Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

« on: June 05, 2023, 10:49:40 AM »

I was reading Joshua 7 this morning. The story of Achan looks to me like an example of "scapegoating" in the disciplinary sense rather than the sacrificial sense.

When Joshua enquires of the Lord about what is wrong, the Lord tells him Israel has sinned (v. 11). The ordeal is experienced by the whole group. But when punishment is meted out, it is ultimately focused on an individual/household (v. 25).

Scapegoating as discipline is about urging people to self-regulation by holding a whole group responsible for the actions of an individual. So if the group fails to pass because one person fails, the group will ensure that no one fails in the next evaluation. That's the theory. In the case of Israel, it seemed to work.

I think you have this backwards... scapegoating is when one innocent (or relatively innocent) member of a group is made to bear the punishment for the actions of an entire group.

In the case of Achan, the entire group was being held responsible for the actions of a single member until that member (in this case, an entire family unit) was removed from their midst.

So, this wasn't scapegoating. Maybe goatscaping?

2

Your Turn / Re: Law Suits and Christian Practice

« on: May 06, 2023, 01:56:04 PM »

Forgive me, Rev. Engelbrecht, but I have a hard time reading your words above whilst remembering how you falsely and publicly accused someone on this discussion board of being the chief instigator of troubles and alleged "mobbing" in the synod.  I remember how you refused to discuss this with anyone, even after proof had been shown you (and those who published your allegations).  I remember how you refused to recant, let alone apologize, for the harm done to that individual.  I remember how you were willing to, for all intents and purposes, smear everyone at CPH and the Purple Palace as being involved in such activities because you refused to name names.  I remember how you took innocuous things (like a microphone stopping or a pastor looking at you from the pulpit!) and were convinced that these were proof of nefarious actions against you.  I remember how you allowed people to falsely assume who was meant by your reference to a pastor who you claimed admitted to engaging in "mobbing" against you.   I remember how a significant number of participants on this forum left because of how you and the ALPB handled this.  Perhaps you need to look a bit into the mirror....

Steven, who did I accuse? If the reference is available,  provide it.

Additionally,  if I've done everything or even anything you describe, why have I remained a member in good standing throughout? The reason is simple: I have acted cooperatively and faithfully throughout.

gan ainm

Steven, I invited you to give a name and you gave a pseudonym, a false name. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

I wrote to you, first, privately, then, on the forum, to tell you that GAN AINM was most definitely not the main nag. That I know who he is, and that he is a lay person completely uninvolved with central synod doings. You ignored every one of those messages. I also wrote to tell you that a now-former parishioner of mine, who had worked with you had been completely cut off by you when you believed that she was part of a mob effort against you - something deeply hurtful to her, and I had offered to connect you to one another. You replied that you believed that the system had gotten to me so that I would level false accusations against you.

I have no question that you went through some horrible things. I also believe that your behavior, while perhaps well motivated, has not set for us an example of how people are to deal with one another.

Only much later, did you or anyone officially connected with the ALPB acknowledge that you had signed a nondisclosure agreement, which prevented you from naming the bad actor. Information that would’ve been extremely helpful at the time, but which certainly colors how people are to interpret your actions.

Rob, you're upset because I did not trust your testimony (I've never met you) and because I was unwilling to put myself at risk legally by describing the protection order early on. Can you appreciate that right after I published the article I had no idea about the outcomes? I had reams of people making demands of me and I chose not to respond to many of them, in particular I was asked to do interviews in the secular press and I turned those down. I wanted the synod to mull over what had happened. The goal of the article was always educational, never an effort to "get" anyone so that was another reason I have not named names to this day.

So I chose to put myself at risk and no one else, not even persons who threatened to kill me and destroy me---and that beforei ever published the article.

The thread is about lawsuits and the article by Christian Preus in particular. A most interesting feature was Walther's decision to pursue a lawsuit against a pastor who slandered him. This was viewed as an exception at the time and acceptable because it involved no financial damages. I had never heard that story. Still, I don't know about taking such a matter outside the church. I suppose Walther viewed it as a last resort.

