Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: "Concordia University Texas holds to 'ill-advised' course to separate"

« on: Today at 02:15:29 PM »

On the Concordia - Texas website,  a couple of things stand out.  First, they are clear that the relationship with the LCMS is that they are "aligned" with the Synod.  I think that needs to be defined.  What do they mean by this?  The word can imply they are "in line" with the Synod and therefore support it?  But to what degree? Is it only a loose association of common history or an alignment of common goals and convictions?  Which brings me to the second point.  The website notes they are clearly a DEI institution. We know what this means in society, education and business. What exactly does that imply at C-TX, especially with respect to being "aligned" with the LCMS?

And in the end, what does this mean for those trained to be called workers in the Synod?

Don, what did you take from the website to be a "clearly DEI institution?"  I read the description of DEI on the website and noted a Black and a Latino Student Union.  I'm not sure what was inherently wrong with anything I saw.  What did you see that gave you alarm?

Dave Benke

https://www.concordia.edu/about/diversity-equity-inclusion.html

...Living out the institution’s mission of empowering students of all backgrounds to lead lives of critical thought, compassionate action, and courageous leadership requires us to create safe and intentional spaces to foster conversation and action around diversity, equity, and inclusion...

DEI normally concerns much more than just racial groups.  As one site notes: “Diversity” refers to the representation of people from a variety of backgrounds – particularly referring to people of different races, genders, sexual orientations, disabilities, religions and more – at all levels in an organization, including the leadership level.

Thus, in keeping with the true nature of DEI, I would imagine that if an institution advertises itself as DEI compliant, that would include safe spaces, inclusion and affirmation of the variety of "sexual orientations" and "genders" as well as the other areas.

I bolded the last section, Don.  Are you saying that the CTX site defines "diversity" in the way mentioned?  I didn't find that definition on the CTX site. 

If it's not, then what you're stating is that it's not possible for a Missouri Synod University to use the terms Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in its materials. 

Dave Benke

They do not seem to explicitly 'define' DEI.  That said, DEI, from what I have read, refers to the diversity, equity and inclusion that includes people from all those categories.  If it is defined differently in different places where some include some of these categories and leave out others, then I guess I do not understand DEI. 

2

Your Turn / Re: "Concordia University Texas holds to 'ill-advised' course to separate"

« on: Today at 12:58:53 PM »

On the Concordia - Texas website,  a couple of things stand out.  First, they are clear that the relationship with the LCMS is that they are "aligned" with the Synod.  I think that needs to be defined.  What do they mean by this?  The word can imply they are "in line" with the Synod and therefore support it?  But to what degree? Is it only a loose association of common history or an alignment of common goals and convictions?  Which brings me to the second point.  The website notes they are clearly a DEI institution. We know what this means in society, education and business. What exactly does that imply at C-TX, especially with respect to being "aligned" with the LCMS?

And in the end, what does this mean for those trained to be called workers in the Synod?

Don, what did you take from the website to be a "clearly DEI institution?"  I read the description of DEI on the website and noted a Black and a Latino Student Union.  I'm not sure what was inherently wrong with anything I saw.  What did you see that gave you alarm?

Dave Benke

https://www.concordia.edu/about/diversity-equity-inclusion.html

...Living out the institution’s mission of empowering students of all backgrounds to lead lives of critical thought, compassionate action, and courageous leadership requires us to create safe and intentional spaces to foster conversation and action around diversity, equity, and inclusion...

DEI normally concerns much more than just racial groups.  As one site notes: “Diversity” refers to the representation of people from a variety of backgrounds – particularly referring to people of different races, genders, sexual orientations, disabilities, religions and more – at all levels in an organization, including the leadership level.

Thus, in keeping with the true nature of DEI, I would imagine that if an institution advertises itself as DEI compliant, that would include safe spaces, inclusion and affirmation of the variety of "sexual orientations" and "genders" as well as the other areas. 

3

Your Turn / Re: "Concordia University Texas holds to 'ill-advised' course to separate"

« on: Today at 09:08:50 AM »

On the Concordia - Texas website,  a couple of things stand out.  First, they are clear that the relationship with the LCMS is that they are "aligned" with the Synod.  I think that needs to be defined.  What do they mean by this?  The word can imply they are "in line" with the Synod and therefore support it?  But to what degree? Is it only a loose association of common history or an alignment of common goals and convictions?  Which brings me to the second point.  The website notes they are clearly a DEI institution. We know what this means in society, education and business. What exactly does that imply at C-TX, especially with respect to being "aligned" with the LCMS?

