Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Global Methodist Church Is 1 Year Old

« on: May 24, 2023, 12:33:07 PM »

What you cannot do is discriminate against them. (And you cannot legally sustain the monumentally stupid idea that selling a cake means you endorse the celebration at which it is eaten. Our supposedly “sacred” rule of law has said that.)

Let's change the hypothetical, then: I'm a church musician. I have, in the past, been asked to play/sing for services (wedding and otherwise) outside of the LCMS, and I have done so, not as something that I advertise, but for friends/acquaintances who have asked me. Were I to be asked, for whatever reason, to offer musical accompaniment of any kind to a same-sex "wedding service," or for any other form of worship at which I knew there would be a celebration of same-sex values, I would, kindly but firmly, refuse to participate. Should I be sued for doing so? Arrested? Punished in some other way by the state? And why, precisely, would this situation be any different from baking a cake?

EDIT: In fact, let's make this hypothetical even stronger: assume, for the sake of argument, that I am not on the LCMS roster, but am instead simply a member in good standing of an LCMS church, and also assume that I do in fact advertise my musical services in some manner. Does this change your answer? And why?

2

Your Turn / Re: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors.... pastor?

« on: May 24, 2023, 12:17:36 PM »

I never understood how any congregation could issue a call to a pastor that congregational leaders had not met or interviewed. And of course, in the LCA and ELCA, the whole congregation gets to vote on whether or not to call a particular Pastor.

Not attempting to be argumentative here, because I think it is certainly a good motivation, and possibly/probably a good practice today to try to place pastors in situations where they will have the best chance of succeeding...but I do think that there is also something to the idea that it might good to spend less time telling God what kind of pastor we need, and more time letting God tell us what kind of pastor we need, as it were.

3

Your Turn / Re: Theater incident

« on: May 12, 2023, 12:14:34 PM »

Pastor Preus:
If patriarchy is opposed to birth control, abortion, and divorce and remarriage, then I support patriarchy.  Traditional Christianity treats women with respect, elevating the office of wife and mother, honoring women for their domestic labors, and protecting women from harm and want. 
Me:
We are in another “different worlds” situation. Women want to be respected for things other than being wife and mother. Beyond “domestic labors.” And they want it clear that they can protect themselves from “harm and want.”

Pastor Preus:
Christian patriarchy features fathers who are married to the mothers of their children and who love their wives as Christ loves his holy church and gave himself for her.  Christian patriarchy sets the spiritual needs of the family above the craving for more money, more power, and more status.  The Christian patriarch teaches God's word to his family, sets aside time for family devotions, loves his wife and treats her with respect, disciplines his children with love, and talks theology with his family with enthusiasm and joy.
Me:
Hogwash! Do you think it is only patriarchy that does these things?

Pastor Preus:
This is why the Christian patriarch opposes feminism and its spawn: abortion, divorce, fornication, the gelding of men, and the breakdown of the family.
Me:
See above. Why the insistence on male domination as the necessary factor of order in the universe?

I do not think it particularly important what women (or men) say that they "want," but rather what God has said that they need. What God has said is exactly what Rev. Preus has described. Thus, the insistence, not on male "domination," whatever that may mean, but on male spiritual headship, is only an insistence on what God has clearly said (yes, clearly, despite all protestations to the contrary). Therefore, as it is what God has instituted, it is, in fact, only Christian patriarchy that does these things.

4

Your Turn / Re: A different take on the guns and schools debate

« on: May 08, 2023, 11:54:21 AM »

I look forward to seeing these new guns in action against the also newly created knives that will only allow you to stab someone once every four minutes and baseball bats that only allow you to strike someone once every four minutes.

5

Your Turn / Re: Homeschooling

« on: May 04, 2023, 03:40:52 PM »

Mr.  Garner:
Your reach in your pastoral office is very limited compared to the reach of a public education establishment that acts as if it owns my kids and exists to protect them from me, their father.
Me:
That’s why some of us take our “pastoral authority” out into the world, and become politically and socially active, picking opportunities to teach those who are not in our pews what we believe is the right thing to do.

