Messages

[FOR ALL THE SAINTS]

John Hannah wrote, "Dorothy Zelenko is credited with bringing the ALPB from the brink of bankruptcy to the thriving and independent non profit institution of today." 

From my perspective Dorothy Zelenko's  greatest contribution to the ALPB was assisting Pr. Fred Schumacher in compiling and editing FOR ALL THE SAINTS, a Prayer Book For and By the Saints. 

Bill and I have used FATS every day since the four prayer books was first publishing.  The collects, lessons, writings by saints and closing prayers from Evangelical Catholics down through the ages has enriched our faith and understanding of what it mean to be an adopted child of God. Each of the four volumes has taught us how to understand and relate to fellow saints, even those with whom we are not in complete agreement.

The work of Fred Schumacher and Dorothy Zelenko is significant for all who participate in this Forum. Their work joins Biblical texts with the writings of first century Christians and the prayers of brothers and sisters in Christ past and present.  The four volumes of FATS have much to teach all Christians in their relationship and conversation with one another.

Marie Otten Meyer

       

The link below includes President Matthew Harrison's July 9th letter to President Yoshida of the LCMS partner church in Japan.  The letter was of interest to me because several classmates, friends, teachers, professors and relatives have served as missionaries, pastors and DCEs in Japan since the founding of the LCMS partner church in Japan.   Marie Otten Meyer


https://reporter.lcms.org/2021/harrison-calls-japan-lutheran-church-to-repentance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=harrison-calls-japan-lutheran-church-to-repentance&utm_source=LCMS+News+from+Reporter&utm_campaign=fcce7a2317-email-reporter-automatic-rss-campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10238b7c7c-fcce7a2317-513685117

[Changing World, Changeless Christ]

As Dave Benke takes on ALPB leadership responsibilities, I would call attention to Richard Johnson's book Changing World, Changeless Christ, The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 1914-2014. The book will provide information about how the ALPB is structured to accomplish their stated mission in being a Lutheran voice in the USA.

Purchase of the book also provides the ALPB with funds to carry on the work of the men came together in 1914 to be a Lutheran voice in America.  Should there be any on the ALPB Forum Online who do not subscribe to Lutheran Forum and the Forum Letter, this is a good time to begin.   Doing so will offer insight into the purpose for which the ALPB exists and the manner in which the purpose is accomplished.

Memory tells me that the men and women who serve on the ALPB Board pay their own travel expenses.  Again, thanks to John Hannah for his years of servant leadership.

Marie Otten Meyer

[Forum Letter]

Yesterday Bill and I received the July Forum Letter with news that David Benke  is the newly elected ALPB president.   We look forward to Pr. Benke leading the ALPB in the Evangelical Catholic perspective of our history.   

Sincere thanks to John Hannah for his leadership.

Marie Meyer

Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King  had two different approaches to racial injustice
Malcolm X advocated violence &  Dr. Martin Luther King stressed non-violence.

Malcolm X in reality became a Black Muslim who did not believe in racial integration
but demanded Blacks become a separate nation.  Dr. MLK was a Baptist pastor who
preached that we are all members of the human race created by God to love one
another.  He believed in racial integration.

Bottom Line: Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King had completely opposite approaches
to racial justice.

Some historians might question the above. True, Malcolm X embraced Islam, but to the best of my knowledge he did not advocate violence. Historians on this Forum may have further in formation about Malcolm X.

Marie Meyer

There is a reason why reputable academics do not allow their students to quote Wiki-anything

A good Wiki article contains footnotes where researchers can look up the source material and quote from them.


I think that CRT would ask if any student should be able to quote a white author talking about the Black experience. Or, as a white man tried to do here, to teach us about Native American spirituality.


If Wiki is an unreliable source, than so are folks who talk about races and genders that are not their own. That, I believe, is what is being critiqued. Let those who actually live the experiences tell their stories rather than "experts" who theorize about them.

So, you are saying that any non-white person ought not talk about white privilege since they haven't lived that alleged experience?  And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or whatever anymore?  Cool.  That settles that.

For some reason Steven W Bohler finds it necessary to twist this thread with the following, "And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or what ever more? Cool. That settles that."

Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   

I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command.

I am persuaded that it is to the spiritual detriment of men when they, albeit unwittingly, place the human male between God and God's creation, the human woman.    The ultimate issue is letting God be God in the life of woman.

