Messages

1

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

« on: March 17, 2023, 12:00:45 PM »

Wait a moment while I search for a stone to cast your way…
Here it is, easily at hand-

Probably those poor Indians died because of diseases that the missionaries unwittingly brought to a people who didn’t have any resistance to the new germs.

Now, in the case of Luther’s Reformation, how many people died during those wars from being stabbed, shot, or cudgeled most assuredly on purpose?

Peter Garrison

Peter,

Please know that I wasn’t seeking to be polemical with my above comment, human history and experience are complex thins, no doubt. Certainly disease was a huge factor, not disputing that. The contention is that Serra had his issues, which as far as I can tell are legitimate in some cases. I don’t intend a thread drift so I’ll leave it there.

Thanks for the stone, I’ll add to my collection.

Peace,
Scott+

2

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

« on: March 16, 2023, 11:30:13 PM »

Quiz time: Who got the first bill of rights written in North America- and specifically for women?

Saint Junipero Serra.

He saw that the Presidio (fortress) soldiers were harassing the mission women.
He wanted the Presidios placed farther away from the missions.

Walked from California to Mexico on his lame leg. Donkey across to Veracruz. Sailed to Sevilla. Met with the Viceroy.
Argued his point. Got the bill of rights. Ship, donkey, limp back to the missions and that’s why the Presidios are across town from the missions: Examples: San Francisco, Monterey, Santa Barbara.

Also, the Fathers traveled between missions two by two surrounded by thousands of Indians who could have attacked them if they didn’t like the missionaries and their leadership.

Peter (Bringing the Faith to new cultures is a good thing…) Garrison

I certainly may be wrong but it is my understanding that his legacy is hotly contested for legitimate reasons. While he founded the missions, those very missions decimated Native life and culture. There’s a crazy stat that upwards of 85,000 Natives were baptized at the missions and by the 1830s when they became secularized only 15,000 baptized remained. Obviously history is complex but some of these things that I have recently learned are pretty jarring, especially as they relate to evangelization efforts.

3

Your Turn / Re: Institutional Trust

« on: March 14, 2023, 10:21:53 PM »

I received the last Reporter in the mail and turned to my favorite section - the official notices. And I found an amazing thing in that last one.  The notice that the recently re-elected DP of the Atlantic District (2022) had been removed from the Roster of the Synod and was no longer able to receive a call.

Pondering this, it lead me to a question. The formal hierarchy of the LCMS has no problem using a very broad brush when the malfeasance is a bunch of internet laity, lumping with actual Nazis a wide variety of other folks as persona non grata for disturbing the peace of the synod in the harshest terms.  I had long wondered what would actually cause the use of the missing binding key.  We now know.  And although I do agree with Pastor Speckhard's recent article that the Boomers that run things basically don't get it.  There is no accommodation with the current culture that can be reached, what we need is an institution that is explicitly counter-culture. I also think that coming down hard on actual Nazis is necessary even if it was too broad.  Although I'd just chalk that up to an office out of touch with anyone under 35.  But the question it leads me to regards 1 Peter 4:17, "the judgement begins at the household of God." If we are going to rebuild institutional trust, which we need to do. And if part of that is using the binding key as well as demanding some standards, which it should. Is not something more than "Rev. Dr. So-and-So was removed from the roster" necessary when that man was the recently re-elected District President of a District of Synod?

Should there not be at least a 300 word fact article that explains why the DP is no longer the DP and not even on the roster? Or is such treatment from the Synod President only necessary for internet Nazis and rando-laity?

Given the context, roundly condemning Nazis wasn’t really a costly endeavor. Quite frankly, it also provided a moment of catharsis, goodwill, and a “we are all in this together” for the body.

A district president resigning both from his position and the roster for misconduct is a very serious matter. It may be unprecedented, too. But this matter is not just about him, but also the system in which he worked. Particularly, the district, its presidium, and its BOD (and by extension the Synod). In other words, the system is implicated in this, too. We assume that those we elect or call are trustworthy and this strikes against that which is scary and unnerving. It’s traumatic for all involved. This is a serious wound to the body. The path can be to either double down on control and secrecy thinking it will just go away or to work constructively toward a healing path. Control and secrecy may work for a bit but in the end, it leads to very destructive places. Taking a cue from our God, it's not by holding on that he saves us, but by emptying himself out.

Peace,
Scott+

Full disclosure: I edited the third to last sentence to be more gentle, was concerned it might be taken the wrong way.

