1
Your Turn / Re: Lutheran Forum
« on: November 05, 2020, 11:38:58 PM »
And I forgot Lutheran Quarterly. Is very interesting, though focused on Lutheran (and Luther) history and runs too few articles on contemporary Lutheranism.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The Cresset put out by Valporaiso U, used to be favorite, although I lost touch with it. Mockingbird is 'Lutheranish" and interesting reading, although quite expensive.I get one present from my parents every two years...a su scription to LF/FL. They don't need to get me any gift, but this makes them content. I rarely read LF. I just don't find it that interesting. I look at the table of contents to see if I recognize any names. If I do, then I scan the article. I do look forward to FL, because that is more interesting. (I recognize that this may say something about my attention span.) But I look forward to reading what Richard and Peter write.I think it is quite a good journal. It was at its best under Sarah Hinlicky's editorship. It seemed to be staying within the bounds of orthodoxy while reaching out to other Lutherans and Christians outside the American evangelical Catholic fold (in contrast to Paul Sauer, Ronald Bagnal (sp.) Leonard Klein, and Paul Hinlicky, however venerable these churchman were/are). My verdict is not in on Nelson yet, though he seems closer to Sarah H. in editing under a broad orthodoxy, even if he is bringing in a more political element. It's not always going to please hard-line evangelical catholics (to the extent they haven't swam the Tiber or Bosphorous yet) or the LCMS conservatives. But, hey, it's not a church body or a doctrinal statement the ALPB is making you sign or join; why not subscribe, especially during this time of shrinkage of Lutheran institutions and resources? Advertisement ended.
FL is good.
LF has not much to offer.
The mobbing issue was tremendously disappointing. I know ganga ainm personally and the lack of journalistic integrity was, even for something like LF, was rotten.
Jeremy
Thanks for the comments Passerby. I appreciate reading them.
I get four journals. I'll rank them in order of what I would read first: First Things, Concordia Theological Quarterly, Concordia Journal, Lutheran Forum.
LF is okay but it's just not at the top of my list of things to read.
Jeremy
Jeremy: I read the same Journals. One difference, I rate them Lutheran Forum, Concordia Journal, Concordia Theological Quarterly and First Things. I also read Christianity Today - a good source to understand how Orthodox Evangelical Christians understand Biblical discipleship.
Marie Meyer
Nice! And with a lot of things, the issues of each one will vary in terms of my interest level. I think it was the most recent CJ that was quite interesting to me.
Jeremy
I get one present from my parents every two years...a su scription to LF/FL. They don't need to get me any gift, but this makes them content. I rarely read LF. I just don't find it that interesting. I look at the table of contents to see if I recognize any names. If I do, then I scan the article. I do look forward to FL, because that is more interesting. (I recognize that this may say something about my attention span.) But I look forward to reading what Richard and Peter write.I think it is quite a good journal. It was at its best under Sarah Hinlicky's editorship. It seemed to be staying within the bounds of orthodoxy while reaching out to other Lutherans and Christians outside the American evangelical Catholic fold (in contrast to Paul Sauer, Ronald Bagnal (sp.) Leonard Klein, and Paul Hinlicky, however venerable these churchman were/are). My verdict is not in on Nelson yet, though he seems closer to Sarah H. in editing under a broad orthodoxy, even if he is bringing in a more political element. It's not always going to please hard-line evangelical catholics (to the extent they haven't swam the Tiber or Bosphorous yet) or the LCMS conservatives. But, hey, it's not a church body or a doctrinal statement the ALPB is making you sign or join; why not subscribe, especially during this time of shrinkage of Lutheran institutions and resources? Advertisement ended.
FL is good.
LF has not much to offer.
The mobbing issue was tremendously disappointing. I know ganga ainm personally and the lack of journalistic integrity was, even for something like LF, was rotten.
Jeremy
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."
I certainly agree with that sentiment. It's a bait and switch from where I stand.
I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
Peace,
Michael
Well, I am talking about your description of what the book argues, to wit, that ...She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."
Your response doesn't really seem to take counter-arguments to that concept seriously. I think you granted the book doesn't either, but that strikes me as a problem. Re-defining terms, especially terms that have a rightly pejorative gloss, strikes me as problematic.
It's as if the term is now re-defined and cannot be un-defined or even explained. Now that it is in popular use as a synonym for Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, we'll now just use it to describe broader concepts (like America), with no concern that the change in terms won't be well understood. Worse, we'll blame those subject to the new pejorative for not making the distinction and objecting to the characterization. Leftist thought policing tends to be a one-way ratchet that way, but those of us who find it dishonest aren't likely to simply concede the point, especially when the rhetoric is aimed in our direction.
I notice that earlier this week SCOTUS ruled for GLBTQ etc., regarding job discrimination. One part of the case involved a male transgender funeral home worker who showed up on his worksite dressed as a female. He was fired. SCOTUS majority said that the 1964 Civil Rights act prohibiting discrimination between male and female, could be stretched to mean that transgender persons had protection.