So, if you had met me in person you would at least show some semblance of care and accountability for the two lay people within my sphere whom your false accusations hurt? That’s the only reason I’m still chipping in here.

Your position is that the extenuating circumstances excuse and absolve you of any possible blame for any mistakes you have made. I will acknowledge the extenuating circumstances, but the cheap grace doesn’t slide by quite so easily.

No, Rob. I'm saying I don't trust your account of things that happened. I stand by what I published and I've learned nothing new that would cause me to change things. You have learned, in the meantime, that I had specific legal reasons for not submitting to the lines of questioning on this thread.

I believe that if I spilled a bunch of names into the open, told things that were said to me in private, and stirred all this up once again, it would do far more harm than good.

As with Steven, I bid you peace.

The thread is about lawsuits and Christian practice.

That’s fine. It’s the outcome I expected. It won’t stop me from hoping, praying, and trying for a more God-honoring one. I remain very sorry for what you have gone through as well as sorry for what you have unintentionally put others through.

3

Your Turn / Re: Law Suits and Christian Practice

« on: May 06, 2023, 12:23:40 PM »

Forgive me, Rev. Engelbrecht, but I have a hard time reading your words above whilst remembering how you falsely and publicly accused someone on this discussion board of being the chief instigator of troubles and alleged "mobbing" in the synod.  I remember how you refused to discuss this with anyone, even after proof had been shown you (and those who published your allegations).  I remember how you refused to recant, let alone apologize, for the harm done to that individual.  I remember how you were willing to, for all intents and purposes, smear everyone at CPH and the Purple Palace as being involved in such activities because you refused to name names.  I remember how you took innocuous things (like a microphone stopping or a pastor looking at you from the pulpit!) and were convinced that these were proof of nefarious actions against you.  I remember how you allowed people to falsely assume who was meant by your reference to a pastor who you claimed admitted to engaging in "mobbing" against you.   I remember how a significant number of participants on this forum left because of how you and the ALPB handled this.  Perhaps you need to look a bit into the mirror....

Steven, who did I accuse? If the reference is available,  provide it.

Additionally,  if I've done everything or even anything you describe, why have I remained a member in good standing throughout? The reason is simple: I have acted cooperatively and faithfully throughout.

gan ainm

Steven, I invited you to give a name and you gave a pseudonym, a false name. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

I wrote to you, first, privately, then, on the forum, to tell you that GAN AINM was most definitely not the main nag. That I know who he is, and that he is a lay person completely uninvolved with central synod doings. You ignored every one of those messages. I also wrote to tell you that a now-former parishioner of mine, who had worked with you had been completely cut off by you when you believed that she was part of a mob effort against you - something deeply hurtful to her, and I had offered to connect you to one another. You replied that you believed that the system had gotten to me so that I would level false accusations against you.

I have no question that you went through some horrible things. I also believe that your behavior, while perhaps well motivated, has not set for us an example of how people are to deal with one another.

Only much later, did you or anyone officially connected with the ALPB acknowledge that you had signed a nondisclosure agreement, which prevented you from naming the bad actor. Information that would’ve been extremely helpful at the time, but which certainly colors how people are to interpret your actions.

Rob, you're upset because I did not trust your testimony (I've never met you) and because I was unwilling to put myself at risk legally by describing the protection order early on. Can you appreciate that right after I published the article I had no idea about the outcomes? I had reams of people making demands of me and I chose not to respond to many of them, in particular I was asked to do interviews in the secular press and I turned those down. I wanted the synod to mull over what had happened. The goal of the article was always educational, never an effort to "get" anyone so that was another reason I have not named names to this day.

So I chose to put myself at risk and no one else, not even persons who threatened to kill me and destroy me---and that beforei ever published the article.

The thread is about lawsuits and the article by Christian Preus in particular. A most interesting feature was Walther's decision to pursue a lawsuit against a pastor who slandered him. This was viewed as an exception at the time and acceptable because it involved no financial damages. I had never heard that story. Still, I don't know about taking such a matter outside the church. I suppose Walther viewed it as a last resort.