4

Your Turn / Re: LCMS Nominations for President

« on: March 14, 2023, 02:03:53 PM »

One might have thought that actively campaigning for the position, as was done my one, would have garnered more nominations.

I don't know. If it wasn't for someone mentioning it on this board, I would have had no idea that Patrick Ferry was interested in the job. That could be true for a lot of people.

As it is, the top five vote getters equals about 2,000 votes. Some congregations nominated more than one person, so it looks like less than half, maybe even as few as a third, of the congregations nominated anyone.

Finally, does it really matter? Does anyone really think there is going to be any huge difference between Matt Harrison and Patrick Ferry?

Back in April 2019, I had my first--and last--opportunity to attend a Council of President's meeting. If you remember, there was supposed to be a hot election between Matt Harrison and David Maier--sides were forming! What did I see a few months before the vote? Those two cracking jokes. Harrison was talking about some thorny issue he was dealing with. He suddenly looks at David Maier and says, "You know, in a few months this be your problem and not mine." Everyone laughed at the line. For all of the stuff I was reading on websites, I didn't see any issues there. I came away thinking that if Maier was elected, we wouldn't see much difference and I'm pretty sure the same would be true of Patrick Ferry.

Someone emailed me off list to tell me that about 1800 congregations sent in nominations. So it was less than a third of all congregations.

Yes, that info is in the link from Synod that I provided above.

5

Your Turn / Re: LCMS Nominations for President

« on: March 14, 2023, 01:35:48 PM »

Nominations are in for LCMS President and other positions. What’s interesting is that President Harrison has over double the nominations of Pat Ferry. What is more, since 2010 it is the second most nominations he has received. Some have claimed that this may be it for President Harrison but the numbers indicate otherwise. Anyways, below is the list of those nominated.

PRESIDENT

The following five candidates received the highest number of nominating votes for the office of President and consented to serve if elected:

Matthew C. Harrison, 1,193
Patrick T. Ferry, 511
Richard L. Snow, 228
Peter K. Lange, 119
Benjamin T. Ball, 113

For more info about other nominations see the link:https://www.lcms.org/convention/national/elections

I don't know who would claim "that this may be it for President Harrison" (by which I assume you mean lose to Patrick Ferry). That's just silly.

In 2010, I voted to make the change from having the convention elect the LCMS president to having the congregations of the Synod. I still think that was the right decision.

At the same time, I also knew that such a vote would make it much harder to defeat a Synod President who was up for reelection. instead of just getting the right delegates to vote at the convention (see Preus, Barry, and Harrison) you now had to get an a majority of the congregations to be upset about something, otherwise inertia would take over and the president would be re-elected. That's what I think will happen this year and will continue to happen until he wants to retire.

*sigh*. A few weeks ago it was suggested on this very board that the smaller margin of victory of the 2019 election was likely indicative of a growing desire for new leadership. If I recall correctly, that was also discussed four years ago on here, too.

Both can be true. There may be a "growing desire for new leadership" perhaps on the part of many. But is that growing desire more than 50% of the Synod's pastors and congregations? I don't think so--and I don't think it ever will be.

If it makes you feel better, I'm willing to vote for "anyone but Harrison" at the right price. Best offer wins.

For that response you get a double sigh like when the doctor listens to my heart. *sigh* *sigh*. I never said both couldn’t be true. By all accounts, the numbers indicate the opposite. That said, you can keep your vote, do you want mine? Just to add, I basically said the same thing to Dave Benke that I didn’t think there was enough to get over the hump to 50%. And I agree that that is unlikely to happen outside of unforeseen circumstances.

6

Your Turn / Re: LCMS Nominations for President

« on: March 14, 2023, 12:41:59 PM »

Nominations are in for LCMS President and other positions. What’s interesting is that President Harrison has over double the nominations of Pat Ferry. What is more, since 2010 it is the second most nominations he has received. Some have claimed that this may be it for President Harrison but the numbers indicate otherwise. Anyways, below is the list of those nominated.

PRESIDENT

The following five candidates received the highest number of nominating votes for the office of President and consented to serve if elected:

Matthew C. Harrison, 1,193
Patrick T. Ferry, 511
Richard L. Snow, 228
Peter K. Lange, 119
Benjamin T. Ball, 113

For more info about other nominations see the link:https://www.lcms.org/convention/national/elections

I don't know who would claim "that this may be it for President Harrison" (by which I assume you mean lose to Patrick Ferry). That's just silly.