I am grateful to the LCMS men, beginning with my late father Herman Otten Sr., my parochial school teachers including Dr. Robert Schnabel,  my pastors including the Rev Oswald Hoffman and The Rev Ted Whitrock, the vicars who served my home church including John Damm, John Tietjen, Walter Bouman, Milton Rudnick, Art Simon, Hans Spalteholz and Dale Hansen,  my college professors including Prof Robert C Schultz, Robert Bertram, Richard Koenig, my father-in-law the Rev Adolf Meyer  AND my beloved  husband of 59 years, Bill Meyer. (Please note how many of these men have a history with the ALPB.;

Was I oppressed?  Hardly.  These men taught me the importance of letting God be God in my life....no man was to claim a place between  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and me.  Most certainly, they were not to misuse Scripture to prove it was God's idea that a  man or men take God's rightful place in  my life.  Doing so is the result of original sin; the mind and heart being curved inward on self. 

Marie Otten Meyer

Mrs. Meyer, you wrote: "Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command."  I think you have just answered your own question.

Mr. Bohler, the above is a cop-out.  I think you have taken a coward's way out of a situation you created.

There is yet to be any post on this Forum that suggests I am an oppressed women.  A rather humorous comment was made by an LCMS District President when we were both serving on the LCMS Convention Nominations Committee.   His comment, "Marie, you are a very feminine women.  You also have the ability to stand firm like a MACK truck."

I took the reference to a MACK truck as a complement.   

Marie Otten Meyer

There is a reason why reputable academics do not allow their students to quote Wiki-anything

A good Wiki article contains footnotes where researchers can look up the source material and quote from them.


I think that CRT would ask if any student should be able to quote a white author talking about the Black experience. Or, as a white man tried to do here, to teach us about Native American spirituality.


If Wiki is an unreliable source, than so are folks who talk about races and genders that are not their own. That, I believe, is what is being critiqued. Let those who actually live the experiences tell their stories rather than "experts" who theorize about them.

So, you are saying that any non-white person ought not talk about white privilege since they haven't lived that alleged experience?  And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or whatever anymore?  Cool.  That settles that.

For some reason Steven W Bohler finds it necessary to twist this thread with the following, "And Mrs. Meyer cannot talk about LCMS men and how they are oppressive to women or patriarchal or what ever more? Cool. That settles that."

Rather than start another thread, I would simply ask that Mr. Bohler surface any post, one will do, where I have commented on how oppressive LCMS men are to women.   

I have stated, and continue to maintain, that some LCMS men have misused God's Word to teach that God's order for the relationship of man and woman in the Church is a structured chain of being and/-or a structured chain of command.

I am persuaded that it is to the spiritual detriment of men when they, albeit unwittingly, place the human male between God and God's creation, the human woman.    The ultimate issue is letting God be God in the life of woman.

I am grateful to the LCMS men, beginning with my late father Herman Otten Sr., my parochial school teachers including Dr. Robert Schnabel,  my pastors including the Rev Oswald Hoffman and The Rev Ted Whitrock, the vicars who served my home church including John Damm, John Tietjen, Walter Bouman, Milton Rudnick, Art Simon, Hans Spalteholz and Dale Hansen,  my college professors including Prof Robert C Schultz, Robert Bertram, Richard Koenig, my father-in-law the Rev Adolf Meyer  AND my beloved  husband of 59 years, Bill Meyer. (Please note how many of these men have a history with the ALPB.;

Was I oppressed?  Hardly.  These men taught me the importance of letting God be God in my life....no man was to claim a place between  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and me.  Most certainly, they were not to misuse Scripture to prove it was God's idea that a  man or men take God's rightful place in  my life.  Doing so is the result of original sin; the mind and heart being curved inward on self. 

Marie Otten Meyer

[CRT]

DeHall1  ask the question....

Which of these resolutions SPECIFICALLY "do NOT contribute to teachable moments or opening minds to knowing the truth about our nation."?


RESOLVED, That the LCMS Mid-South District reject any doctrine that teaches:   

● One's race, ancestry, or nationality are inherently superior to the race, ancestry, or nationality of another.
● Any individual is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry, or nationality;


In this resolve there is an assumption that the CRT supports the idea... Any individual is inherently racist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry, or nationality."   

The Mid South rejects any doctrine that teaches "Any individual is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, because of his or her race, ancestry or nationality."   That sounds to me as if the LCMS Mid-South District rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Might the CRT be on to something that is Biblical and in keeping with the Lutheran Confessions.  Seems to me that the CTCR report Racism connected racism with our human ancestry that goes back to the Fall.  The problem, according to the CTCR report, is both the denial and self-defensiveness of how we humans are inclined to erect barriers between humans on the basis of visual distinctions.

Marie Meyer

[CRT]

Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer

What about the resolution "grieves" you?  Is it that the resolution "rejects CRT" or something else?

Pr. Engebretson, What prompts you to ask if there is "something else?"     What in my post suggests your question?