And in the end, what does this mean for those trained to be called workers in the Synod?

4

Your Turn / Re: New Book commemorating the 50th anniversary of the CSL Walkout

« on: June 07, 2023, 10:02:57 PM »

Bishop,

If Herb said it, then he certainly thought so. But I can only conclude he must have been mistaken, or that you misunderstood what he meant.

I have always taught PV and still do without apology; but as a venerable tradition of the Church and not as a Scriptural dogma (as St. Basil indicated), a venerable tradition witnessed in the Lutheran Symbols.

I was responsible for the cancellation of a celebration of the Sacrament once during a pastoral conference. I thought at the time it was the wisest course given the disarray present among the brotherhood at the time. In retrospect, my action ended up not helping resolve the difficulties, and being responsible for more offense. I apologized to the pastoral conference when it was gathered again, asking and receiving forgiveness. However, the refusal to celebrate in that context had nothing whatsoever to do with the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.

As to defining sacerdotalist, I’d point to the definition in Christian Cyclopedia: “View acc. to which the laity can est. relation with God only through priests.” No Lutheran, or at least no Lutheran who subscribes to the confessions, believe that! Therefore certainly not something that any of the writers or editors for Gottesdienst would hold to.

Will, when I served at Good News we put out an issue with articles about confession and absolution. We were taken to task by a group teaching that people could only receive forgiveness through the absolution of their pastor. (They communicated these things in an online group titled "Cat42" or something like that. I was given a whole ream of printouts to review.) I also met with laity whose pastor was teaching them that they did not receive forgiveness of sins when they asked for it through the Lord's Prayer. They only received when they received absolution at church. So the view was definitely out there about 20--25 years ago. I don't hear these things now.

For what it's worth, I used to be on the CAT41 list (it stood for "Confess and Teach for Unity), and while I don't recall that discussion, I can say that it is not what I ever believed as a Lutheran, nor what I believe now.

I think there is a hyper-sacerdotal position that is not unique to Lutherans.  There are Orthodox priests and laity who believe unless you confess to a priest, you are not forgiven (some say you must confess to a monk, which is obviously insane, given that monasticism developed centuries after John Chapter 20 was written).  My own priest once preached on confession, and said "God forgives whether there's a priest there or not, but you receive forgiveness in a very specific, reassuring way in the Sacrament."  I think this is concurrent with the very Lutheran idea, which is shared in the Orthodox Church outside the rigorists noted above, that the keys are given to the Church and administered in good order by the ministers (in our case, chiefly the bishops and secondarily the presbyters, in your case by the pastor).  We are given confession so that we might spit the poison of sin from our mouth and hear God's forgiveness in our ears.  It is not given so that we can tick off a checkbox so God will admit us to the wedding feast.

CAT 41 was named for the Prodigy message boards category for discussion of Lutheran theology--Category 41. The Prodigy group had pretty much died and then a group that was active on LTHRN-L left that list (or were removed from that list by the moderators for being extremely rude and insulting, depending on your viewpoint) and started CAT 41. It was owned and operated by a pastor named Eric Stefanski who, last I heard, had left the LCMS for ELDONA.

And yes, some of those on the CAT 41 list did believe that only a pastor could absolve. When I pointed out that the Treatise teaches differently (using a story from Augustine about a Christian who baptized a man on a ship, who then absolved the one who baptized him), well, they weren't too happy with me. I never understood a group who kept shouting about how confessional they were and yet rejected the plain words of the Confessions. *sigh*

Thanks for correcting my memory about the board name. I do think they intended to be Confessional. I think sometimes people follow a trajectory of theology rather than a canon. What I read from them sounded like guys wanting to secure the importance of pastoral ministry overagainst "everyone's a minister" thinking. So they followed the trajectory rather than the confessions. I do think something similar has happened with progressive Lutherans but with a different trajectory.

 CAT-41 stands for "Confess and Teach for Unity".  See: http://www.cat41.org/

5

Your Turn / Re: New Book commemorating the 50th anniversary of the CSL Walkout

« on: June 07, 2023, 11:46:49 AM »

Bishop,

Funny how framing changes the emphasis: for it is equally true that the Best Practices tribe has no dialog with the Gottesdiesnt crowd. And what evidence can you bring forward to demonstrate that Gottesdienst represents a sacerdotalist point of view? I suspect it’s the same amount of evidence you can bring forth on your accusations of some unnamed Lutheran pastors breaking fellowship over the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nada.

