Main Menu

Show posts

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Dan Fienen

Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
Today at 12:28:49 PM
Perhaps it is my imagination, but from the basic premise of this thread (conservatives are more close minded than liberals) through the discussion, the theme of this thread has been how awful, ungracious, and intolerant you conservatives are.
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: Dave Benke on March 01, 2024, 06:38:03 PMHere at long last is an article that explains and expresses  1974ff in a way I experienced, trust and understand:

Here's a little slice - better you should read the entire article: 
Coming out of the 1960s, there was a spirit of radical democracy, if not anarchy, among us Seminex students. As in my experience with the president of Concordia Senior College, this expectation of freedom ran headlong into conflict with corporate management models of leadership, with their mission statements, branding ploys, lobbying for patronage and ostentatious strategic plans. The managers always won and the results were always the same. Seminex died by suicide after 10 years, just as the Senior College fell victim to murder. So the Age of Aquarius morphed into a new, but hip conformism in the disco-dancing Me Generation's "culture of narcissism."

Kurt Hendel's Afterword to the Schroeder remembrance tells another tale about Seminex's fulfillment, counter to Ed's story of failure. To me it is one of triumphalism, inversely mirroring Missouri's ballyhooed triumph over liberalism. I dispute this. The exhilaration of defiance gone as constraining reality set in, the meaning of the exile came to be seen by Hendel and the many in his camp as realization of the dream of "Lutheran Union" – well, sort of, if you leave out the fulsome third of American Lutheranism left behind as dark Babylon. "It was readily apparent to most members of the Seminex community that the seminaries that welcomed us and the anticipated ELCA were the home that God had been preparing for us" (Hendel p. 53). I think this is a rationalization of a bad situation. Truth be told, the faculty redeployment was more like "any port in

Dave Benke
Near the end of his article, Pr. Hinlicky decries that in his estimation, the ELCA has become just another Liberal Protestant denomination. How much of that, I wonder, is an outgrowth of the Seminex rejection of traditional Lutheranism?
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
Yesterday at 04:19:04 PM
As we remember and reflect on the Walkout and its aftermath, a major theme for some of this reflection is the pressure to doctrinal and practical conformity. 

Although it happened in the early 70's the roots of the walkout were firmly planted in the turbulent and rebellious 60's. The students who walked were baby boomers and at that time baby boomers were firmly against conformity. They were iconoclasts, new music, new lifestyles, new hair styles, this was the age of Aquarius, a new age and we weren't going to conform to expectations. Of course, everybody who was a part of this restless, rebellious reshaping of American life, just happened to do so in much the same way. To be a part of the in crowd, you had to wear the nonconformist uniform - the hippie look, and be expected to dress like your fellow rebels, talk like them, act like them. Nonconformists all nonconforming in the same way. Conform to the nonconformity. 

If Old Missouri had group think (often derisively referred to as a Sunday School faith), did not the fresh new theology that was breathing a breath of fresh air through the musty Missouri corridors have its own group think? In place of the stodgy old Missouri inerrancy Biblical theology, we had the new Historical Critical theology, without which we were assured we could not honestly study the Bible. To do otherwise was simply not acceptable. In place of the old, rejected orthodox Lutheranism, the was the new HC orthodox Lutheranism that in the end is enforced as rigorously as any orthodoxy of the past. If you did not conform you were not burnt at the stake, that was true, but you would be deemed not a serious Bible student and your ideas could be dismissed out of hand.

I was at the Senior College during the walkout, and one of the conservative students. I was from CLJCAA, a known reactionary, terribly naive, conservative hotbed. We were tolerated, not persecuted. Expected to appreciate if not necessarily laugh at the conservative jokes (conservatives were inherently funny, like other primitive things). We were not forced into conformity, but knew that our positions were not standard. I remember a group of us asked if in an OT class, the more conservative viewpoint could be represented, and were graciously granted that perhaps something could be done.

The doctrinal purity police in the LCMS have been derided and decried. Does the ELCA have a progressive doctrinal purity police? 
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
March 01, 2024, 11:22:56 PM
Quote from: John_Hannah on March 01, 2024, 07:46:20 PMHinlikey's analysis is excellent, the best I have seen lately. Not black or white but shades of gray.

