Messages

1

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

« on: Today at 04:35:00 PM »

Mass shootings, naturally, attract attention, even horror of the senseless loss of life.  As soon as a mass shooting event occurs there are cries to resurrect gun control legislation as the solution for the future. Do it now! the cry goes, but even when Democrats controlled these levers of legislation it didn't happen. And naturally, those supporting gun rights under the Second Amendment are seen as virtually uncaring of the repeated deaths for not wanting larger bans.

Yet, to put the number of deaths into perspective compared to other societal crises, would be helpful.  Mass shooting events in the years 2020 through 2022 averaged above 600, certainly a high and unacceptable number.  This year, for only the first three months, we have already had 131, also tragic, especially when it involves children as this last shooting did.

At the same time we have children dying by much higher numbers from illegal fentanyl, which is smuggled regularly across our boarder.  In 2021, fentanyl was involved in more than 77% of adolescent overdose deaths. In the same year, 70,601 people died from a fentanyl overdose in the US. About 150 people die each day from fentanyl overdose.  And according to one article: "Children under 14 are dying of fentanyl poisoning at a rate faster than any other age group, according to a new report from Families Against Fentanyl, a nonprofit spreading awareness about the deadly opioid.

Between 2019 and 2021, synthetic opioid fatalities led by fentanyl poisonings among U.S. children under 14 years old increased faster than among any other U.S. age group, according to an FAF analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Infant fentanyl deaths increased twice as fast between 2019 and 2021. Fentanyl deaths among toddlers between the ages of 1 and 4 more than tripled, and deaths among children between the ages of 5 and 14 nearly quadrupled, according to FAF." https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/report-fentanyl-deaths-of-children-under-14-surging/

Yet, in keeping with the theme of this thread, where is the urgency here?  Why has border security been seemingly neglected by the federal government when we are well aware that this dangerous drug regularly flows from the south? 

2

Your Turn / Re: Here's a Way to Control Guns

« on: Today at 01:28:05 PM »

As the growing mental health crisis in this country worsens, we might well expect even more such acts of desperation.  We might call for more intervention, more counseling, but the system is clearly overwhelmed.  The pandemic, no doubt, tipped the delicate balance just waiting to spill over.  We also live in a time of darkness, of spiritual emptiness in so many lives.  Despair is a result of spiritual emptiness. 

I am saddened to see such tragedies.  I do not want to see them occur.  We can attempt to control fire arms, but as we all know, a desperate, suicidal person will find other ways to inflict harm on themselves and others. 

3

Your Turn / Re: Here's a Way to Control Guns

« on: Yesterday at 07:05:37 PM »

Pres. Biden: ""I call on Congress again to pass my assault weapons ban. It's about time that we begin to make some more progress."

Regardless of what we think or discuss here I highly doubt that anything will be done in response to his call.  I'm not entirely sure why this didn't happen when Democrats controlled all branches of government.  I would have thought that was the moment for such action. 

4

Your Turn / Re: Jews and God(s)?

« on: Yesterday at 03:59:30 PM »

In this discussion, I'm seeking to uphold the long-standing orthodoxy that the the OT and the Jews were monotheists. What began this discussions was someone in the forum stating that the OT presents two YHWHs. I also found others arguing for that online.

Let's set aside the rabbinic question of the two YHWHs. I will assume that my arguments were not clear and that it was a confusing side issue.

You have said more than that the Israelites were monotheists. You have said that they believed in "one God, one person." That makes them unitarians.

Is that what you are arguing? That the Hebrew Scriptures teach unitarianism and that the Trinity is completely a New Testament thing? Because that's what I'm hearing.

I wouldn't even say that the Trinity is a New Testament thing. It is a doctrine created by the early church as a way of understanding the relationship between God/Father, Jesus/Son, and the Holy Spirit that are all mentioned in the NT. "Son of God" doesn't appear in the OT. "Sons of God" appears in Genesis 6:2, 4; but it's not Jesus. The addition the western church added to the Nicene Creed shows that the fine points of the doctrine were not settled in the early church.

When there are other divine beings mentioned in the OT, such as angels, cherubim, seraphim, (Lady) Wisdom, or even gods, they all are subordinate to YHWH. None are his equal. Pictures of YHWH being among and above a council of gods (or divine beings) is given in Psalm 82:1; 89:7.