I don't think anyone has questioned your right to do that, but it still misses the point. The state has resources and laws that render your voice pretty much impotent, especially when the state takes upon itself to enforce a state-sponsored orthodoxy on children who have a legal obligation to be there or find other alternatives.

And when people seek out those alternatives, you denigrate them as you have in this thread.

Your real issue is not that you think it sufficient to just have pastors go into the world teaching what they believe.  Your real issue is you agree with the state-sponsored orthodoxy, and therefore you don't mind it being imposed on schoolchildren who are there to learn (the purpose of compulsory education laws), but are instead being indoctrinated.  You want the indoctrination.  The rest of this is just noise and rhetorical wallpaper.

I'm going to even go one step further: I don't think there is anything, per se, wrong with "indoctrination." I want my children to be indoctrinated into what is right. I hear a number of parents, in various cases, saying things like, "Well, we want our children to learn to decide these things on their own." I understand somewhat the sentiment behind that...but in some ways, it actually ends up as an abdication of parental duty. It's precisely your job, as a parent, to teach your children the truth, and what is right and what is wrong, and, in fact, to "indoctrinate" your child into those truths. And this is why the current public school system is to be avoided at all costs: it indoctrinates children into falsehoods (and yes, I can state objectively that they are falsehoods).

6

Your Turn / Re: Homeschooling

« on: May 02, 2023, 02:24:01 PM »

There are many reasons to choose an alternate to public schools and the reason is not always that the are bad.
I don’t understand how someone could work in a school that they felt was so bad they would not send their own children there. How could you do that and preserve your own integrity?

Two possibilities: 1) some care not at all about their own integrity, and a whole lot about making money; 2) they stay for the same reason that some clergy stay members of a church body even though they are in complete disagreement with where the body may have moved (on doctrine, on politics, on whatever): because they want to do whatever is in their power to guide those who are in their care, in spite of what is being forced on them from above. (I do not say that I necessarily consider either of these possibilities good and right, just that they are possibilities.)

7

Your Turn / Re: Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court

« on: May 02, 2023, 10:03:17 AM »

There is a policy against name-calling and anonymous posters.

I read several websites’ worth of commentary by the “Mad Christian.” No thanks. Don’t know who or where “Rev Fisk” is, but he is “mad,” not necessarily in the way he uses that word. He too much loves the “war” that feeds his paranoia.

Okay, then.

8

Your Turn / Re: Homeschooling

« on: May 01, 2023, 10:52:01 AM »

Forgive me for my bluntness, but: if there is no Lutheran school option open to me for my children in the future (as there is now), they will certainly be homeschooled, because the public school system at this point is tantamount to widespread child abuse.

9

Your Turn / Re: Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court

« on: May 01, 2023, 10:44:29 AM »

Further, I would venture that we could agree that some homosexual behaviors do physical, and thereby social harm to the body. (Without unnecessary detail,  male bodies have suffered damage that causes lasting ailments and has made them prone to infections.) So that would be a second way of acknowledging social harm.

There is, of course, a very good reason that men who have engaged in homosexual sexual acts were not accepted as blood donors until, I believe, very recently...and the reason for dropping that restriction was very obviously societal pressure, not any actual reconsideration of the amount of risk involved.

10

Your Turn / 1 Corinthians 5:11

« on: April 18, 2023, 04:35:55 PM »

I would appreciate thoughts and comments, from whatever corner, in whatever form, on this verse. Of particular interest/concern to me in my meditations is the inclusion of "reviler" in the list, and how this relates to my own discourse and that of others, particularly in the context of online and social media. Thank you all.

11

Your Turn / Re: Cardinal Stritch University Closing

« on: April 17, 2023, 03:24:22 PM »

But until recent times, Peter, American history was told without the proper balance and information concerning slavery, immigrants, and other groups that were marginalized by our society.

