Messages

I do not oppose home schooling. I believe it will make it easier for my children, grandchildren and great grand children (should I ever have any) who will be educated in public schools, to win college scholarships, get jobs, and succeed in their careers.
I do oppose tax money used to fund non-public education, except for matters related to health care.
And I think home-school parents should not be allowed to vote in school board elections or on public school budgets.

Sorry, your ignorance is showing. Statistics have long revealed better outcomes for homeschooled students on all standardized tests, grade level accomplishments, etc.

https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa/article/view/543 is just one source from a publicly-funded university.
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/ is a compilation of data by a nonprofit.

I can say from first-hand experience previously having been on staff at a church where the pastor was forced to resign for misconduct that the advice of the lawyers was that the church communicate nothing to no one.

We, being the church, had to disregard that advice in some ways. It certainly makes sense that it would create the least legal liability, but it would not have been caring for the flock.

To some degree, we had to take the view that said, "if this gets us sued, it's a lawsuit we are willing to face - regardless of how likely we are to win."

Sometimes, I fear that the church is too quick to defer to legal advice, rather than filtering it through Scriptural instruction. There were those in the room who were absolutely shocked that we would consider going against the lawyer's input.

This could be - it seems that was the case with Dr. Schulz up at CUW: Dispute Resolution began and the cone of silence descended.

Here's my pie-in-the-sky wish: before the Synodical Cone of Silence descends, the following would be published: the charge, the accuser, and the accused. Those should be public record. Also, an anticipated timeline (the bylaws are pretty clear and specific, so it's not too hard to project what the terminus ad quem would potentially be).

The rule is good, so that things aren't litigated in the press, but the gag order is overly quick and overly gagged. That's my opinion, anyway.

I am just replying, like you, to Pr. Klinkenberg's comment. It seems backward that an enemy would more greatly zero in on the defensive fortifications and that the solution is forward thinking.

I just don't understand the criticism he seems to be leveling. It seems to say: "If we were advancing, the enemy wouldn't zero in on us." Doesn't read quite right to me.

...in the absence of any forward momentum as a denomination we have taken up defense fortifications, and once we do that the enemy zeroes in...

Are you asserting by this that the LCMS under current leadership lacks any forward momentum and is now merely defensive in posture? 

If so, how would you envision "forward momentum" synodically speaking?

And, with that... wouldn't you say that it is the forward moving units, rather than the stagnant defenses, that the enemy would most target?

I've not read the case/article and I won't.  Deuteronomy 22:5 answers the matter well enough for me.

Who decides what type of clothing belongs to what sex? More than once, I've heard the alb called "a dress." We can appear like men in women's clothing. My brother-in-law bought and wore a kilt when they visited Scotland.

I'll have to do some research as to whether or not the biblical terms for clothing are gender specific.

I have an idea: try telling a drag queen that their clothing is gender neutral... Let us know the response.

I am starting a thread here, as the connection to Harrison's letter (the thread which has been taken over by Russian conversation) is thin at best.

The article is fantastic. Thanks for sharing it, Pr. Speckhard, and please thank your nephew for writing it.

Except it didn't... Reread Harrison's letter:

I am not speaking about the individuals who may have expressed theological concerns about the essays published alongside the Catechism. I'm talking about a small number of men who based their opposition upon racist and supremacist ideologies. The former we welcome. The latter we condemn. 

I don't have a smartphone.  I cannot access Twitter on my laptop.  I haven't been able to read the material from the alt-right that President Harrison addresses in this letter.  Is there someplace I can go online to see what everyone is talking about?  I'd also like to know how widespread this is.  How many people are we talking about?  Are any of these people theologically trained?  Any pastors?

You don't need the Twitter app to go here. https://twitter.com/CoreyJMahler

It is worthy of note, even though he has a lay person, because his language in praise of western Christendom overlaps heavily with a lot of classical education approaches. The ability of proponents of those approaches to distinguish their words from his will be quite important, I think.

Actually, for clarity: Gordon-Connell is selling the South Hamilton campus, but is keeping its North Carolina campus and is finalizing plans to move its Massachusetts in-person classes back into Boston, which it has done for over a decade through its Center for Urban Ministry Experience (CUME).

None of the professors have been told with certainty which ones will be making the move into the city, from what I have been told... but they'll all be closer to you there in Dedham.

The CTCR published something on it within the last three years. A little digging and I might be able to find it...

Ah... very little digging. First report on this page (https://www.lcms.org/about/leadership/commission-on-theology-and-church-relations/documents/marriage-and-sexuality). I recall not being entirely in agreement, but I haven't read it since its publication in 2021, so I have grown fuzzy on the details.

You might begin by urging the attackers who started this to repent and seek opportunities to reconcile with the persons they have offended. That would help restore peace. Arguing that they are now being treated unfairly will only prolong the trouble.

Again, I have seen people live in anger and vindictivenes to the point of self destruction. The outcomes are very sad.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: my argument here has never been specifically about "the attackers;" that's a discussion for a separate time. This blog post tarred congregations, pastors, and others with guilt by association; they are the ones who are being treated incredibly unfairly. Forgive me if I continue to argue their case.

Which blog post? Which congregations, pastors, and others? Why these vague innuendos?

The concern is the blog referenced by Pastor Benke, which doxxes Corey Mahler and provides a lengthy catalog of his worst moments. It also doxxes Ryan Turnipseed and several others. It gives the names of their churches and pastors and has several phrases recommending action be taken without specifying exactly what action.

It's a bit concerning that this is the first post on that particular blog, so it doesn't seem to be some long-running, "out-the-right-wingers" endeavor... not sure what those implications are. Pastor Engelbrecht seems to think it's by supporters of the Annotated Large Catechism, though I find that a bit of a stretch on it's face value.

Reducing the concern to "he doesn't like it because he doesn't like Paulson" would be a pretty flat reading in my view.

You'll get no argument from me, because I never said that.

Agreed.

So it was a somewhat evenhanded dissing. 😃 I'd ask what is wrong with Paulson's essay, other than that he should be canceled for his theological view on another issue, but I'll find out when I read the essay.

Back at Sem StL, I took a summer class with David Lumpp. One of the assigned texts was Forde's Theology Is for Proclamation. I remember a quip during class about Forde's soteriology: "He doesn't have one!" But, I found that book to be an awesome, insightful discussion of the masks of God, the hidden God, etc.It had a profound effect on my theological education. I've quoted from it hereon several times over the years. So, I find that simply canceling a theologian because he/she is even way off-base on another theological issue or issues is somewhat myopic.

Don, good point.  Even though I have huge problems with aspects of Forde's theology (view of the Law; atonement), he has some good things to say on other things.

In the same way, and I think I mentioned this in a previous post, Herman Sasse is a hero within the LCMS even though Sasse's views on the historicity of Genesis chapters 1-11 (which many pastors in the LCMS do not know about) would shock many.

Cooper's critique, which admittedly goes beyond my own reading of the source material, is that Paulson holds a view of the Law which is incompatible with the confessions' view of the law. This  makes it strange that Paulson was asked to contribute an essay specifically on the topic of the law. Even within that, his essay is commenting on the third commandment, and holds a view of the divine service which is not that commonly taught within our Synod, conflating election with kerygma and all but eliminating both the sacrament and the human response of praise and thanksgiving.

Reducing the concern to "he doesn't like it because he doesn't like Paulson" would be a pretty flat reading in my view.

I can admit that I still find it very odd that in an LCMS publication commissioned by the CTCR, anyone felt it necessary to include ELCA contributors. I'm not offended by it, but it seems strange decision to me.