Your descriptions of God and efforts to insist the OT does not teach the Trinity, and that the NT does not seem to explicitly teach it either (but rather was an Early Christian thing), sounds a lot like this sentence from The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life (Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society, 1968): "This doctrine [the Trinity] was unknown to the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles."  This book insists further that "the early Christians who were taught directly by Jesus Christ did not believe that God was a 'Trinity'."  Would you agree with these statements?

No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. They couldn't believe in something that hadn't yet been verbalized. They believed in Jesus and that he had come from the Father. They believed in the Heavenly Father. They believed in the Holy Spirit whom Jesus would ask the Father to send. I see no indication that they understand these three as "persons" of the godhead. Neither could they deny it, because such a statement about God hadn't been made yet.

They are different from JW in that the doctrine of the Trinity has been developed and JW deny it. That wasn't the case with the disciples or biblical writers.

John, especially ch. 17, has Jesus stating that he and the Father are one; but what does that mean? We also talk about a man and a woman becoming one, but the unity of husbands and wives isn't quite the same as the unity we confess in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is clear in the book of Acts that at least some of Jesus' followers baptized only in the name of Jesus - not using the Trinitarian formula in Matthew. I don't see that as a denial of the Trinity, just that it hadn't come to fruition yet in the church.

I'm thinking that the seeds of the Trinity are in the scriptures, but it would take time for them to develop in the early church.

Okay, lets go with your last statement.  The Athanasian Creed, which Christians have been confessing since at least the 5th century, and is included in the Book of Concord, states explicitly that "Whoever must be saved must, above all, hold to the catholic faith."  This "catholic faith" is defined as the truth that "we worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity..." (The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wegert ed., page 24).  If the Trinity, as you seem to claim, took time to formulate in the Early Church, then according to your understand it would be unfair to hold those early Christians to this confession, correct? That they were "saved" independent of any understanding of God as "Trinity". If that is what you believe, at what point can the Church claim that "whoever must be save must, above all..." confess "one God in trinity, and the Trinity in unity"? Or do you believe it is ever fair to hold a person responsible to make such a confession who claims to be Christian?

5

Your Turn / Re: Here's a Way to Control Guns

« on: Yesterday at 03:44:46 PM »

Is this a call for the complete banning of guns? Or, as is heard often, just what some define as "assault weapons"?  The current "laws...ain't enough", it is claimed.  Which additional laws are necessary to stop the unlawful killing of people?

Europe is known for gun laws much stricter than in the US.  Yet one site notes that:

Mass shootings in Europe have become an increasingly alarming phenomenon in recent years. While there have been several isolated incidents of gun violence occurring on the continent for many years, the frequency and severity of these events has increased dramatically over the last decade. The majority of mass shooting incidents in Europe occur in France and Germany, but other European countries with high rates of violent crime include Norway, Belgium, and Finland.

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/

If their laws are very strict, why did they not keep these mass shootings from occurring in their own midst?

Also, if the criminal element in this country are able to acquire guns outside of any laws, usually on a 'black market', what will help control gun violence here?

6

Your Turn / Re: Jews and God(s)?

« on: Yesterday at 03:33:17 PM »

In this discussion, I'm seeking to uphold the long-standing orthodoxy that the the OT and the Jews were monotheists. What began this discussions was someone in the forum stating that the OT presents two YHWHs. I also found others arguing for that online.

Let's set aside the rabbinic question of the two YHWHs. I will assume that my arguments were not clear and that it was a confusing side issue.

You have said more than that the Israelites were monotheists. You have said that they believed in "one God, one person." That makes them unitarians.

Is that what you are arguing? That the Hebrew Scriptures teach unitarianism and that the Trinity is completely a New Testament thing? Because that's what I'm hearing.

I wouldn't even say that the Trinity is a New Testament thing. It is a doctrine created by the early church as a way of understanding the relationship between God/Father, Jesus/Son, and the Holy Spirit that are all mentioned in the NT. "Son of God" doesn't appear in the OT. "Sons of God" appears in Genesis 6:2, 4; but it's not Jesus. The addition the western church added to the Nicene Creed shows that the fine points of the doctrine were not settled in the early church.

When there are other divine beings mentioned in the OT, such as angels, cherubim, seraphim, (Lady) Wisdom, or even gods, they all are subordinate to YHWH. None are his equal. Pictures of YHWH being among and above a council of gods (or divine beings) is given in Psalm 82:1; 89:7.

