Messages

Pastor Preus writes:
As far as including homosexuals among oppressed people, there are strong biblical, historical, and cultural arguments in favor of civil laws prohibiting sodomy and other behaviors common among homosexuals.  If DEI meant recognizing that black people have been mistreated over the years and we should be careful not to discriminate against them, I would be all for it.  If it favors social acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, and other perversions, I oppose it.

I comment:
In another thread someone said the existence of a silly juvenile "creed" in one ELCA congregation was reason enough not to fellowship with us.
I might contend (although I would be sad about it) that statements like this mean we should have nothing to do with the LCMS. .

From my vantage point, while debate would arise about what specific laws should or should not be passed, the overall content of Pr. Preus' comment is spot on. Skepticism regarding CRT as a system; general agreement with DEI in regards to race; but rejection of it in regards to things like gender and sexuality.

Depending on how it was crafted, I would be willing to bet that 80 to 90% of current LCMS pastors and congregations would agree with such a statement. Maybe more.

I would.

If it's not too onerous to grant someone temporary access to help with the drudgery, I could donate some time.

I was working in my home office in Newtown, CT that morning...

Wait... I am sitting in my home in Newtown, CT right now. Are you still local?

I moved to Texas in 2013.

Gotcha. Otherwise, we'd have to go get a beverage together.

I was working in my home office in Newtown, CT that morning...

Wait... I am sitting in my home in Newtown, CT right now. Are you still local?

Issues, etc. had a very thorough summary last week. Lots of legal parts to it.

I will echo the request to remove the stickies/pins from the first 113 pages of conversations. Drudgery, but it shouldn't take too long for someone with administrative access.

I came across this article today. It's causing some flair-ups online with some arguing in favor of what Dr. Paulson says and others arguing against. Some, such as Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, have stated that they are glad that Dr. Paulson clearly states his opinions on the matter in this article and that what they have long-accused him of he openly admits here. A couple quotes from the article that others have highlighted as being particularly problematic.

"In other words, Moses invented the theological idea of "sanctification" as something added to justification because he couldn't quite believe that he himself was declared righteous by the second person of the Trinity—and this righteousness had nothing to do with his shining face and two tablets of stone!"

"Paul then put this all together in the conclusion to Romans 10. Sure, it was Moses who wrote Deuteronomy 30, but it was actually the Spirit who spoke the words, so that Moses does not get the privilege of being his own interpreter: Paul recognized that Deuteronomy 30 really says something Moses was trying to avoid—his own sermon was really about the righteousness of faith—not the law. It does not reveal a third use of law, nor does it describe a sanctification in addition to justification. Deuteronomy 30 is not about a free will that is ultimately rewarded for its proper choices. instead—the law has no reward."

Some prominent Lutheran scholars have also accused Dr. Paulson of grossly misrepresenting what Luther says and twisting his words beyond recognition.

The Third Use of the Law has been discussed here before quite often, but I thought this article would be worth exploring. I'd enjoy hearing what others have to say about it.

https://www.lutheranquarterly.org/?p=6315

In Christ,
Vicar Speckhard

I finally read the whole article. Before commenting further, you alluded to several responses... are there any responses you could link to here?

I've read the first part of the article. It feels more like a freewheeling essay than a careful and formal presentation. For example, there's quite a bit of looseness in citations. So one might want to be careful about weighing it to heavily.
[snip]

This is actually one of the criticisms of Paulson, at least by Cooper: Paulson makes a lot of splashy statements, but is very rarely careful to define terms or follow a carefully-reasoned line of thought. To me, in my reading and listening to Paulson (admittedly limited - the article posted here is now on tomorrow's reading list), he seems to relish the role of provocateur, but is often imprecise and a bit careless in doing so.

This ends up, again in my limited exposure, to be rather an unflattering look... rarely does it seem like Paulson fully understands that which he is seeking to dismantle. Chesterton's fence starts to loom large.

[www]

I'm thinking the issue may have something to do with internet routing bug (something of which I have little knowledge).

If you go to https://www.alpb.org/Forum/index.php, no problem logging-in (or staying logged-in, if you already have).

Leave off the "www" and you'll get various errors and/or will not be logged-in.  I've tried this on multiple devices/browsers with the same result. I edited my bookmark to add the triple-dub and it's been fine.

edit: also, the first 115 pages of posts are pinned, so that makes finding things interesting unless you're using the "unread posts" function.

RPG+

It would be really nice to get those first 100+ pages un-pinned/un-stickied! Thanks for the heads-up, though - hadn't figured that out.

