Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Sem. Prof. Who Impacted Your Ministry?

« on: Yesterday at 09:26:52 PM »

Pastor Bohler highlights an important part of the seminarian's experience and that is
the vicarage supervisor. At one time these vicarage supervisors were chosen with great
care and discernment by the seminaries.  Most of them were great mentors  to their
vicars.  It seems Pastor Bohler hit the jackpot on his vicarage.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case today.  Fewer parishes want a vicar and some
get one simply because they signed up  for one.  It is still important that a parish pastor
be a good mentor for his vicar and has something to offer him from his experience in the
parish.   There are still some congregations who want some cheap help for a year and
do not see the vicarage assignment as a learning process.

Yes, I was very blessed to be assigned the vicarage I had.  I was like the 19th vicar Pastor Anderson had (Rolf Preus was the first) and by the time I came, he had his teaching and methods down quite well.  But he DID say that his first vicar was the best, and it was downhill after that.  19th is pretty far downhill.

He only said that his first vicar was the best because I was more Norwegian than he was.    Pastor Anderson taught us by his example.  He loved the people he served and he loved God's Word.  He retired to Dubuque Iowa where he had served as a young man.  As an old man he became friends with my son Andrew who serves in Guttenberg.  I thank God that my son got to know him.

2

Your Turn / Re: Sem. Prof. Who Impacted Your Ministry?

« on: March 04, 2021, 02:54:58 PM »

Most parish pastors usually have one or two Seminary Professors who impacted
their pastoral ministry.  You might want to share the name of that professor.

For me, it was Professor George Hoyer who taught Homiletics at Concordia, St. Louis
He made a Gospel distinction between merely reciting the facts of Christ's birth, public
ministry, death and resurrection and proclaiming the power of Christ in our dally lives.
We need to do both in our preaching from the pulpit.

Yes, the Crucified Christ forgives my sins.  The Resurrected Christ shares His victory
over death with me.  Christ strengthens my faith.  Christ speaks to me on the pages
of Holy Scripture, Christ gives me His body and blood in Holy Communion.  Christ hears
my prayers.  Christ guides my life.  Christ empowers me to do His Will

George Hoyer's wife, Dorothy, was my kindergarten teacher.

3

Your Turn / Re: Sem. Prof. Who Impacted Your Ministry?

« on: March 04, 2021, 02:38:06 PM »

Three professors who had the most influence on me were Robert Preus, Kurt Marquart, and David Scaer.  They were kind and pastoral men who taught their students to love Lutheran theology.  Nobody gave me better encouragement as a seminarian and as a young pastor than my father, Robert Preus.   

4

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 04, 2021, 02:25:45 PM »

Brian, please excuse me for quoting myself, but your arguments reminded me of a sermon I preached a couple of weeks ago at our midweek Lenten Vespers.  It was on Psalm 6.  Here is the introduction:

“Sure, I’m a sinner.  So is everyone else.  We’re all sinners.  I’m not perfect!  Neither are you.  So leave me alone.  Quit your judging.  You’re just as much a sinner as I am.”  Well, that might work.  Attack the messenger.  It might shut him up.  “Judge not!”  Said with sufficient indignation it may parry whatever correction comes your way.  Since everyone is a sinner, anyone who tries to correct you is a sinner and being a sinner disqualifies one from pointing out anyone else’s sin.  This is how sin becomes an abstract construct with no reality.  The only thing that is a sin these days is to say that something is sinful and someone did it.  Welcome to the 21st century!

5

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 04, 2021, 11:47:11 AM »

So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.

Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.

I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.

Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.

If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1? 

6

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 03, 2021, 10:49:46 PM »

"I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others."

Does this mean that a preacher may not preach on this text?  Or if he does, must his sermon be a mea culpa? 

7

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 03, 2021, 05:03:50 PM »

So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.

Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.

8

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 03, 2021, 01:58:03 PM »

"Your words dismiss and condemn the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians."

