I had never even heard of the song when the hymnal was published (when, admittedly, I was still in college), and I have still never sung it. Leaving aside whether or not I think the reasons for including the hymn in the hymnal are sufficient, I understand what those reasons are. My question is: was there another hymn that could have been a better inclusion here, while still fulfilling the purpose that this hymn serves with its inclusion, that would have found more use in worship in the LCMS at large?

14

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 13, 2023, 03:00:32 PM »

Brian, back in 1999 I accepted a Call to a congregation in the St. Louis area.  Unknown to me was that they had a local tradition where every 5th Sunday they used a "special liturgy" - which was none other than the one you mentioned above by Habel.  I REFUSED to sing a paraphrase of the Verba to the tune of "Blowing in the Wind."  Habel did other weird stuff, too.

Back in my internship days (1992-93) My internship congregation used to do this liturgy once in awhile.  I never could listen to it with a straight face.  It is stuck in my brain though and surfaces every now and again.

I've never had the "pleasure" of hearing that liturgy, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was actually literally illegal, unless (which seems unlikely to me, though I could be wrong) Bob Dylan gave permission for his tune to be used in that way. I know for a fact this is the case with the "Benediction" that's floating around out there to the tune of Edelweiss; the use of that tune was never authorized by the estate of Rodgers and Hammerstein, and they are quite adamant about that to this day.

15

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: February 06, 2023, 05:10:43 PM »

It's easy to be Lutheran. The clear message from scriptures is that we are sinners who are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ.

This, while true, is incomplete, and I fear intentionally so. Allow me to complete it for you: "We are sinners who are saved by God's grace through the salvific merit of Jesus Christ, which grace is delivered to us by faith in the Triune God; this faith is itself a gift of the Holy Spirit that He works in us through means: namely, Word and Sacrament." (Obviously, there could be more added here, but this is sufficient for the time.) God's Word is the means by which He has told us that He works faith in us. To say that the message is clear, but the means by which that message is delivered is not, is self-contradictory, and in fact results in placing an unwarranted limit on the power of God: why, exactly, would God not be able to deliver to His people a Scripture (which, again, is His stated means of delivering the faith to the world), that is clear, and clear in all its forms, including translation, even though it is put to paper by sinful men?

EDIT: re-worded last sentence for (hopefully) clarity.

How much of that would a child understand? We are to have the simple faith of a child, not the complexity of doctrine that you have posted. It was clear to me in seminary that one had to made a distinction between that simple faith that saves us; and all the complex theology and exegesis and doctrines that we were studying and debating about. Those who didn't make such a distinction had difficulties in seminary. The saving faith God gives us is so simple that children can understand it. Doctrines are so complex that scholars have difficulties with it.

I use theological terms because I'm speaking amongst people who understand them. The "complexity of doctrine" you seem to see is really just a restatement of Ephesians 2; everything in that statement, explained in age-appropriate terms, is readily understood by my 5-year-old. Here, I'll show you: "God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus, the Son of God, died for us to save us from our sins. God gives us faith to believe in Him. We learn about all of that in the Bible."
None of this, of course, is a reply to what I actually asked regarding the perspicuity of Scripture.