All of American Lutheranism has suffered. No victorious heroes here!

Peace, JOHN
Hardly no black or white, stereotypic fundamentalist villainous blaggards only missing mustaches to twirl as they tie American Lutheranism to the railroad tracks. Easy to tell who he blames.
Your Turn / Re: Concordia - Ann Arbor and Wisconsin
March 01, 2024, 05:02:42 PM
I have no inside knowledge, just what I've read here or through Michigan District channels, but if this much alarm was being raised and now talk of de-coupling the campuses, could Mequon be in more serious straits with the idea of jettisoning A2 overboard as a survival bid?
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
March 01, 2024, 04:17:38 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 01, 2024, 02:14:41 PMJudging the wrongs would be seeking punishment for the wrongs. Forgiveness is not seeking punishment.

Legerdemot, I saw you palm that word.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

2 of 2

judged; judging
transitive verb
: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises

: to form an estimate or evaluation of
trying to judge the amount of time required
especially : to form a negative opinion about
shouldn't judge him because of his accent

: to hold as an opinion : GUESS, THINK
I judge she knew what she was doing

: to sit in judgment on : TRY
judge a case

: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
They judged him guilty.

—used of a Hebrew tribal leader

intransitive verb
: to form an opinion

: to decide as a judge

judger noun
Seeking punishment for an action may follow from forming a judgment but is not an essential part of judging as you imply.

Jesus formed opinions concerning whether or not actions that people took were right or wrong. That is judging, whether or not any punishment was involved.

In our Gospel Lesson, consider Jesus' comments and actions. John 2:16 "And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." " That certainly sounds to me like Jesus was making a judgment that the pigeon sellers were doing something that He disagreed with. His actions also could certainly be seen as punitive. John 2:14-15 "In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables." 
Collegiate level education in the US is undergoing major changes, especially at private institutions. Collegiate education has become monstrously expensive, for students, their families, and those supporting these institutions. The future and even the survival of these institutions are not assured. 
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
March 01, 2024, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 01, 2024, 11:56:28 AM
Quote from: aletheist on March 01, 2024, 11:35:40 AMI fully agree with Pastor Preus, who is simply reiterating what Scripture states plainly in that passage from 1 John 3--making a practice of sinning is manifest evidence of unrepentance and therefore unbelief, regardless of the particular sin. Publicly being in a committed sexual relationship with a member of the same sex is only one specific example.
Could you please make a list of things you do that are not a practice of sinning? I once heard a father yell at his 2-year-old son, "Stop acting like a child!" There is no other way for a 2-year-old to act. He is a child. Whatever he does will be as a child. We are sinners. There is no other way for us to act. Whatever we do will be sinful. Thus, as the Confessions state, "the law always accuses."

A recent meme on Facebook based on John 3:16-17: If God didn't send Jesus to judge the world, it's highly unlikely that God sent you to judge the world.
But Jesus did judge the world. He told people to go and sin no more. Just because Jesus' ultimate purpose was not judgement but forgiveness, doesn't mean that He did no judging.

Our Gospel lesson for this Sunday (3rd Lent, series B, LCMS) is John 2:13-22, the cleansing of the Temple. If Jesus was not judging the sellers and money-changers in the Temple, why did He drive them out?

The very fact that Jesus forgave sins implies a judgement against the sin. Do you go around proclaiming forgiveness for actions that are not wrong? Do you forgive people who help you? No, forgiveness is for what people have done wrong. 

Jesus declared that came for sinners since the healthy need no physician. 

Mat 9:11-13  And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." 

If Jesus judged no one a sinner, then why did He forgive and minister to them?
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
March 01, 2024, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 01, 2024, 10:01:20 AMPastor Preus, in an awkward mixture of (I think)satire and seriousness, writes:
I am an arch-conservative reactionary who is hostile to all new ideas.
I comment:
No argument from me on that.