Your descriptions of God and efforts to insist the OT does not teach the Trinity, and that the NT does not seem to explicitly teach it either (but rather was an Early Christian thing), sounds a lot like this sentence from The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life (Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society, 1968): "This doctrine [the Trinity] was unknown to the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles."  This book insists further that "the early Christians who were taught directly by Jesus Christ did not believe that God was a 'Trinity'."  Would you agree with these statements?

7

Your Turn / Re: Artificial Intelligence Sermon Generator

« on: Yesterday at 10:02:19 AM »

This article, in its own way, makes an argument for the value of the kind of education we discussed earlier on this forum: a liberal arts education.  Such an education, if carried out correctly, taught us to explore language and and work to understand it; to be critical of what we heard, not in a purely negative way, but in a way that seeks to comprehend and not just accept.  Unfortunately, I fear many no longer receive this education, even in so-called liberal arts programs. 

It is also makes an argument for our preachers and churches to engage the Word and continue to proclaim it independent of the online world.  Biblically-based sermons, well-crafted, have never been so needed and necessary.  We cannot simply allow the online world and AI to teach our people. It is interesting that just this morning I was listening to a podcast that reminded us of the "false delusions" of the Last Days of which Paul talks about in 2 Thessalonians.  It is a sign not only of our times, but a sign of the end.  Paul talks about this deception as "wicked" and says that those captivated by it "are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."  At the risk of taking the next logical step, I see one of the dangers of AI as being part of a potential "wicked deception".

The big joke for a long time is that "it must be true because I found it on the internet".  We cannot let this world become the end-all of knowledge, especially spiritual and biblical knowledge.  More than ever people need to be encouraged to be in the Word directly, with a faithful pastor teaching and guiding them.  (Reference: 2 Thessalonians 2)

8

Your Turn / Re: Jews and God(s)?

« on: March 25, 2023, 04:18:32 PM »

If I understand Brian correctly, because he sees the Genesis account as heavily influenced by whatever unnamed 'redactors' were responsible for the words we now read (which are additionally corrupted now by translators of the original), it is not so much a direct revelation of God as it is a pieced together human authored 'myth' reflecting what the redactor believed the OT person apparently believed about God in an incomplete way.  I'm not sure how he reconciles the account of our Lord Jesus when, in teaching the Emmaus disciples, where it is written that "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Lk 27). If Jesus believed that Moses spoke of Him, why would the people to whom Moses spoke in his own time not know of Him as the coming Messiah? But apparently, according to Brian, man had to wait generations to get a more complete picture of God. Jesus, therefore, should have lowered His expectations of people like Nicodemus and the other Pharisees (e.g. John 3:10) as "teachers of Israel".  They were just believing what every other OT person supposedly believed. How could they know any different? Jesus simply expected too much of them. And for that matter, why would it therefore matter now if they went on believing in a non-Trinitarian god as their ancestors apparently did?

We clearly understand this Genesis revelation very differently (as well as the nature of Holy Scripture in general). Very differently.  And because of this we will speak past each other with each succeeding post....

9

Your Turn / Re: 1517.org

« on: March 24, 2023, 12:44:15 PM »

Breaking Lenten post-fast for a shout-out to Chad Bird.  He's on social media with some short videos on a daily walk through Scripture.  Very well-informed and pastoral in approach. 

This is a different "incarnation" of him for me.  I remember standing behind him on line at a Synodical convention where he opined vigorously against adopting a resolution for the use of the hymnal This Far By Faith.  The next speaker, a Black woman, said "Thank God for this hymnal!"  The next speaker, the one before me, called the question and the resolution passed by a substantial majority, over the objection of Chad Bird.  He doesn't seem like the same guy in the videos I've been seeing.  At all.

Dave Benke

I don't think he is the same person. In his book Night Driving: Notes from a Prodigal Soul, he says that he had a huge problem with pride when he was younger. This led him to an affair, a divorce, the loss of his seminary position, his marriage, and into life as a truck driver. He went through great anguish of heart and soul. He remarried and that marriage ended as well. He came out on the other side a much humbler and wiser man.

I think he has a much deeper appreciation for the grace of God than he once did. Of course, age alone will give that to you!

Just to clarify: He is currently re-married and happily so.  See also: https://www.1517.org/articles/anniversary-of-a-dead-marriage-the-painful-lessons-of-divorce.  It appears that he was engaged after his divorce, but broke off that engagement.  I think his current marriage is his second and that he was divorced only once.