Interesting.  Wasn't it Herman Otten and others who also accused the same group of being "sacradotalists"?  Anyone have a good definition we can use so we all understand who these people are supposed to be?

6

Your Turn / Re: New Book commemorating the 50th anniversary of the CSL Walkout

« on: June 07, 2023, 10:34:23 AM »

I think many today realize that the Seminex generation is largely retired and many have passed away. Some of us who graduated within the shadow of it, having professors who actually had living memory of the events, may still carry some wariness.  But the issues impacting the LCMS today come from other quarters.  Following on the 'Battle for the Bible' in the 70s was the battle for the church in the 80s when church growth was in full swing.  CW was an offshoot of this and has transformed many of our parishes into institutions, in my opinion, that are sometimes hardly distinguishable from the non-denom churches.  Questioning the veracity of the Biblical text gave way to relevant sermons that simply turned homiletics into self-help speeches full of the power of positive thinking.

We are polarized, but the center of part of that polarization, in my opinion, impacts what happens on Sunday morning in the sanctuary. 

7

Your Turn / Re: Is Thrivent No Longer Neutral on "Gay Pride"?

« on: June 07, 2023, 10:11:45 AM »

I found Sullivan’s piece of interest on the odd dynamics of this whole area: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-queers-versus-the-homosexuals-cfd

Fascinating article.  I guess I didn't fully appreciate that the cultural implosion we are beginning to witness is also coming from within and affecting the traditional homosexual community.  But that makes sense.  When you erase any sense of truth from the discussion, then anything is good and anything is permissible, and anything is possible.  It's interesting to see someone from the gay community sounding the alarm on what the "queer" community is pushing, especially among children.  To think even they may be concerned is saying a lot.  The alarm bells are sounding and even those on the cultural left are beginning to hear them.  But even this author realizes that it may not be at all possible to reverse what is now in full motion.  A true train wreck of monumental proportions.  And we may be powerless to avert the disaster; only be there to pick up the pieces after the accident is fully finished. 

8

Your Turn / Re: Is Thrivent No Longer Neutral on "Gay Pride"?

« on: June 07, 2023, 09:18:54 AM »

I would add this NBC report to the discussion as well, as it includes a Gallup poll from the previous year and fleshes out the current dynamics, especially as they are seen by generation. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/percentage-lgbtq-adults-us-doubled-decade-gallup-finds-rcna16556

This article predicts that the generally reported acceptance of LBBTQ+ rights and lifestyles will essentially outpace and replace the non-acceptance of it.  As the end of the article states: "But she also noted that — consistent with Gallup’s data — as more Americans know trans people and more young people identify as LGBTQ, acceptance will grow. As for those pushing anti-transgender legislation, she added, “Someday, they’ll be in the dustbin of history.”

Perhaps.  But we are seeing a different dynamic at play as well.  Such as in women's sports, with the question of whether trans-women should compete against biological women.  And those pushing back aren't just a bunch of grumpy old Baby Boomers. 

The transformation of my culture, while it does not entirely surprise or shock me, does concern me.  I can only imagine, if the predictions of the article come true, how marginalized I and my church will one day become.  But these are the latter days.  I should expect this.

9

Your Turn / Re: Is Thrivent No Longer Neutral on "Gay Pride"?

« on: June 07, 2023, 09:07:46 AM »

I suspect that for Thrivent the issue of rainbow pride is akin to how it is becoming so for all kinds of organizations - government, schools, and corporations in general.  Right now, for "Pride Month", my governor is flying the "Pride Flag" above our capital building in Madison.  He's been doing that for some time now.  Bud Light and Target, among others, tried to blend Pride Month with their stores and products.  It feels much like the issue was when BLM was the topic of debate and discussion.  If you didn't support BLM, or the idea in lower case letters ("black lives matter"), you were considered racist and bigoted. So, too, now with issues surrounding the LGBTQ+ community.  Civil Rights and the call for complete acceptance and inclusion of all within the rainbow spectrum goes hand-in-hand.  That means that public school curricula must now include instruction on how to accept and embrace these varied lifestyles and identities.  The polarization of our society is widening in the process, but larger organizations seem to think that by embracing the cause they will be seen by the broader culture and society as on the 'right side of history' and will be viewed in the correct moral position overall.