Well, I'm not sure that is true in my experience. Granted, I was educated in the 70's and 80's, but I don't recall the horrors of slavery, the Trail of Tears, or the struggles of immigrants getting short shrift. Sure, there were aspects of the Civil Rights Movement that were still controversial, especially in our region, and a lot of lingering distrust and bitterness that I was unaware of at the time. But at any rate, it is all American history, not white history and black history.

Another interesting and positive illustration from our school. Every other year we do a Living History Museum, and the students research some famous person and then give a first-person presentation as that person, costume and all, to anyone who comes by that booth. Most of the students choose someone who is demographically like them in some way, but that is becoming less and less relevant. Black students will choose a white person or vice versa. Think of liberating that is to the mind of a child to be free of such associations and have the whole panoply of heroes available to identify with.

One thing I'm noticing in this discussion is that few people are willing to take on the thrust of my argument. It is all caveats and "what about this or that" without any commentary on the central point, which is that training people to think in terms of racial identity boxes is counter-productive to its own stated purpose.

Well, I simply agree fully on the central point, but I'll see if I can offer some additional commentary that is, hopefully, not too inflammatory: training people to think in those boxes simply makes it necessary to also train them in the idea that one group must be the "victor," while another group must be the "victim." Thus, of course, the incessant language of needing to somehow rectify "marginalization." But the problem is that as soon as you make someone out to be the "victim," and attempt to rectify that, you must make them into the "victor"...which, of course, merely makes someone else the "victim." I say this next part not as a complaint, but merely as a simple fact: using these ways of thinking, I, as a married (to a woman), white, conservative, Christian (who holds to orthodox Christian views, among which are the male-only pastorate and the impossibility of so-called "same-sex marriage") male, am clearly, in our current society, a member of the most "marginalized" group. Again, this is not a complaint, merely stating a plain, obvious fact (despite the certain protests to come from some corners regarding that statement). I do not wish for anyone to think of me as "marginalized," nor do I actually consider myself to be so...and that, to me, is where we should try to be: serving others as people, not as members of groups, "marginalized" or otherwise.

12

Your Turn / Re: Politics and Mass Shootings

« on: April 13, 2023, 06:50:32 PM »

And here is one aspect of this discussion that I believe must be noted.
Those concerned about strict gun control are perceived to be the dreaded “liberals,“ or “progressives.”
Folks here would rather not take actions that might save the lives of some children if it meant agreeing with some of those dreaded liberals.

I can only speak for myself, but: this is entirely incorrect. The problem is not who is supporting the actions, it is the word "might" in your sentence. The actions also "might" cost more lives than they save. Neither of these outcomes is, with current knowledge, more likely than the other.

13

Your Turn / Re: Politics and Mass Shootings

« on: April 13, 2023, 04:49:12 PM »

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.


It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

And all -- ALL -- of those things to make driving safer are examples of the "small" changes that Mr. Schelp suggested rather the "very disruptive" change like banning automobiles entirely, or even whole classes of automobiles.  So, what would be some possible "small" changes you would suggest for this matter?

Just a note so that it's clear, directly from the horse's mouth: Pr. Bohler has correctly stated my position.

14

Your Turn / Re: Politics and Mass Shootings

« on: April 13, 2023, 02:17:48 PM »

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

15

Your Turn / Re: Politics and Mass Shootings

« on: April 13, 2023, 01:30:45 PM »

Follow the money, Pastor Preus . See what the NRA contribute to politicians, at every single level of our society.
I’ll ask it again. Tell me why any citizen who is not a member of Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain boys in the Times of the American revolution, needs to carry the same kind of weapon used by those in the military services. Are hunters allowed do use weapons which fire 100 rounds a minute or more? Why are these kinds of weapons on the market? Ditto for the flesh-destroying ammo.

.

Why does any citizen need to have golf clubs? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.