10

Your Turn / The Status of Free Speech

« on: March 24, 2023, 09:33:44 AM »

I get short articles from The New York Times via email.  Some I read, some I just delete.  But this one caught my attention and seemed quite relevant to this forum where daily we engage in discourse which is often from opposite perspectives.  As we continue to devolve into an increasingly polarized society, our ability to carry on civil discourse is one of the first fatalities. It seems like too much so-called communication is reduced to two groups shouting from opposite sides of a road, with the loudest group winning simply by drowning out the other side. Today's secular universities seem rife with this. And this is not the only occurrence.  More than once a speaker has been banished from a campus simply because what they represent does not align with prevailing feelings and passions from one political perspective.  Apparently even a progressive university like Standford realized that rudeness and heckling crosses a line that is not acceptable. But in a cancel culture freedom of speech is quickly disappearing, and it's not always the government at fault.  We are doing it to ourselves. And not just in secular society, but in discourses on faith. Pretty soon all that will be left in most public squares will be large echo chambers, appropriately separated from each other with sound barriers so that people can find safe spaces to talk where they will not be in danger of being offended or have their views challenged.  I hope that this incident at Standford sends at least a small wake-up call.  Will our cherished freedom of speech simply disappear because we heckled our opponents out of the room?

A heckler’s veto

Stuart Kyle Duncan — a federal appeals court judge appointed by Donald Trump — visited Stanford Law School this month to give a talk. It didn’t go well.

Students frequently interrupted him with heckling. One protester called for his daughters to be raped, Duncan said. When he asked Stanford administrators to calm the crowd, the associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion walked to the lectern and instead began her remarks by criticizing him. “For many people here, your work has caused harm,” she told him.

After Duncan described his experience in a Wall Street Journal essay last week, the episode has received national attention and caused continuing turmoil at Stanford. The associate dean has been placed on leave. Stanford’s president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and its law school dean, Jenny Martinez, have apologized to Duncan. Students responded to the apology with a protest during Martinez’s class on constitutional law. On Wednesday, Martinez wrote a 10-page public memo criticizing students’ behavior at the judge’s talk and announcing a mandatory half-day session on freedom of speech for all law students.

The conflict is a microcosm of today’s political polarization. Duncan is a pugnacious conservative who opposed the right to same-sex marriage before becoming a judge. During his five years on the bench he has issued rulings restricting abortion, blocking Covid vaccine mandates and refusing to refer to a prisoner by her preferred pronoun. His critics see him as a bully who denies basic rights to vulnerable people. His defenders call him a good conservative judge (and emphasize that the prisoner in the pronoun dispute was convicted of child pornography).

But even many people who disagree with Duncan’s views have been bothered by the Stanford students’ behavior. And it seems possible that the episode may affect the larger debate over free speech on campuses.
Dignity and curiosity

Over the past few years, some American universities have seemed to back away from their historical support for free speech. Hamline University in Minnesota effectively fired a teacher who showed a 14th-century painting of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class. A Princeton student lost her leadership position on a sports team after privately expressing an opinion about policing. Stanford itself allows students to file anonymous complaints against other students, including for speech.

Now, though, Stanford seems to be drawing a line in defense of free speech. “The First Amendment does not give protesters a ‘heckler’s veto,’” Martinez, the law dean, wrote in her memo. Stanford, she vowed, will not become “an echo chamber that ill prepares students to go out into and act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues.”

Martinez also wrote: “The cycle of degenerating discourse won’t stop if we insist that people we disagree with must first behave the way we want them to … The cycle stops when we recognize our responsibility to treat each other with the dignity with which we expect to be met. It stops when we choose to replace condemnation with curiosity, invective with inquiry.”

The latest: Tirien Steinbach — the associate dean who rose to speak during the event and is now on leave — published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal yesterday explaining her position. She said that she was trying to de-escalate the situation and noted that she defended Duncan’s right to speak during her remarks. “While free speech isn’t easy or comfortable, it’s necessary for democracy,” Steinbach wrote.

Below, my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick has compiled a selection of commentary on the episode.
Commentary

David French, in Times Opinion: “It is entirely appropriate to ask any judge difficult questions during the question and answer session after a speech. But protests that go so far as to shout down or disrupt speeches or events aren’t free speech but rather mob censorship.”