In 2010, I voted to make the change from having the convention elect the LCMS president to having the congregations of the Synod. I still think that was the right decision.

At the same time, I also knew that such a vote would make it much harder to defeat a Synod President who was up for reelection. instead of just getting the right delegates to vote at the convention (see Preus, Barry, and Harrison) you now had to get an a majority of the congregations to be upset about something, otherwise inertia would take over and the president would be re-elected. That's what I think will happen this year and will continue to happen until he wants to retire.

*sigh*. A few weeks ago it was suggested on this very board that the smaller margin of victory of the 2019 election was likely indicative of a growing desire for new leadership. If I recall correctly, that was also discussed four years ago on here, too.

7

Your Turn / LCMS Nominations for President

« on: March 14, 2023, 12:09:30 PM »

Nominations are in for LCMS President and other positions. What’s interesting is that President Harrison has over double the nominations of Pat Ferry. What is more, since 2010 it is the second most nominations he has received. Some have claimed that this may be it for President Harrison but the numbers indicate otherwise. Anyways, below is the list of those nominated.

PRESIDENT

The following five candidates received the highest number of nominating votes for the office of President and consented to serve if elected:

Matthew C. Harrison, 1,193
Patrick T. Ferry, 511
Richard L. Snow, 228
Peter K. Lange, 119
Benjamin T. Ball, 113

For more info about other nominations see the link:https://www.lcms.org/convention/national/elections

8

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

« on: February 24, 2023, 09:31:18 PM »

So then, Dr. Becker, to what do you attribute the decision by the board and president. It so obviously, ridiculously wrongheaded that the only three options seem to be that they are so incompetent that any professor of any subject can easily see how foolish it is, they are so dishonest that they must be seeking personal gain, or they are dealing with proprietary information and trying to act in the best interest of the school with extremely limited options. John Nunes ran into it at Bronxville. The public information everyone was working with was not the private information he encountered as president.

I have no dog in this fight regarding Valpo but that's not entirely true regarding Bronxville. The issue that you mention regarding public/private information works both ways and can be abused to the advantage of administrators. The years before the pandemic consistently revealed a disconnect between administration and regents and on those on ground perpetuated by those in charge. A cursory view of LCMS Bylaws reveals how easily this can be done, too. There was clear mismanagement before the pandemic that would precipitate Bronxville's closure. Sadly, it has been framed as if it's just because of costs and demographics that it closed which just isn't the whole picture.

Peace,
Scott+

I don’t doubt mismanagement over time played a big role, but everything is easy in hindsight. There is no proving what would have happened had things been done differently. Maybe the school would have closed even sooner. Maybe it would have thrived. When something fails, we tend to default to the idea that what transpired was a worst case scenario and anything else would have been better, but that isn’t necessarily so, and there is no way of knowing in advance.

I have reasons not to trust the board in one way. I think they blew it by rejecting the first slate and looking elsewhere. But my lack of trust, which is longstanding and well known in this board, involves trusting that they see VU as in some sense in common spiritual mission with me, the churches I serve and have served, and the LCMS. But I have no reason not to trust their basic administrative competence or math skills, which is what Dr. Becker is asking me to distrust.

One thing I always look for as a potential flaw in any argument is just how plausible is one side’s explanation of the other side’s motives. And in this case, I think it is far more plausible to think that the board and president are operating with proprietary information than to suggest they are just dim witted or dishonest.

That really isn't the case with Bronxville, though. Hindsight is 20/20 but "facts are stubborn things," too. In large part the pandemic provided a diversion of sorts. Some time ago I had an exchange with someone close to the closing and how we knew it was over as early as March 2019 which was a year before the pandemic. The winter/spring 2019 there was discovered a huge budget shortfall of 8.5 million (if not more), the Rexhouse lawsuit against Monique and Concordia (which they should have settled but decided not to which resulted in Synod's lawyers getting involved and dragging out for the next two years ending in a settlement), and then accreditation issues. The lawsuit and accreditation were all over the papers. Even before that traditional enrollment had declined drastically not because of demographic changes but because of turnover due to constant mass firings that seriously impacted morale (while at the same time hiring new people who made larger salaries than previously). The new admissions team simply weren't doing their job because they operated according to a different methodology and they didn't have the institutional knowledge to make it work, either. It simply wasn't sustainable because they had gutted things they didn't need to and as a result lost lots of institutional knowledge in the process. There's so much more, but I think it important to share because most don't know these details and probably never will. It was not some unfortunate tragedy that just happened because there aren't many Lutherans or because it was a hard situation to begin with, that's simply not true. It happened because of very specific decisions and behaviors that were no less than abusive and dehumanizing. I was there, I saw these things happen before my eyes and witnessed these persons wrestle with the abuse and trauma they incurred during this time. And they have simply been forgotten about and overlooked.