Marie Meyer

I think it was simply an attempt to cover anything else in the resolution that bothered you.  I just wondered about the specifics behind your "grieving" over the resolution. 

As I was typing this David Garner replied first.  He captures my intent.

From David Garner.....
"As I read it, Pr. Engebretson was surprised you would be grieved by a mere rejection of CRT, and was wondering basically "is that all?"

Perhaps I misread him, but I don't think it's anything nefarious.  Dr. Benke has said he reads the resolution as a rejection of the work of LRJ, of which I am unfamiliar and cannot comment, but if one were a supporter of LRJ's work and thought LRJ's work did not promote CRT, that would be a reason other than rejection of CRT that might grieve a person."

Permit me to explain.

I first read about the Southern District resolution on Facebook, not on the Lutheran Forum where matters of faith are discussed.  Only after the district resolution on CRT was posted here did I report that the resolution appeared on Facebook with President Matthew Harrison's one word comment, "Excellent."

I was grieved that the subject of a resolution as adopted by an LCMS District and endorsed by the synodical present appeared on a social media platform.  I do not consider Facebook a media that allows for a thoughtful discussion of issues where politics, morality and theology intersect.  One word comments do not offer an opportunity for a teachable moment, nor do they open minds for being teachable.   

IMO, past and present issues related to race relations in our country continue to provide "teachable moments."   For example, while visiting a museum with several grandsons, one was troubled by the photo of a lynching that took place during the Jim Crow era.  it was a teachable moment, not to make him feel guilty for being white, but a moment simply to explain what happened in that time of our nation's history.

I am also persuaded all American citizens benefit from being "teachable" about the reality of our history.  For this reason I think CRT merits consideration. 

As a Lutheran, I look to LCMS leaders to recognize how racism, past and in present,  provide "teachable moments" in the Kingdom of the Left. At issue is recognizing how best do we, citizens of the Right, address a moral issue in the Kingdom of the Left. To do this I submit we  have to open ourselves to being taught, first by Scripture, but also by our history as citizens of the United States of  America. 

IMO, the resolution passed by the Southern District, endorsed by the LCMS president and promoted here by fellow LCMS for further similar resolutions  in other districts do NOT contribute to teachable moments or opening minds to knowing the truth about our nation.

For this reason, I am persuaded that LCMS pastors and laity must give careful attention to the up or down CRT resolution put before delegates to an LCMS district convention.   

Marie Meyer

Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer

What about the resolution "grieves" you?  Is it that the resolution "rejects CRT" or something else?

Pr. Engebretson, What prompts you to ask if there is "something else?"     What in my post suggests your question?

Marie Meyer

Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod president, Matthew Harrison, posted the Mid South District CRT resolution on Facebook.  His comments begin with one word.  ""Excellent."

I find it totally inappropriate  that the president of my church would use the social media in this way.  What has the LCMS come to?

Former Atlantic District president David Benke offered a resolution that reflects how Christian pastors, particularly those who identify themselves as Lutheran, are called to lead their people in the mission of the Church.

In heart and mind I grieve that the resolution was adopted and that President Harrison posted it on Facebook with his endorsement.

Marie Meyer 

Good grief! You and Marie carry a lot of baggage!

Again, the clergy-only BS you manufacture (as Steve says, your story keeps changing) is something I've never heard. And I hung out for quite a while years back at the Steadfast site among other places.

BTW, your "Try it this way" explanation is logically flawed.

Who might the above "you" be?  Am I in good company?

In any event, I respectfully ask that Donald Kirchner define  the "a lot of baggage" I carry.

Look forward to hearing clarification about the statement made about me.

Marie Meyer

Moderator Peter Speckhard writes on the endless controversy......

"We have been down this road before because you proceed as though though nobody interacted with you. You lament that TLSB has a section about women but not men, and when multiple people point out why that makes perfect sense, you just keep pointing it out. You don't say, "Okay, in that point you're making sense," or "I hadn't looked at it that way," nor do you disagree or even acknowledge the point was made. You just hold onto to your original lament. A year from now you'll asking why TLSB has a section about women and not men."

Pr. Speckhard is on target when observing that I have not stated it makes sense to me that TLSB refers to wife and women as biblical topics without referring to husband and man as biblical topics.

Wife cannot be a biblical topic without husband also being a biblical topic.   The term wife defines a relationship with a husband.  You can't have one without the other.  IOW, no woman can be, or could never have been a wife, without a husband. 

The same is true for woman being a biblical topic without man being a biblical topic.  No woman can be human alone...so also, no man can be human alone.   Adam could never have known what it means to be a human, not God or one of the animals, without the woman God created to complete God's work of creating Man, male and female, in the image of God.