Elie Mystal of The Nation defended the students: “Everybody has the right to speak; nobody has the right to be heard over the din of the crowd.” Mystal also criticized Duncan for insulting the students during the event. (Duncan said to one, “You are an appalling idiot.”)

Steven Lubet of Northwestern University’s law school, in The Hill: “The judge, the student protesters and an on-scene administrator all played to type, exhibiting arrogance, intolerance and irresponsibility, respectively, that combined to make the afternoon a fiasco for all concerned.”

David Lat, Substack: “In hindsight, would it have been better if Judge Duncan had not lashed out at the protesters? Yes … [But] I’m not going to sit here and judge the judge for not acting more judicially in response to verbal abuse.”

Ed Whelan, a conservative legal activist, has criticized Martinez for not punishing any of the students. (In her memo, she explained that it would be difficult to determine who deserved punishment and suggested that the associate dean’s implicit support for the heckling made it difficult for the school to sanction students afterward.)

David Bernstein of George Mason University called Martinez’s memo passionate and excellent but criticized Stanford for having only one known conservative among its law professors: “Intentionally or not, the Stanford faculty is sending its students the message that right-of-center views are not respectable, and not worth listening to.”

   

11

Your Turn / Re: Valpo President/Board Decide to Sell Art Masterpieces to Pay for Dorm Renovation

« on: March 22, 2023, 05:20:27 PM »

Since the Creed was traditionally used to mark what was or was not Christian, I wonder how the Unitarians would pass this most basic of tests. At least the JWs are honest in avoiding the term Christian.  Until modern times I cannot imagine how a church body like the UU would ever be considered Christian in the normal sense.

In contrast, the Mormons in recent years have tried to present themselves as Christians. I believe that all the recent ads I've seen do not use the word "Mormon," but "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." They want to emphasize Jesus Christ.


The Baptists are non-creedal, e.g., "no creeds but the Bible." Although they will state that they follow the teachings of the creeds.

And the Baptists would pass the creedal test.  The Mormons would not.  We're really not even sure just how many gods they actually have since deceased Mormons in good standing become deified.

12

Your Turn / Re: Valpo President/Board Decide to Sell Art Masterpieces to Pay for Dorm Renovation

« on: March 22, 2023, 03:39:58 PM »

Since the Creed was traditionally used to mark what was or was not Christian, I wonder how the Unitarians would pass this most basic of tests. At least the JWs are honest in avoiding the term Christian.  Until modern times I cannot imagine how a church body like the UU would ever be considered Christian in the normal sense. 

13

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

« on: March 22, 2023, 03:34:22 PM »

I think this also pertains to the difference between our bachelor's degree and one from England.  Sometimes we may look at a person who has a bachelor's degree from England and think our master's degree is superior.  Truth is, it may not necessarily be. Which may be reflected in the English system when one is eventually 'upgraded' to a master's degree in a period of time without additional course work. 

14

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

« on: March 22, 2023, 11:13:36 AM »

BTW, for those without earned doctorates there is still a whole area of teaching available to pastors, especially those who have done some graduate work. Besides the seminary I also taught briefly for Concordia University - St. Paul, as an adjunct, or as they call them "Contract Faculty of Practice".  Many institutions have gone to supplementing their full-time faculty with part-time adjuncts, especially those who can work remotely.  I simply do not have the time required to juggle more than one course with my other responsibilities with the fire department and the district.  But the need and opportunities are there and sometimes schools like CUW even advertise for them.

15

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

« on: March 22, 2023, 10:52:23 AM »

As I recall,  my former colleague Paul McCain also worked on an STM but did not finish a thesis for the degree. (There are a lot of ABD/T folks out there.) He was called into service with Candidate Al Barry and ended up in political service before entering publishing. So the STM could open doors for service in the church, though not necessarily service in the academic realm, which normally requires the doctorate.

Don, you are the exception! Blessings on your work with SMP students.

Thank you, Ed.  Ironically I was offered the class and it isn't even in my actual field of graduate studies, which was Biblical exposition and history of liturgics.  I teach the sole homiletics course for the SMP program, and while my graduate studies certainly help in a variety of ways, since homiletics is a broad program encompassing other areas of theology (exegesis, worship, etc.), it was also my many years in the pulpit that bring to my 'classroom' as much as my formal academics.  Preaching for over three decades is its own area of growth and learning, as many of you are well aware.