But there's mounting push-back.  Bud Light has taken a huge hit financially.  Billions of dollars lost in revenue.  Target had to scale back its displays to less visible areas of the store.  Parents are boycotting school pride rallies and showing up at school board meetings to protest what is taught in their children's classrooms. 

While the national percentage of those who identify on the LBBTQ+ spectrum has doubled over the last decade and is predicted by some to approach upwards of 10% in the future, that still leaves a vast majority who do not identity with this.  I think right now the push to have children embrace alternate identities and even take steps to physically alter their bodies to match those perceived identities is on the rise as it has never been before.  I foresee a real crisis here as down the road many adults realize they made such decisions far too early in life.  I can't imagine what it will be for those people who must find a way to put together lives altered when they were too young to understand. 

Thrivent's choice to raise the Pride Flag is only one among many today.  And what many do not see below all this is the broiling resentment and frustration in the broader culture.  It's there and popping up more and more.  We have a looming crisis of far larger dimensions that what we currently see. 

Lord, have mercy. 

10

Your Turn / Re: Is Thrivent No Longer Neutral on "Gay Pride"?

« on: June 06, 2023, 10:57:46 AM »

Thrivent, as opposed to a church, is not beholding to any creed or confession.  They are first and foremost a financial institution.  Now they also fly under the banner of a "fraternal benevolent society", which is different than a 'for profit' insurance agency. 

I also have much invested in Thrivent, and am not sure what to do about their shift to this so-called advocacy during Pride Month.  Looking back I suppose I now wish that I had merely invested in a purely financial institution, but in my day Aid Association for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood seemed so aligned with the Lutheran church and its values.  But with the great division within Lutheranism over the decades, it was naive of me to ever expect that a "fraternal benevolent society" of such diversity would ever align with my own moral convictions.

11

Your Turn / A Catholic-Public Charter School in Oklahoma

« on: June 06, 2023, 09:18:12 AM »

I know we have had a number of discussions and debates regarding public education and religion.  Here is something just reported by The New York Times.  I'm sure this will send a few sparks flying....

State officials in Oklahoma approved the local Roman Catholic archdiocese’s request to operate a public charter school. It will be the first explicitly religious public school in the U.S. in modern times, experts say. Supporters of the school hope to use it as a test case to take to the Supreme Court and win a clear right for charter schools to offer religious instruction.

Charter schools are public schools, financed by taxpayer dollars, but given the freedom to operate more flexibly than traditional schools. Nationwide, 8 percent of public schools are charter schools. Advocates of religious charter schools argue that church groups should have the same right to manage schools as other organizations.

Opponents argue that religious charter schools erase the separation between church and state by using government funds to support religious instruction. Over time, opponents say, the growth of church-affiliated charter schools could starve traditional schools of funding and lead to increased segregation of children along religious lines. Rachel Laser, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized the Oklahoma decision as “a sea change for American democracy” and promised to file legal action against it.

The Oklahoma board that oversees charter schools voted 3-2 to approve the new school, which will be called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. It will focus on students in rural areas. You can read more about the decision in this story by my colleague Sarah Mervosh.
And at the court

Whatever happens with the Oklahoma case, the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has already expanded the reach and influence of religious groups. “The Supreme Court has over the last few years issued an extraordinary series of decisions expanding the role of religion in public life, sometimes at the expense of other values, like gay rights and access to contraception,” Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, told me.

Between the 1950s and mid-1980s, the court sided with religious interests roughly half the time, an academic study found. Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the share has jumped to more than 80 percent. By some measures, Roberts and the five other current conservative justices appear to be the six most pro-religion justices in the court’s history.

The kinds of cases the court is hearing have changed, too, Adam notes. When Earl Warren was chief justice in the 1950s and 1960s, all of the rulings in favor of religion benefited minority groups or dissenting practitioners. In the Roberts court, the winners tend to be mainstream Christians.

In cases over the past several years, the court has ruled that:

    A high school football coach has a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
    Employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers at church-run schools whose duties include religious instruction.

    A Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia can defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to care for foster children.

    Employers can deny contraception coverage to female workers on religious grounds.