Finally, I find use of the term "lament" in reference to my posts condescending.  Reciprocal mutuality in any conversation avoids the persistent use of "you" in reference to how the other person has been, is now and will forever be misguided. 

Marie Meyer 

The following appeared here on June1st...

"Rick Warren's Saddleback church recently made headlines by ordaining three female leaders. I was grateful to see these women recognized and lent both the public authority and institutional accountability that comes from ordination. But when I read the news, I also thought with a heavy sigh, "Oh, here we go again." I knew the debate about women's roles in the church would dominate conversation all week, and I could already predict the rutted arguments I'd hear recited over and over."

Three weeks later and LCMS members of this list remain stuck in the same rut...defending an the order of creation structure where man and woman differ in origin, being, purpose and assigned non-interchangeable positions in relation to one another.

According to the accepted rational  the Genesis 2 biblical account of how God created the human male reveals God's design and will for an immutable pre-fall order of creation where the man, according to his visible created maleness, has natural precedence and authority in relation to woman. [/ This legal structure, known as the order of creation, does not apply in society.  It was for the sake of order and unity in the home and  among the people of God that God ordained the order.   

In the home and among the people of God, the order of creation structure binds God's authority to the man's position in the home and church.  NT texts are interpreted on the basis of the order of creation structure.

In society, God is free to work through man and woman to preserve creation. What Luther referred to as the orders of preservation. 

To date no one here has asked if God the Son violated the order of creation by taking on our human nature...by coming down to us as True God and true Man... by revealing the nature of God, not to regard the lowly estate of a young Jewish as a barrier to God the Son becoming a human man, but the freedom of God to act as God in, through and from the virgin Mary.

Was the incarnation of God the Son the ultimate violation of the order of creation as defined in LCMS literature?

Marie Meyer

No. Not as I see it. The Incarnation is a mystery we accept without understanding based on revelation. In some ways, so is the distinction between male and female. It isn't just Gen. 2, it is also other places in Scripture that address the matter specifically and inference from Scripture that address the issue more generally or tangentially. It seems to me your position does an end around to avoid the Scriptures that address it by beginning with a set of foundational interpretations and using human reasoning from there to make things make sense even in opposition to divine revelation.

Given that I am a woman not a man, I have never played football.  I do, however,  understand what it means to attempt an end run.

The above strikes me as a misguided attempt to deny, dismiss, deflect and or disregard the fact that the order of creation, as defined and applied it the LCMS originates, in natural human reason. IOW, it's a classic end run to avoid  the one foundational Law to which man and woman are both subject, the first commandment... that we Let God, revealed as I AM WHo I AM for you, man and woman, be God in the life of man and woman.  No chain of being or chain of command end runs allowed. 

God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, relate as God to man and to woman.  Each are present as God in the life of man and woman.  Each are a living presence as God in the life of baptized man and woman.  Each are members of the One Holy Body of Christ who, but the power of the Holy Spirit grow up into the fullness of Christ, the One Head of the Church.

Marie Meyer



But we have been this road before.   

The following appeared here on June1st...

"Rick Warren's Saddleback church recently made headlines by ordaining three female leaders. I was grateful to see these women recognized and lent both the public authority and institutional accountability that comes from ordination. But when I read the news, I also thought with a heavy sigh, "Oh, here we go again." I knew the debate about women's roles in the church would dominate conversation all week, and I could already predict the rutted arguments I'd hear recited over and over."

Three weeks later and LCMS members of this list remain stuck in the same rut...defending an the order of creation structure where man and woman differ in origin, being, purpose and assigned non-interchangeable positions in relation to one another.

According to the accepted rational  the Genesis 2 biblical account of how God created the human male reveals God's design and will for an immutable pre-fall order of creation where the man, according to his visible created maleness, has natural precedence and authority in relation to woman. [/ This legal structure, known as the order of creation, does not apply in society.  It was for the sake of order and unity in the home and  among the people of God that God ordained the order.   

In the home and among the people of God, the order of creation structure binds God's authority to the man's position in the home and church.  NT texts are interpreted on the basis of the order of creation structure.

In society, God is free to work through man and woman to preserve creation. What Luther referred to as the orders of preservation. 

To date no one here has asked if God the Son violated the order of creation by taking on our human nature...by coming down to us as True God and true Man... by revealing the nature of God, not to regard the lowly estate of a young Jewish as a barrier to God the Son becoming a human man, but the freedom of God to act as God in, through and from the virgin Mary.

Was the incarnation of God the Son the ultimate violation of the order of creation as defined in LCMS literature?

Marie Meyer