Sorry for the thread drift.

Peace,
Scott+

9

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

« on: February 24, 2023, 08:33:05 PM »

So then, Dr. Becker, to what do you attribute the decision by the board and president. It so obviously, ridiculously wrongheaded that the only three options seem to be that they are so incompetent that any professor of any subject can easily see how foolish it is, they are so dishonest that they must be seeking personal gain, or they are dealing with proprietary information and trying to act in the best interest of the school with extremely limited options. John Nunes ran into it at Bronxville. The public information everyone was working with was not the private information he encountered as president.

I have no dog in this fight regarding Valpo but that's not entirely true regarding Bronxville. The issue that you mention regarding public/private information works both ways and can be abused to the advantage of administrators. The years before the pandemic consistently revealed a disconnect between administration and regents and on those on ground perpetuated by those in charge. A cursory view of LCMS Bylaws reveals how easily this can be done, too. There was clear mismanagement before the pandemic that would precipitate Bronxville's closure. Sadly, it has been framed as if it's just because of costs and demographics that it closed which just isn't the whole picture.

Peace,
Scott+

10

Your Turn / Re: Radicalization

« on: February 17, 2023, 12:27:00 AM »

Just seeking clarification, is this post related to the link shared on the LC thread concerning alt-right and white nationalist connections in the LCMS?

11

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 10, 2023, 03:08:12 PM »

I’ve never understood the opposition to Harrison. In prior elections featuring an incumbent ousted, it has seemed to me pretty clear what the voters thought (rightly or wrongly) the problem with the incumbent was that needed a change. But with Harrison it seems like a matter a matter of tribalism: “The kind of people I don’t like seem to like Harrison, so I’m for someone else, and it doesn’t even matter that much who else, just not Harrison, and just because.” As I said upstream, un-electing an incumbent inevitably causes a stir, upsets things, and leads to hurt feelings and conflict. There is no getting around it. That doesn’t mean the pros never outweigh those cons, but it does mean the cons are real and the pros need to make a really solid case.

It depends on where one is in terms of Synod polity. The average pastor is probably in line with your perspective but those active on boards and in districts might say otherwise. In that sense whoever is SP does have an impact on our Life Together. The problem as pointed out above is that the opposition has yet to offer anything distinctive outside of the usual claims about numbers and leadership which are easily debunked by simply pointing to the the Kieshnick era. That course has been tried and been found wanting as no one has been able to stem the decline, not even the big church guys despite their “entrepreneurial” spirits.

So, for those who want someone other than Pres. Harrison, what are they looking for? What do they want in a different leader?

The fact that 48.25% did not want Harrison the last time is an indicator light.  The indication is that there is dissatisfaction with the direction, as has been pointed out.  Four terms = Twelve Years = enough.  As a guy who made it to 8 terms, I can state unequivocally that there were a decent amount of congregations that felt I had stayed too long, maybe way too long.  What people are looking for is somebody with a name different from the name that's there.  American democracy in action. 

Dave Benke

But I doubt you'd be using that logic to actively campaign against Ferry, Maier, Kieschnick, or several others if they were seeking reelection after several terms. Someone who explained their reasoning as, "What people are looking for is somebody with a name different from the name that's there," would generate bemused smiles. So if Harrison changes his name to Joe Schmoe, you're for him? If percentages indicate satisfaction, why not simply state the democratic fact that a majority are satisfied with the direction? How is giving the 48.25% their way going to make the 51.75% happier? You'd still have the same division, just with slightly more dissatisfied people. None of the things you've mentioned here come even close to adding up to a real reason. Just the added burden on the budget of paying the new guy's moving expenses to St. Louis is a bigger con to switching leadership than the pro of getting new nameplates on the doors.

I think RevG has identified at least a real possible reason. I've never heard of any specifics in that regard, but if it were true that Harrison is unable to work with the DP's and various synodical boards, that would be a legit reason to oppose him. I've just never heard anyone make that case.     