    Financial-aid programs and other government benefits for private schools cannot exclude religious schools.

12

Your Turn / Re: Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

« on: June 03, 2023, 09:07:37 AM »

Brian, when you were a parish pastor, would you have celebrated the historic festival of St. Michael and All Angels?  I know it occurs on a weekday, but some of us transfer it to the nearest Sunday. Or is this a festival with which you do not agree and therefore would avoid it?

Also, I'm not sure why you focus so much on art where wings and halos are portrayed, as if that helps to disprove the presence of angelic beings.  Halos, for one thing, as symbols of holiness, which characterized those beings who did not fall into sin. 

13

Your Turn / Re: Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:03:50 AM »

I confess this may be a point of Orthodox-Lutheran distinctives, but it seems to me that even if you assume the Scriptures do not deal with demonic possession and the like in the Old Testament, you have to figure out a way to square that with the lived experience of the Saints.  We have 2000 years of Church history detailing the demonic, the aerial spirit realm, etc.  Granted, some Orthodox go over the cliff on some of that stuff, and there is reason to have some level of skepticism and not accept every claim as valid.  But it also seems to me that, leaving aside Pastor Speckhard's wise observation that our Lord was not duped into thinking certain things were demonic when in fact there is a perfectly reasonable, natural explanation, we give somewhat lesser insult to the Saints on the same ground.

Worse, this idea that they are "semi-divine" is simply a misunderstanding of what demons are.  Demons in the Christian understanding are fallen angels.  That is, they are 1) created, and 2) therefore not divine. The notion that demons are some sort of equal (or semi-equal) to God is a misunderstanding.  And the worst ramification of such thinking is this -- if you don't believe in demons, why would you believe in angels, which are CLEARLY represented in the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Regarding angels, I've used, and like the title of Claus Westermann's book, God's Angels Need No Wings. I've done quite a study on "angels" (malakim, aggeloi). Both terms literally mean, "messengers." They are never pictured as having wings in scriptures. (Cherubim and Seraphim are described as having wings, but they are not angels/messengers. The biblical descriptions of them is not at all like the common figures of angels with two wings.) In earliest writings, the "messengers" from God appear as human beings - often mistaken as another human. In other writings, the messengers appear in dreams, e.g., to Joseph in Matthew in contrast to Gabriel appearing directly to Mary in Luke.

In some occurrences, the "angel" appears to be the same as God. The angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2, 4); or Jacob wrestling with an angel/God (Hosea 12:4, cf. Genesis 32:28, 30). The messenger is seen as the same as the one sending the message.

A different picture comes in Daniel, where Michael is no longer a messenger who comes to earth, but a protector. He represents the people in heaven. He fights other "princes" in the heavenly realm, who represent other nations.

The idea of fallen angels comes clearly from 1 Enoch, which is not a book of Scriptures. It's possible that the "Nephalim" in Genesis 6:1-4. The root NPhL means "to fall," it may be that this word refers to the fallen ones. The word also occurs in Numbers 13:33 where people seem like grasshoppers next to them. This probably led the LXX translators to use gigantes = "giants" for Nephalim.

The punishment of the fallen angels in 1 Enoch is picked up in Revelation and may be related to Luke 10:18 where Jesus sees "Satan falling." In contrast to the angelic heavenly battle in Daniel, Jesus sees the battle happening between his disciples and Satan and symbols of evil on earth.

You answered but did not address what Mr. Garner actually noted regarding the two millenia of church history and its witness to the angelic beings.  Any thoughts there?

Nearly all of what I've seen and heard about angelic beings in the present day is not biblical. All the pictures and sculptures of angels with two wings is not biblical. The idea that demons are "fallen angels" is extra-biblical. Granted, the Orthodox are more accepting of extra-biblical writings than Rome or Protestants. I think that we have to be clear when talking about angels that we are centered in what the Bible indicates rather than modern culture.

The idea that being created means not-divine, I think is a bit false, too. We have the phrase "sons of God" in scriptures. Sons are created, but generally are the same stuff as the parent. I believe that the "sons of God" are presented as divine beings in Genesis and Job.

He's also mistaken by saying that I don't believe in demons. I stated that there are evils that are best explained by the presence of evil forces that are beyond our understanding. There is an invisible spirit world that is often better accepted by some pagan religions or primitive thinking, e.g., voodoo; eastern mystics, that is mostly overlooked in our western, enlightened culture. The presence of faith healers and exorcists in Africa is better accepted as "normal" than they are in the U.S.