On the one side is "the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians."  On the other side is God's Word.  The God who punishes is also the God who forgives.  Where sin abounds grace abounds much more.  I believe in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ who is gracious to sinners for Christ's sake.  That his wrath is being revealed from heaven against homosexuals (Romans 1:18-27) and all others who suppress the truth in unrighteousness does not mean that he is not gracious for Christ's sake.  He is gracious to all sinners: baby-killers, adulterers, greedy idolaters, homosexuals, rapists, thieves, and liars.  Apart from Christ his wrath abides.  In Christ he is gracious.  When men of the cloth teach homosexuals that they need not repent of their homosexuality but may marry members of the same sex and adopt children (as if their perversion is not a sin) these men consign those unrepentant homosexuals to hell.  Now you can accuse me of relishing the wrath of God, but it is you, not I, who would leave homosexuals under the wrath of God.  I would call them to repent of their sin of homosexuality and trust in the blood and righteousness of Jesus and be saved.

9

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 03, 2021, 11:52:23 AM »

So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.

10

Your Turn / Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?

« on: March 02, 2021, 07:03:36 PM »

“We will now offer services with the love and compassion of Jesus to the many types of families who exist in our world today,” Mr. Palusky wrote.  He speaks for Bethany Christian Services.  What a treacherous act by people claiming to be evangelical Christians!  They lie about Jesus when they say this his love and compassion would place a helpless child under the parental authority of homosexuals who publicly defy God’s law concerning marriage.  They don’t want to be shut down by the civil authorities.  It has nothing to do with the love and compassion of Jesus and they know it. 

11

Your Turn / Re: Equality Act

« on: February 26, 2021, 01:35:50 PM »

[Vice President] Harris tweeted in August 2019, "The freedom to worship is one of our nation's most cherished and fundamental rights—but it should never be used to discriminate or undermine other Americans' civil rights."
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/kamala-harris-religious-freedom-first-amendment/2020/08/12/id/98

Is the Equality Act just a protection of someone’s civil rights or also an attack on religious freedom to act on one’s beliefs?  The First Amendment words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.”  Is the free exercise of religion limited to the freedom to worship as you wish within your church, mosque, or synagogue building as suggested by Vice President Harris’ tweet of August 2019?

One provision in HR5 Equality Act that raises concerns is:
SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.
Which overturns the provision of Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.)
(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.— A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE-107/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf

The Equality Act removes the legal protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The Equality Act raises the questions:
•   What Lutheran churches, schools, or other institutions facilities will be ruled as public accommodations?
•   What receipt of federal funding such as grants or student loan programs (possibly tax-exempt status) would place religious institutions under the Act?
•   What about men only clergy, could a biological woman who gender identifies as a man sue a Lutheran church for discrimination?
•   What liability could Lutheran pastors and teachers face for teaching that God created only two genders given biologically at birth (Genesis 1:27) and / or provide counseling for individuals to leave the LGBTQ lifestyle?

I asked those on this forum who do not share these concerns to consider the precedent that HR 5 – Equality Act creates.  Are there any rights in the Bill of Rights you would hate to lose?  Once the government uses the Equality Act to crush those who oppose its provisions there will be less people to support you in preserving any rights you cherish.  Consider:
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany.  Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

Thanks you, Mr. Ames, for providing the text of the Equality Act that overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  I don't know how we can avoid the conclusion that this constitutes an attack on the Christian Church in the United States.

12

Your Turn / Re: Remote ashes???

« on: February 24, 2021, 04:04:37 PM »

Since I have never imposed ashes nor have I received them I don't suppose my opinion on this matters much, but it occurs to me that if someone wants to be reminded of his mortality and sin as he enters into Lent, he could simply impose ashes on his own forehead in the privacy of his own home.  The Sacrament belongs to the church and is administered by the pastor of the church when the church is assembled together.  But is the imposition of ashes a uniquely churchly function?  May not any Christian do this privately?

I think the short answer is Yes.  At the other end of the spectrum, the church through its pastor or spiritual leaders can take the ashes to homes for imposition, or to the subway stop/bus stop/7-11.  I can also say that no one I have ever met has told me that they applied ashes to themselves at home or anywhere else.

However, there is this:  I have always been drawn to the example of public penitence through sackcloth and ashes mandated by the ruling authority, as in Jonah, where upon hearing the one sentence message of the prophet, the king believes God and calls for a national day of penitence while sitting in ashes, including not only human beings but animals, all of which were decked out in the sackcloth and ashes befitting the rite.  Jonah didn't deck them out; it seems from the text that they took care of themselves.  And - God did not destroy the city, much to Jonah's dismay.  If that took place in Montana, I'm thinking the apparel cost for animals would far outstrip the cost for humans, no?  Who was the happiest man in Ninevah?  The Producer of Sackcloth.