Based on my own experience and conversations I believe that is a significant part. Bear in mind that I pastored directly across the street from Concordia-NY for seven years (which included the years leading up to the closure and the closure) and was privy to many things because of that call. I don’t want to say it is a matter of not getting along so much as differing ideological commitments. You probably haven’t heard anything because it is the nature of boards to not divulge such information due to things like professionalism and confidentiality. The other thing that I have come to learn is that we are a rather naïve bunch, a testament, I think, to our own goodness in many ways. It’s also a weakness in the face of those deceitful personalities who are certainly among us. Please don’t take that to suggest that I am saying our SP is deceitful, not at all. I have no dog in this fight, I witnessed enough during that call to be turned off by all sides. The point I am making is that there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, some good and some really bad, some of which can become a motivating factor in looking for a different leader.

12

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 10, 2023, 02:06:00 PM »

I’ve never understood the opposition to Harrison. In prior elections featuring an incumbent ousted, it has seemed to me pretty clear what the voters thought (rightly or wrongly) the problem with the incumbent was that needed a change. But with Harrison it seems like a matter a matter of tribalism: “The kind of people I don’t like seem to like Harrison, so I’m for someone else, and it doesn’t even matter that much who else, just not Harrison, and just because.” As I said upstream, un-electing an incumbent inevitably causes a stir, upsets things, and leads to hurt feelings and conflict. There is no getting around it. That doesn’t mean the pros never outweigh those cons, but it does mean the cons are real and the pros need to make a really solid case.

It depends on where one is in terms of Synod polity. The average pastor is probably in line with your perspective but those active on boards and in districts might say otherwise. In that sense whoever is SP does have an impact on our Life Together. The problem as pointed out above is that the opposition has yet to offer anything distinctive outside of the usual claims about numbers and leadership which are easily debunked by simply pointing to the the Kieshnick era. That course has been tried and been found wanting as no one has been able to stem the decline, not even the big church guys despite their “entrepreneurial” spirits.

So, for those who want someone other than Pres. Harrison, what are they looking for? What do they want in a different leader?

The fact that 48.25% did not want Harrison the last time is an indicator light.  The indication is that there is dissatisfaction with the direction, as has been pointed out.  Four terms = Twelve Years = enough.  As a guy who made it to 8 terms, I can state unequivocally that there were a decent amount of congregations that felt I had stayed too long, maybe way too long.  What people are looking for is somebody with a name different from the name that's there.  American democracy in action. 

Dave Benke

I don’t disagree, I just don’t think it’s enough to unseat Matt.

13

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 10, 2023, 01:38:10 PM »

I’ve never understood the opposition to Harrison. In prior elections featuring an incumbent ousted, it has seemed to me pretty clear what the voters thought (rightly or wrongly) the problem with the incumbent was that needed a change. But with Harrison it seems like a matter a matter of tribalism: “The kind of people I don’t like seem to like Harrison, so I’m for someone else, and it doesn’t even matter that much who else, just not Harrison, and just because.” As I said upstream, un-electing an incumbent inevitably causes a stir, upsets things, and leads to hurt feelings and conflict. There is no getting around it. That doesn’t mean the pros never outweigh those cons, but it does mean the cons are real and the pros need to make a really solid case.

It depends on where one is in terms of Synod polity. The average pastor is probably in line with your perspective but those active on boards and in districts might say otherwise. In that sense whoever is SP does have an impact on our Life Together. The problem as pointed out above is that the opposition has yet to offer anything distinctive outside of the usual claims about numbers and leadership which are easily debunked by simply pointing to the the Kieshnick era. That course has been tried and been found wanting as no one has been able to stem the decline, not even the big church guys despite their “entrepreneurial” spirits.

14

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 10, 2023, 01:14:51 PM »

I was a delegate to the 1969 LCMS Convention (Denver). I've lived through many convention cycles. It seems to me that for the past 40 years or so the rhetoric surrounding conventions has been between those struggling for central control of the synod v. those struggling for demographic and economic success.

The quest for central control includes ecumenical isolation (all the way to absolute "closed communion") and consistent refusal to enter into full communion (altar and pulpit fellowship with anybody). It means a heavy hand of "doctrinal supervision" especially from the president of the synod.

The quest for demographic and economic success seeks to restore the post-war religious boom (of 1945-1960). It expects freedom for local initiatives which foster growth.