No politicking here in Circuit seven of the New England District, either. What I have noticed is this: those who are most motivated to be involved politically at the synodical level, tend to lean more in the "conservative" direction.

I believe that there are very few pastors under the age of 50 who are particularly interested in re-fighting battles over women's role in worship or over contemporary forms of worship. I am sure there are pastors who exist who would fit that description, but I cannot imagine that it is a particularly large percentage. Similarly for the lay people.

I believe that this convention does mark the current direction for the Synod as a primarily liturgically- and theologically-conservative body. I, for one, I have no complaints if that be the case.

You don't have elections of circuit visitors?

Of course we do. And showing dubious judgement, they elected me.

But what I meant was that the Circuit election of voting delegates to convention was entirely free of "politicking", as had been intimated above. Available pastors and lay people allowed their names to stand and indicated what their interest level was. They were elected by the group. No shady email campaigns or loyalty pledges or anything like that. And I can say with a fairly high confidence that this would go for all of the NED. If that's not true of the district of anyone reading, feel free to ask your DP to put you on call lists from our fair district.

No politicking here in Circuit seven of the New England District, either. What I have noticed is this: those who are most motivated to be involved politically at the synodical level, tend to lean more in the "conservative" direction.

I believe that there are very few pastors under the age of 50 who are particularly interested in re-fighting battles over women's role in worship or over contemporary forms of worship. I am sure there are pastors who exist who would fit that description, but I cannot imagine that it is a particularly large percentage. Similarly for the lay people.

I believe that this convention does mark the current direction for the Synod as a primarily liturgically- and theologically-conservative body. I, for one, I have no complaints if that be the case.

My understanding is that in happier healthier days for our Synod, the Synod provided both financial support and theological oversight. Now, that has become theological oversight only. I sympathize with the Concordias that might to start to wonder why Synod gets to call the shots when they don't pay any of the bills.

In the end, it is why I commented long ago that I believe the situation is a fight for control and ownership. Two things that Christians are explicitly not supposed to fight for. I am glad I do not have to try to balance an elected or appointed fiduciary duty with the command to give to a man my tunic when he has asked for my cloak.

My prediction: Synod in convention votes to rebuke CTX leadership, CTX stays the course, and we wait to find out what the courts think. In the end, a bad look for everybody. And I sincerely hope that I will be proven wrong.

Yes, we are called to give our tunic to the one who asks.  However, I do not have the right (or the call) to give someone else's tunic to the one who asks.  And that is the position in which these elected leaders are in.  The university belongs to the synod as a whole.  The synod as a whole has determined how these things are to be handled, and by whom.  And it is not by the school's regents unilaterally declaring themselves independent (that is theft).  Nor can the elected synodical leadership just allow the school to walk off (that is allowing theft from the synod as a whole).  No, there is a process prescribed by the synod in its constitution/bylaws as to how this is to be handled.  And that seems to be what the elected synod leaders -- from President Harrison on down - have been doing.

Agreed. That's why I am glad I don't have to balance a fiduciary duty (safeguarding others' interests on their behalf) with the commands I referenced. Those who have to do so have my prayers!

My understanding is that in happier healthier days for our Synod, the Synod provided both financial support and theological oversight. Now, that has become theological oversight only. I sympathize with the Concordias that might to start to wonder why Synod gets to call the shots when they don't pay any of the bills.

In the end, it is why I commented long ago that I believe the situation is a fight for control and ownership. Two things that Christians are explicitly not supposed to fight for. I am glad I do not have to try to balance an elected or appointed fiduciary duty with the command to give to a man my tunic when he has asked for my cloak.

My prediction: Synod in convention votes to rebuke CTX leadership, CTX stays the course, and we wait to find out what the courts think. In the end, a bad look for everybody. And I sincerely hope that I will be proven wrong.

Actually, in my view, I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here. If CTX has to answer to the LCMS, the LCMS is controlled by its members in convention. Thus, the members have ultimate authority. If CTX does not have to answer to LCMS, then its board of regents have become the centralized authority, whose decisions cannot be reversed by the body. If you want ground up control, you should be in favor of that authority coming through the LCMS, and not being located solely with the CTX board of regents.  That's my take, anyway.

I should mention: the only reason I went into any of this was the suggestion that criticisms of the annotated large catechism were somehow tainted by white nationalism at every level. The concern shared by Pastor Ball (whom I have never met) in his congregational letter is a valid one, to my way of thinking. I am not hopping mad that Paulson was included, though I find it a puzzling and hard-to-explain decision.