So coming back to Mr. Garner's comments, "We have 2000 years of Church history detailing the demonic, the aerial spirit realm, etc.", you would discount the fairly universal observations and confessions of the Church for these two millennia.  It would appear that biblical understandings of the ancient church up to our times regarding the angelic/demonic realm has largely been a case of misinterpretation only corrected in relatively modern times by certain biblical scholars.  Am I hearing you correctly?

14

Your Turn / Re: Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

« on: June 01, 2023, 05:43:47 PM »

I confess this may be a point of Orthodox-Lutheran distinctives, but it seems to me that even if you assume the Scriptures do not deal with demonic possession and the like in the Old Testament, you have to figure out a way to square that with the lived experience of the Saints.  We have 2000 years of Church history detailing the demonic, the aerial spirit realm, etc.  Granted, some Orthodox go over the cliff on some of that stuff, and there is reason to have some level of skepticism and not accept every claim as valid.  But it also seems to me that, leaving aside Pastor Speckhard's wise observation that our Lord was not duped into thinking certain things were demonic when in fact there is a perfectly reasonable, natural explanation, we give somewhat lesser insult to the Saints on the same ground.

Worse, this idea that they are "semi-divine" is simply a misunderstanding of what demons are.  Demons in the Christian understanding are fallen angels.  That is, they are 1) created, and 2) therefore not divine. The notion that demons are some sort of equal (or semi-equal) to God is a misunderstanding.  And the worst ramification of such thinking is this -- if you don't believe in demons, why would you believe in angels, which are CLEARLY represented in the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Regarding angels, I've used, and like the title of Claus Westermann's book, God's Angels Need No Wings. I've done quite a study on "angels" (malakim, aggeloi). Both terms literally mean, "messengers." They are never pictured as having wings in scriptures. (Cherubim and Seraphim are described as having wings, but they are not angels/messengers. The biblical descriptions of them is not at all like the common figures of angels with two wings.) In earliest writings, the "messengers" from God appear as human beings - often mistaken as another human. In other writings, the messengers appear in dreams, e.g., to Joseph in Matthew in contrast to Gabriel appearing directly to Mary in Luke.

In some occurrences, the "angel" appears to be the same as God. The angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2, 4); or Jacob wrestling with an angel/God (Hosea 12:4, cf. Genesis 32:28, 30). The messenger is seen as the same as the one sending the message.

A different picture comes in Daniel, where Michael is no longer a messenger who comes to earth, but a protector. He represents the people in heaven. He fights other "princes" in the heavenly realm, who represent other nations.

The idea of fallen angels comes clearly from 1 Enoch, which is not a book of Scriptures. It's possible that the "Nephalim" in Genesis 6:1-4. The root NPhL means "to fall," it may be that this word refers to the fallen ones. The word also occurs in Numbers 13:33 where people seem like grasshoppers next to them. This probably led the LXX translators to use gigantes = "giants" for Nephalim.

The punishment of the fallen angels in 1 Enoch is picked up in Revelation and may be related to Luke 10:18 where Jesus sees "Satan falling." In contrast to the angelic heavenly battle in Daniel, Jesus sees the battle happening between his disciples and Satan and symbols of evil on earth.

You answered but did not address what Mr. Garner actually noted regarding the two millenia of church history and its witness to the angelic beings.  Any thoughts there?

15

Your Turn / Re: Witch Hunts, Scapegoating, and Upheaval

« on: June 01, 2023, 11:07:31 AM »

The Church, indeed, has a rich history with respect to the spirit realm (angels and demons).  This is reflected as well in the holy festival of St. Michael and All Angels (Michaelmas, Sept. 29 in the western calendar, Nov. 8 in the eastern), which dates from around the 5th century.  In the lectionary readings appointed for this day a reading from Daniel brings to us the great conflict between these spiritual realms, as does the reading from Revelation 12. It is clear that the historic church took seriously this spirit realm and its impact on the world.   

Philip Melanchthon has left us a great hymn from the 16th century, "Lord God, to Thee We Give All Praise" that also highlights the work of angels as these beings interact with the "ancient dragon", the "roaring lion".  Luther, likewise, ended his morning and evening prayers imploring God that He let His "holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me."