So, if you had met me in person you would at least show some semblance of care and accountability for the two lay people within my sphere whom your false accusations hurt? That’s the only reason I’m still chipping in here.

Your position is that the extenuating circumstances excuse and absolve you of any possible blame for any mistakes you have made. I will acknowledge the extenuating circumstances, but the cheap grace doesn’t slide by quite so easily.

4

Your Turn / Re: Law Suits and Christian Practice

« on: May 06, 2023, 07:02:59 AM »

Forgive me, Rev. Engelbrecht, but I have a hard time reading your words above whilst remembering how you falsely and publicly accused someone on this discussion board of being the chief instigator of troubles and alleged "mobbing" in the synod.  I remember how you refused to discuss this with anyone, even after proof had been shown you (and those who published your allegations).  I remember how you refused to recant, let alone apologize, for the harm done to that individual.  I remember how you were willing to, for all intents and purposes, smear everyone at CPH and the Purple Palace as being involved in such activities because you refused to name names.  I remember how you took innocuous things (like a microphone stopping or a pastor looking at you from the pulpit!) and were convinced that these were proof of nefarious actions against you.  I remember how you allowed people to falsely assume who was meant by your reference to a pastor who you claimed admitted to engaging in "mobbing" against you.   I remember how a significant number of participants on this forum left because of how you and the ALPB handled this.  Perhaps you need to look a bit into the mirror....

Steven, who did I accuse? If the reference is available,  provide it.

Additionally,  if I've done everything or even anything you describe, why have I remained a member in good standing throughout? The reason is simple: I have acted cooperatively and faithfully throughout.

gan ainm

Steven, I invited you to give a name and you gave a pseudonym, a false name. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

I wrote to you, first, privately, then, on the forum, to tell you that GAN AINM was most definitely not the main nag. That I know who he is, and that he is a lay person completely uninvolved with central synod doings. You ignored every one of those messages. I also wrote to tell you that a now-former parishioner of mine, who had worked with you had been completely cut off by you when you believed that she was part of a mob effort against you - something deeply hurtful to her, and I had offered to connect you to one another. You replied that you believed that the system had gotten to me so that I would level false accusations against you.

I have no question that you went through some horrible things. I also believe that your behavior, while perhaps well motivated, has not set for us an example of how people are to deal with one another.

Only much later, did you or anyone officially connected with the ALPB acknowledge that you had signed a nondisclosure agreement, which prevented you from naming the bad actor. Information that would’ve been extremely helpful at the time, but which certainly colors how people are to interpret your actions.

5

Your Turn / Re: The Aging LCMS Pastors & Laity

« on: May 05, 2023, 09:19:17 PM »

My circuit has always been an engaged, thoughtful, and supportive one. That continues, despite the pronounced shortcomings of the current Circuit Visitor*.


*me

6

Your Turn / Re: Homeschooling

« on: May 01, 2023, 06:25:49 AM »

I do not oppose home schooling. I believe it will make it easier for my children, grandchildren and great grand children (should I ever have any) who will be educated in public schools, to win college scholarships, get jobs, and succeed in their careers.
I do oppose tax money used to fund non-public education, except for matters related to health care.
And I think home-school parents should not be allowed to vote in school board elections or on public school budgets.

Sorry, your ignorance is showing. Statistics have long revealed better outcomes for homeschooled students on all standardized tests, grade level accomplishments, etc.

https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa/article/view/543 is just one source from a publicly-funded university.
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/ is a compilation of data by a nonprofit.

7

Your Turn / Re: Institutional Trust

« on: March 15, 2023, 11:58:18 AM »

I can say from first-hand experience previously having been on staff at a church where the pastor was forced to resign for misconduct that the advice of the lawyers was that the church communicate nothing to no one.

We, being the church, had to disregard that advice in some ways. It certainly makes sense that it would create the least legal liability, but it would not have been caring for the flock.