Not insubstantially to the overall theme of Lent, the time-frame for destruction given to the Ninevites absent repentance is ------ 40 days. 

Out of curiosity, when during the service do you make the sign of the cross (at a service of Holy Communion), if you're in the pastoral role?

Dave Benke

I would make the sign of the cross over the elements when singing the words of institution, specifically, during the words "take eat" and "drink of it all of you."  I would make the sign of the cross over the communicants when dismissing them from the Communion rail.  And I would make the sign of the cross over the congregation when pronouncing the Benediction.  I don't cross myself.

Curious on 2 things:

1. Do you have an Ash Wednesday service in your parish?  If so, and you don’t use ashes, why?  If the sacramental of imposing ashes is not Lutheran, why is Ash Wednesday in the Lectionary?

2.  When you make the Sign of the Cross over your people either at Holy Communion dismissal or in the Benediction, do they “cross themselves”?

In answer to your first question, Lutherans largely abandoned the imposition of ashes in the 16th century.  Chemnitz wrote against it.  So you would have to consult Chemnitz for an answer to this question.  Many Lutherans resumed this lost practice in the last century.  Many did not.  In answer to your second question, I would say that maybe one quarter of the people cross themselves.

13

Your Turn / Re: R.I.P. Gerald Speckhard

« on: February 23, 2021, 09:29:43 PM »

I pray that God will bring you and your family the great comfort of the gospel as you mourn the loss of your father, Peter.  Take to heart the words of our Lord, "I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live and he who lives and believes in me shall never die."

14

Your Turn / Re: Valpo mascot task force

« on: February 18, 2021, 06:10:15 PM »

I liked both William Buckley and Rush Limbaugh.  Both were entertaining, but in different ways.  While Buckley's Firing Line was a great success, he never connected to the common man the way Rush did.  Limbaugh angered people who took themselves too seriously.  Like Trump, he wasn't interested in the approval of liberal elitist snobs.  He reveled in mocking them to the delight of his conservative audiences.  Buckley beat them at their own game.  Limbaugh wouldn't play their game.

15

Your Turn / Re: Remote ashes???

« on: February 18, 2021, 04:28:47 PM »

Since I have never imposed ashes nor have I received them I don't suppose my opinion on this matters much, but it occurs to me that if someone wants to be reminded of his mortality and sin as he enters into Lent, he could simply impose ashes on his own forehead in the privacy of his own home.  The Sacrament belongs to the church and is administered by the pastor of the church when the church is assembled together.  But is the imposition of ashes a uniquely churchly function?  May not any Christian do this privately?

I think the short answer is Yes.  At the other end of the spectrum, the church through its pastor or spiritual leaders can take the ashes to homes for imposition, or to the subway stop/bus stop/7-11.  I can also say that no one I have ever met has told me that they applied ashes to themselves at home or anywhere else.

However, there is this:  I have always been drawn to the example of public penitence through sackcloth and ashes mandated by the ruling authority, as in Jonah, where upon hearing the one sentence message of the prophet, the king believes God and calls for a national day of penitence while sitting in ashes, including not only human beings but animals, all of which were decked out in the sackcloth and ashes befitting the rite.  Jonah didn't deck them out; it seems from the text that they took care of themselves.  And - God did not destroy the city, much to Jonah's dismay.  If that took place in Montana, I'm thinking the apparel cost for animals would far outstrip the cost for humans, no?  Who was the happiest man in Ninevah?  The Producer of Sackcloth.

Not insubstantially to the overall theme of Lent, the time-frame for destruction given to the Ninevites absent repentance is ------ 40 days. 

Out of curiosity, when during the service do you make the sign of the cross (at a service of Holy Communion), if you're in the pastoral role?

Dave Benke

I would make the sign of the cross over the elements when singing the words of institution, specifically, during the words "take eat" and "drink of it all of you."  I would make the sign of the cross over the communicants when dismissing them from the Communion rail.  And I would make the sign of the cross over the congregation when pronouncing the Benediction.  I don't cross myself.