Each side claims the other impedes its principal goals. Those seeking central control claim that those who have been successful are not faithful to the confessions. Those seeking success claim that excessive doctrinal supervision over non-confessional issue impedes mission.

May the better side win.   

Peace, JOHN

The outlier, rhen, would be the fact that a big step in centralization was supported by the mission side in the expectation that Kieschnick would win reelection. I think both sides want control but differ in what they want to use it for. The mission side, for example, often entertains ideas designed to more or less force struggling congregations to merge. That is control. Or removing pastors for reasons of "bad fit" or "social skills" rather than false doctrine or scandalous life. Again, supported more often by the mission side, but a matter of control. Both of those solutions might be wise in some circumstances or not, but there is no question doing so would solve some intractable practical problems at the cost of causing some doctrinal problems. On those issues, it is the doctrine guys who oppose central control and the mission guys who propose it.

I would compare it in one way to a branding and simple facts of doing business. The people trying to increase production and lower the cost are typically at odds with the people tasked with quality control. You can always make the product purer and safer and reduce any possibility of a defect getting through if you don't care about speed and cost of production. And you can always produce more faster if you don't worry too much about flaws. The difficulty is in finding the sweet spot that over time results in a trusted, quality brand being accessible to people. If either side completely wins out, you'll get a brand known as cheap junk that few people want or a snooty brand that few people even consider. Not a perfect analogy, of course, but general thrust of quality control being opposed to cost and volume efficiency but both being necessary does apply, I think to some of our synodical divisions.   

I think you're right on this, even if the comparisons are inexact.  As the denomination has become in practice far more clergy-centric, the pure/safe defect reduction division has become by virtue of the type of clergy selected and elected for leadership, more dominant.  Their interests are being served.   There is an obvious need for a sweet spot somewhere towards the middle in terms both of the top leader and the down-ballot leadership selections (and there are lots of those) and elections in order for the denomination to be representative of its constituents. 

One thing to keep in mind this time through is that the Current Occupant of the Walther Chair won by a margin of less than 2% the last time out, against someone who really wasn't running that hard (Dave Meier).  The nomination totals will tell an early tale.  The Harrison Marching and Chowder Society for nomination-gathering is Issues, Etc., which sends out email reminders to that effect to its very large email list and sponsors gatherings prior to the convention to rally the troops.  The Best Practices Group, meeting next week, and composed of a great percentage of the congregations that provide the majority of the Sunday attendance in the LCMS, will most likely settle on Pat Ferry as the candidate of choice.  Or maybe Larry Rast (?).  Not on the inside of those loops any more nor will I be heading out to Phoenix.

Pat Ferry being a midwestern person, we haven't, or at least I haven't, seen or heard that much here on the proper side of the Hudson River.  He is well-known Synod-wide, though, and in the old days was credited by M. Harrison with being the person responsible for the Miracle of Ann Arbor, where under Pat's leadership a very languished college was brought back to life. 

Dave Benke

Maier only got about 40% and Klinkenberg got about 8%. Harrison about 52%. So it was close in relation to previous years but still not as close as the Kieshnick era elections. I don’t know if that is a hill that can be surmounted just from a numbers perspective. People may be unhappy with Matt but are they unhappy enough or upset enough to get Ferry elected. I don’t think they are, but I may be wrong. The other factor is that I don’t think the Harrison opposition tends to see how off putting they may be to the average pastor in the LCMS, too. I think there’s a self-awareness issue there and has been for some time. Just my thoughts, FWIW.

15

Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism

« on: January 26, 2023, 11:52:51 AM »

I read through it yesterday. This is much ado about nothing. I mean this in a good way when I say that it is boringly Lutheran. The essays are practical, not really academic. As one friend put it (again meant not as a criticism) “it’s all just surface takes on the commandments.” Outside of the attention given I probably would never have known about its publication or would not have given much attention to it if I had. Personally, such a book doesn’t really interest me but now I am aware of it because of Gottesdienst. It proves the old adage, “what we resist, persists.”

Currently I have one foot in and one foot out in academia and at present focusing on race is the big trend in various fields. I am currently working my way through a book on Post-Colonial theology and nothing in the LC book comes remotely close to what I come across on a regular basis, not close at all. To me the criticism is representative of an ideological immobilism that is rigidly dehumanizing because it will not take into account the dynamism of human experience.

And does anyone notice that the very behaviors being employed to get this book from being distributed are just like those employed by cancel culturists? Or am I missing something here?

Peace,
Scott+