Pastor Preus:
I have never blocked anyone, I don't know how to do it, and I don't want to learn.  I love to read posts from people with whom I disagree.  That way I can revel in my rightness and with smug self-assurance pity those who are consistently wrong.  Rev. Austin is one of my favorite posters!
Like the guy in the back of the temple, right? You are glad you're not me.
Here's the difference between us. I admit I could be wrong about some things, perhaps about many things, perhaps even about most things. I admit that someone who disagrees with me, might still be in God's favor.
And you are most proud of your humility, right?
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
February 29, 2024, 02:37:05 PM
Far too often people take what some on the far right side of the LCMS as what the LCMS as a whole says. I was told, which precipitated my writing the article, that the LCMS in convention had forbidden the practice. Upon investigation, I found out that the convention had recommended caution in implementing the practice. And the person who had notified me of my violation of convention resolution was a delegate to the convention that had only suggested care in the matter.
Your Turn / Re: Who Does More Blocking?
February 29, 2024, 02:20:08 PM
I have never blocked anyone, although I do not claim to read everything posted. It depends on the subject, whether I'm interested, how much time I have. I also tend to skim or even just skip posts if the whole subject and argumentation is becoming just too, too tedious. I also find this whole liberal/conservative dichotomy rather artificial, arbitrary, and very subjective.

 By Brian's definition, that "Liberal" means that one is open-minded to the views of others, I suppose that I am, on the whole, "Liberal." I am willing to read and consider the views of others even if, in the end, I continue to disagree with them. I have, on occasion, even been known to change my mind about something in the light of a discussion and reexamination of the topic. 

Are those on the died in the wool "Progressive" or "Woke" side of the fence open-minded to hear and consider the views of "Conservatives" either here or in society in general, or do they simply dismiss other than the accepted Progressive Orthodoxy as bigoted, unworthy of consideration (should be deplatformed or banned), or hopelessly wrong? I know sometimes after reading a rant from Charles about how us LCMS conservative, fundamentalists are ruining this forum and driving away good, reasonable, moderate ELCA types like him, I consider that in his eyes, I should not be welcome here. Certainly, no LCMS should be on the moderation panel. 

Over my career, I've had plenty of my fellow LCMS people consider me a Lib. Back in 1995, I had a journal article published defending women lay readers. I got quite a bit of mail on that, even a couple of condemnations from circuits and a scathing review in another conservative journal. Yet when I compare myself to my brother and sister-in-law (quite comfortably ELCA) I am hopelessly conservative. Compared to you Brian or Charles, I'm hardly on the same planet (I think Charles sometimes considers me to be not in the same universe). So what am I? 
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
February 29, 2024, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on February 29, 2024, 11:13:00 AMMr. Mundinger writes:
There are so many other violations of the commandment to love the neighbor that are prevalent in our society about which are noticeably silent, at least in this forum.

I comment:
Mr. Mundinger, I have asked that question here for probably 10 years or more.
  Greed: The wealthy in our parishes who think $10 a week is a responsible pledge. (And do not tell me we don't have any wealthy people in our parishes.)
  Pride: Think about it.
  Lies, slander, back-biting: Do we ever excommunicate the "clergy killers" in our parishes?
  Dismissive attitudes towards the poor: "They should work harder." "They are careless with their money." "Just get a job." References to "welfare cheats."
  Casual approach to our doctrines and teaching: Heresy tolerated or dismissed.
  Inept clergy mishandling parish finances: Ever seen a pastor disciplined for this kind of theft?
  But... But... if it involves sex, call out the inquisitors, lay down the law and enforce it.

Charles, have you ever observed my preaching, my Bible studies, my typical conversations with members? I doubt it. If you would like to find out what I actually do preach about, I've been posting videos of my services online since the beginning of the Covid lockdowns. I'll send you a link if you ask nicely. 

How much have you observed of the preaching of conservative Lutherans? Then how do you know what we preach about and how much we only mention sexual sins when we talk about sins.

I rarely if ever mention sexual sins in my sermons, and then only if the text makes a point of it. I do mention some of the kinds of sins you accuse us of ignoring. But I know, don't bother you about what we actually do, what we actually preach about, you know of a surety of what we are like.