None of us want to see people mistreated, or hounded, or bullied, or fired. But I am now wondering, where does this leave us? There is usually an exception for religious institutions in these rulings, but I can see in society that great confusion and further destruction of marriage and family will result. If my 17 year old son wants to play on the high school girl's volley ball team, and he now identifies as female, who can stop him from playing volleyball with girls and using their locker room? Will my 22 year old daughter lose her rowing team scholarship at college, because a male transgender person took her seat in the boat?
The Methodist Bishop of MD in the late 90s had a pastor make a sexual transition. He/she was prevented from pursuing the ministry further. I assume the ELCA applauds the ruling.
God's design for us is good and Godly. We are certainly making a mess of the created order. 1st commandment stuff: I want to be god...….
What are you objecting to as “Marxist sloganeering and ideology” at civil rights marches?
M. Staneck
I don't remember Jackson but I do remember a LaMarr Blecker? Could that be of whom you are thinking?Yes, David Becker was a regular columnist in Christian News, not so much commenting as much as citing other sources showing "apostasy" in Lutheranism and other Christian bodies.
Jeremy
Passerby writes:
For many people, it is about memory of ancestors and far from a tribute to slavery. But even if it will always carry the stain of slavery, it is still part of the history--for better or worse--of that city.
I comment:
For better or worse? It will always be worse.
A friend from South Carolina, full disclosure, he is a liberal, says that the monuments and the generals who are on those monuments are there because they were defenders of slavery. Period. If it is a “memory of ancestors“, it is not a memory that should be glorified but a memory which should be repudiated.
Slavery in the south and in our history is more than a “stain.” It is and remains a monumental atrocity. There should be no Monuments glorifying any part of it or the generals who defended it.
It should be noted that many, if not most of those monuments were directed during the latter part of the 19th century, the time when “the south shall rise again“ was in vogue and when laws continued the repression of the former slaves.
And we should not re-cast it in theological terms. Maybe some of those general repented, maybe not. But in terms of civil justice, their “crimes” against the people of their time, Not to mention the rebellion against The legitimate authority of the United States remains.
A tragically typical response ... attack and minimize the poster ... rather than respond constructively to the material facts of the post while falsely judging the poster.
Another fan of our former mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Too bad he didn't enter the primaries earlier.![]()
Peace, JOHN
The fact of the matter is that I was rather surprised at the contents of the article given the author as I rarely agree with him.
Perhaps a more careful evaluation of the body of my posts would have revealed that as a pro life Lutheran, I have little in common with your former mayor.
Apparently Judge not lest year be judged carries little weight in some circles ... and conclusions are arrived at with little thought or care for facts ... or the truth.
I’ve never been much for boycotts. Or Ben and Jerry’s anyway, go that matter.
I don’t say racism isn’t real. I say it is hidden in people, not systems. Systemic racism is an idea that allows people to explain current conditions without letting go of Utopianism. In practical terms, it is a way to claim that conservatism is racist without having to discern real racism on the part of any conservatives. One does not become an “ally” of anyone until one promotes progressive politics. That’s why black conservatives aren’t really black; it isn’t a race but an ideology, to which Joe Biden’s party wants black people chained.
I do not think Peter's comments are at all lucid. Once again, LCMS pastors please read the CTCR report Racism in the Church, Overcoming the Idolatry.
The LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations is hardly liberal. They are in every way a group of conservative LCMS pastors and laymen.
Racism is as hidden in systems and institutions including the churches. The last thing we need to do as Christians is to make this a political issue!
The CTCR did not shy away from calling racism an Ideology and a sin that we of the LCMS need to acknowledge.
I call attention to the section Barriers to Overcoming Racism.
"As we Christians - who are at the same time saints and sinners - confront the sin of racism, we must first of all realize that we have to over come a host of obstacles that are constantly being erected by the world, the devil and our own sinful flesh."
Barriers include: Denial, Untenable assumptions, Paternalism, Different Meanings and Frames of Reference, Fear of Differences and Fear of Change.
Keep reading the CTCR and forget this nonsense about who is a liberal (Utopian) and who is political conservative.
Marie Meyer
p.s. The Lutheran Human Relations Association was considered to be a group of LCMS "liberals." Without those men and women the LCMS would not have made the progress we have in race relations...... Just thought of it, LCMS persons associated with the LHRA were also supporters of the ALBP. They wrote for the Forum Letter and Luthran Forum. Just another bunch of "liberals."
I think it might help to define what we mean by "systemic racism." I believe it can also be called "institutional racism." So, I assume, we will be addressing how racism impacts institutions and groups, including, but not exclusive of law enforcement.
Fixing much of this requires changes in structures that are often well above us. We can vote in people we think will help influence this, but I'm not sure, short of holding a significant political position or office, that we can directly influence racism at this level. However, I realize many will say that organized mass protests help to influence change. If that is the case we have to get a handle on those who are high jacking this form of expression. Right now the waters are being muddied by fringe groups intent on injecting violence, destruction and mayhem into these gatherings.
Churches, being institutions, certainly lie closer to our area of influence. I live in a fairly homogeneous community, so I'm probably not the person to offer a lot of firsthand observations and suggestions. That said, I think it is clear that the attitude of the pastor certainly helps to influence the overall attitude of a parish.