To some degree, we had to take the view that said, “if this gets us sued, it’s a lawsuit we are willing to face - regardless of how likely we are to win.”

Sometimes, I fear that the church is too quick to defer to legal advice, rather than filtering it through Scriptural instruction. There were those in the room who were absolutely shocked that we would consider going against the lawyer’s input.

8

Your Turn / Re: Institutional Trust

« on: March 14, 2023, 11:13:13 PM »

This could be - it seems that was the case with Dr. Schulz up at CUW: Dispute Resolution began and the cone of silence descended.

Here's my pie-in-the-sky wish: before the Synodical Cone of Silence descends, the following would be published: the charge, the accuser, and the accused. Those should be public record. Also, an anticipated timeline (the bylaws are pretty clear and specific, so it's not too hard to project what the terminus ad quem would potentially be).

The rule is good, so that things aren't litigated in the press, but the gag order is overly quick and overly gagged. That's my opinion, anyway.

9

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

« on: March 06, 2023, 05:03:55 PM »

I am just replying, like you, to Pr. Klinkenberg's comment. It seems backward that an enemy would more greatly zero in on the defensive fortifications and that the solution is forward thinking.

I just don't understand the criticism he seems to be leveling. It seems to say: "If we were advancing, the enemy wouldn't zero in on us." Doesn't read quite right to me.

10

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

« on: March 06, 2023, 04:53:07 PM »

...in the absence of any forward momentum as a denomination we have taken up defense fortifications, and once we do that the enemy zeroes in…

Are you asserting by this that the LCMS under current leadership lacks any forward momentum and is now merely defensive in posture? 

If so, how would you envision "forward momentum" synodically speaking?

And, with that... wouldn't you say that it is the forward moving units, rather than the stagnant defenses, that the enemy would most target?

11

Your Turn / Re: Megan Rohrer sues ELCA

« on: March 03, 2023, 04:21:19 PM »

I've not read the case/article and I won't.  Deuteronomy 22:5 answers the matter well enough for me.

Who decides what type of clothing belongs to what sex? More than once, I've heard the alb called "a dress." We can appear like men in women's clothing. My brother-in-law bought and wore a kilt when they visited Scotland.

I'll have to do some research as to whether or not the biblical terms for clothing are gender specific.

I have an idea: try telling a drag queen that their clothing is gender neutral… Let us know the response.

12

Your Turn / Thread for discussion of Russia and Ukraine...

« on: March 02, 2023, 09:04:35 AM »

I am starting a thread here, as the connection to Harrison's letter (the thread which has been taken over by Russian conversation) is thin at best.

13

Your Turn / Re: A Public Letter from President Harrison Regarding the "alt-right"

« on: February 25, 2023, 08:14:15 PM »

The article is fantastic. Thanks for sharing it, Pr. Speckhard, and please thank your nephew for writing it.

14

Your Turn / Re: A Public Letter from President Harrison Regarding the "alt-right"

« on: February 24, 2023, 06:02:46 PM »

Except it didn’t… Reread Harrison’s letter:

I am not speaking about the individuals who may have expressed theological concerns about the essays published alongside the Catechism. I’m talking about a small number of men who based their opposition upon racist and supremacist ideologies. The former we welcome. The latter we condemn. 

15

Your Turn / Re: A Public Letter from President Harrison Regarding the "alt-right"

« on: February 22, 2023, 03:14:55 PM »

I don't have a smartphone.  I cannot access Twitter on my laptop.  I haven't been able to read the material from the alt-right that President Harrison addresses in this letter.  Is there someplace I can go online to see what everyone is talking about?  I'd also like to know how widespread this is.  How many people are we talking about?  Are any of these people theologically trained?  Any pastors?

You don’t need the Twitter app to go here. https://twitter.com/CoreyJMahler

It is worthy of note, even though he has a lay person, because his language in praise of western Christendom overlaps heavily with a lot of classical education approaches. The ability of proponents of those approaches to distinguish their words from his will be quite important, I think.