Why do we talk about sex so much on this forum? It's not one of my top topics, but it is discussed a lot. That is because it is a much disputed topic here with various opinions posted, defended, objected, debated. I could just as well accuse you and the other ELCA company guys of obsessing over sex, complaining at length and in great detail how we on the conservative and LCMS side have gotten it all wrong about marriage, same-sex and the importance of marriage, women's ordination, how wrong (unlovingly, hatefully wrong) we about LGBTQAA++. If you don't want sex talked about so much here, stop attacking us about sex.
Your Turn / Re: When quoting sources
February 28, 2024, 10:47:51 PM
If the focus of the Mueller report was simply to establish whether the Russians tried to influence the 2016 election, something the was already fairly common know.edge, that should have been a routine counterintelligence investigation. Instead there was a high level multi-year probe with periodic breathless assertions that any day now there would be bombshell revelations of the smoking gun evidence that would prove definitely what Democrats had long known, that Donald Trump had collided with the Russians postal the election. But those bombshell revelations proved as elusive as Hussain's WMDs. Yes, Mueller found ample evidence that the Russians schemed (big shocker, not), but no evidence that they were successful in effectively influencing the outcome, and Trump wasn't playing ball. 
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
February 28, 2024, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 28, 2024, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PMCould I suggest other factors as well? Well meaning welfare programs that had the unintended(?) side effect of disincentivizing the father to be in the home and involved by the way the formulas for paying benefits were structured.

Have you seen data to support that cause/effect?  Admittedly my sample size is small, but I suspect that single mothers go on welfare after the father has left rather than welfare being the cause of the split.

I'd also suggest that advocates for welfare reform are more interested in limiting access to public assistance than ensuring that public assistance functions in ways that improve society, overall.

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PMSome of the more extreme feminist teachings that down played or even disparaged the role of husbands and fathers. ("A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bike.")

To what extent do you think that attitude is a response to the frequency of spousal abuse that occurs in this country?

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PMA trend in promoting equal rights for women by suggesting that women be as sexually irresponsible as men have been able to get away with rather than emphasizing the men should be sexually responsible.

Perhaps, but I think promoting equal rights for women has a lot more to do with equal pay for equal work; equal opportunity for employment, based on qualifications other than gender; etc. than it has anything to do with equal opportunity for promiscuity.
John, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that all welfare programs, all feminism, or all advocacy for equal rights have the intensions or effects of damaging the family. With welfare, I'm thinking especially in terms of the early efforts of the "Great Society" programs under LBJ.

Welfare, equal rights, advocacy against domestic violence have had beneficial effects. All I'm saying is there have also, at times, been deleterious side effects, especially from some of the more extreme or not well crafted efforts.

Do you see my suggestions as having absolutely no basis in fact? Have no welfare programs had any effect on the integrity of families, that the more extreme expressions of feminism had no effect on how families are considered, that the sexual revolution in way at all ever ended up encouraging young women to be more sexually irresponsible? I am not suggesting that the factors I suggested are the only factors but that some, especially the more extreme examples, may be contributing factors.
Your Turn / Re: Highlighting the Walkout
February 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 28, 2024, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2024, 01:16:06 PMWould you care to suggest what kinds of social and economic changes required to reverse the trend away from two parent families?

Before we can talk about change, shouldn't we first talk about the specific causes?

The causes, among others, that I would suggest include:
1. A long history of systemic racism which has perpetuated multi-generational poverty;
2. The disconnects between the promise of equal opportunity and the factors that deny equal opportunity;
3. Wealth disparity as a result of exploitation;
4. Access to affordable health care, including mental health care;
5. A history of presumed male dominance; and,
6. A society that presumes greed as a positive value.

Divorce rates should be part of the conversation.  But, we also have to consider the degree to which increased divorce rates reflect reduced tolerance for maintaining a dysfunctional family.  Whether the dysfunctional family ends in divorce or remains a dysfunctional family, the children are harmed.

We should also consider declining rates of church attendance.  Church participation used to be more convenient because society accommodated Sunday mornings and church nights.  Did church attendance decline because it is no longer socially acceptable/politically correct or is society really less faithful?
Could I suggest other factors as well? Well meaning welfare programs that had the unintended(?) side effect of disincentivizing the father to be in the home and involved by the way the formulas for paying benefits were structured. Some of the more extreme feminist teachings that down played or even disparaged the role of husbands and fathers. ("A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bike.") (Also note, I am not disparaging all of feminism, just some of the more extreme expressions of it.) A trend in promoting equal rights for women by suggesting that women be as sexually irresponsible as men have been able to get away with rather than emphasizing the men should be sexually responsible. (Another extremist position.)
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk