Coronavirus news

[D. Engebretson]

There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

Okay, but what if there are experts who do have background and training in infectious diseases that are not on the CDC?  Can we trust them or compare and contrast what they say with findings of the CDC, or is the CDC the only and final word on this?

I can't recall hearing from any experts on infectious diseases that disagreed with the CDC. (Those I have heard about, were not experts in that field.) Perhaps it's because the news sources I listen to only interview those in agreement with the CDC. In addition, when the CDC issues a statement, it isn't from one expert, but their team of experts who come to an agreement (or perhaps, majority rule?) about what statements they will make. If someone outside of the CDC makes a statement, it's usually their own opinion.

The danger in the bold section is that anytime we are gathering news it's easy to end up in our own echo chamber.  And that is the case equally for those on the right and on the left.  Sometimes it is the minority opinion that ends up being right.  I respect and appreciate the work the CDC has done for our country, but it is not sacrosanct for me.  The head of the CDC is usually a political appointment without Senate approval.  And although the current head has impressive credentials, there's bound to be some political influence due to the appointment process coming from the party/candidate in power at the moment.   

[D. Engebretson]

And when they challenge you with ideas that are not correct? Some I've encountered over the years: "We can't have communion once a week. That's too Catholic." (Or, "That's not Lutheran.") "Crossing yourself is wrong." "I really like this tract that tells us the four steps we need to take to become Christian." And so on.

I never said that the person in the pew is infallible anymore than the man in the pulpit.  I would hope that in the congregation there is respect for the pastor and an atmosphere of trust that such issues could be discussed.  Sometimes people have impressions from their youth that need to be clarified.  A pastor's ongoing work is always teaching and catechizing the flock, and we pray that the Word is what convicts the heart and changes the mind to believe what is true.   

[D. Engebretson]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body. 

[James S. Rustad]

There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

Okay, but what if there are experts who do have background and training in infectious diseases that are not on the CDC?  Can we trust them or compare and contrast what they say with findings of the CDC, or is the CDC the only and final word on this?

I can't recall hearing from any experts on infectious diseases that disagreed with the CDC. (Those I have heard about, were not experts in that field.) Perhaps it's because the news sources I listen to only interview those in agreement with the CDC. In addition, when the CDC issues a statement, it isn't from one expert, but their team of experts who come to an agreement (or perhaps, majority rule?) about what statements they will make. If someone outside of the CDC makes a statement, it's usually their own opinion.

The danger in the bold section is that anytime we are gathering news it's easy to end up in our own echo chamber.  And that is the case equally for those on the right and on the left.  Sometimes it is the minority opinion that ends up being right.  I respect and appreciate the work the CDC has done for our country, but it is not sacrosanct for me.  The head of the CDC is usually a political appointment without Senate approval.  And although the current head has impressive credentials, there's bound to be some political influence due to the appointment process coming from the party/candidate in power at the moment.

The bold section is why I try to gather news and opinions from several sources.  I listen to conservative talk radio as well as NPR (well, there's not a lot of outright liberal talk radio out there).  I read articles from my local newspaper as well as from those of other cities.  By seeking out multiple sources I figure I can get a good idea of what is really going on instead of just believing one source.

[JEdwards]

FWIW, Dr. Paul Sax is both an expert in infectious disease and someone with a lot of common sense.  Here are a couple recent blog posts dealing with outdoor mask mandates

https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/is-it-time-to-eliminate-outdoor-mask-mandates/2021/04/19/

and the relative risks of the J&J vaccine compared to the mRNA vaccines

https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/the-decision-on-the-johnson-and-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-surprised-me-heres-why/2021/04/25/

Peace,
Jon

[Brian Stoffregen]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

[Dan Fienen]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

But Brian, if concern for correct doctrine is unimportant to the church, perhaps even injurious to faith, and "Jesus is Lord" is a sufficient exposition of the faith,  what need is there for theological supervisors?

[peter_speckhard]

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/26/media-hungry-health-advisers-now-support-the-same-masking-policies-that-scott-atlas-was-ousted-for-promoting/

I bring this us because I'm in the process of going through the confirmands' individual essays/statements of faith based on their respective confirmation verses that I will read excerpts of the service this Sunday. Very often such essays talk about trying times, such as the death of a grandparent or a divorce (which I tend not to include in the parts I read aloud publicly). This year one young woman wrote movingly about the collapse of her mental health due to the Covid lockdowns and the general atmosphere of fear, and what a blessing returning to school was for her. She writes: "When the Covid pandemic started and we had to go into quarantine, the effects of isolation from everyone and watching the stress my mom had to go through with her patients in the hospital affected me greatly. I lost motivation in almost everything. I stopped caring about school, how I look, and my mental health. I gave up in school. I stopped doing my homework. I had completely given up. I desperately needed help."

Thankfully this young woman will be confirmed and this Sunday and has a strong, confident faith, which she credits for seeing her through, especially once she got back into a Christian community at school. I suspect many victims of unfortunate policy will suffer lasting effects with or without faith to see them through.

[Brian Stoffregen]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

But Brian, if concern for correct doctrine is unimportant to the church, perhaps even injurious to faith, and "Jesus is Lord" is a sufficient exposition of the faith,  what need is there for theological supervisors?

Again, a confusion between doctrine and salvation. We aren't saved by doctrine. Doctrine is vital for understanding the faith that is freely given to us for our salvation. Theological supervisors should make sure that the doctrines are orthodox; and part of that orthodoxy is recognizing that we are not saved by doctrine. What Jesus did is enough; not our understanding of what Jesus did.

[peter_speckhard]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

But Brian, if concern for correct doctrine is unimportant to the church, perhaps even injurious to faith, and "Jesus is Lord" is a sufficient exposition of the faith,  what need is there for theological supervisors?

Again, a confusion between doctrine and salvation. We aren't saved by doctrine. Doctrine is vital for understanding the faith that is freely given to us for our salvation. Theological supervisors should make sure that the doctrines are orthodox; and part of that orthodoxy is recognizing that we are not saved by doctrine. What Jesus did is enough; not our understanding of what Jesus did.

Then why do you bother correcting the statement? You're like someone who endlessly marks up papers with red pen on the theory that grammar and spelling don't matter in the slightest.

[Dave Likeness]

Pastor Speckhard, it is good to hear that your 8th grade gal found community in her
Lutheran grade school and her faith in Christ helped to get her through the isolation of
a pandemic.  Covid 19 has definitely affected school children who have been reduced to
Zoom classes.  As the author of the Book of Hebrews wrote: "For God has said, 'I will
never leave you or forsake you'  So we can confidently say: 'The Lord is my helper, I
will not fear"

[Donald_Kirchner]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

But Brian, if concern for correct doctrine is unimportant to the church, perhaps even injurious to faith, and "Jesus is Lord" is a sufficient exposition of the faith,  what need is there for theological supervisors?

Again, a confusion between doctrine and salvation. We aren't saved by doctrine. Doctrine is vital for understanding the faith that is freely given to us for our salvation. Theological supervisors should make sure that the doctrines are orthodox; and part of that orthodoxy is recognizing that we are not saved by doctrine. What Jesus did is enough; not our understanding of what Jesus did.

Talk about confusion!   

[D. Engebretson]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

But this doesn't answer your original point about "experts."  Or maybe it does, but not, I suspect, in the way you would hope.  Unless you don't view your own bishops as "experts" within your church body.

Our bishops are fairly powerless. I don't know if any pastor has been removed for false teachings. Many are removed for misconduct. Also, we don't elect bishops because of their theological prowess. I know of one (and there certainly could be others) who had a Th.D. Most of the bishops I know have almost no degrees beyond the basic seminary degree. (The ELCA does not see the bishop's office as a separate or different calling from that of being a pastor.) Granted, once a pastor is elected as a bishop, they are given training by the other bishops. ("Baby Bishop" has been a title given to the newbies.) We also give the Conference of Bishops no power or authority in the ELCA, only advisory power. It's been said, and I agree, that when we changed the title from president to bishop, we didn't change any of their functions. They still function as presidents - administrators more than theological supervisors.

But Brian, if concern for correct doctrine is unimportant to the church, perhaps even injurious to faith, and "Jesus is Lord" is a sufficient exposition of the faith,  what need is there for theological supervisors?

Again, a confusion between doctrine and salvation. We aren't saved by doctrine. Doctrine is vital for understanding the faith that is freely given to us for our salvation. Theological supervisors should make sure that the doctrines are orthodox; and part of that orthodoxy is recognizing that we are not saved by doctrine. What Jesus did is enough; not our understanding of what Jesus did.

Talk about confusion!   

I agree.  This feels like an "whaaat?" moment for me.

[Charles Austin]

We are supposedly concerned about “trauma” of a teen, kept from her view of “normal” life.
So where is your sympathy, Pastors Bohler and Kirchner, for senior citizens deprived of that which has given their lives enrichment and excitement and meaning? Don’t we count? Are you unable to see what has been inflicted on us; do you have no sympathetic ear for what pulls us down?
Or are you just jealous because we have earned and are experiencing a “good life”?

[Rob Morris]

We are supposedly concerned about “trauma” of a teen, kept from her view of “normal” life.
So where is your sympathy, Pastors Bohler and Kirchner, for senior citizens deprived of that which has given their lives enrichment and excitement and meaning? Don’t we count? Are you unable to see what has been inflicted on us; do you have no sympathetic ear for what pulls us down? What kind of pastors are you?
Or are you just jealous because we have earned and are experiencing a “good life”?

I know this is a really troll-ish comment, but... By your own stated reasoning earlier today, wouldn't that "good life", when received by an older, white, protestant male, just be you benefiting from the endemic racism our American system designed solely to benefit you?

I, for one, lament the hardships that Covid has created for everyone - yourself included. And I'm not trying to attack you. Just trying to point out the way that views you are expressing in one area seem to be contradicted by views you are holding in another.

Either, as you hold here, you worked hard, earned your results, and deserve sympathy when they are removed, OR, as you hold on the "Caste" thread, you were gifted an unfair advantage by an intentionally-racist system and deserve neither the results nor the sympathy. But it can't really be both.

Not trying to get into a spat... genuinely trying to understand how you can synthesize both views.