Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Dan Fienen]

And nearly all of those executioners’ blocks were owned and operated by established regimes attempting to keep segments of the populace under control, suppress dissent and remove troublemakers who dared to challenge the established order.
   Christians indeed suffered and died. Then, when they came to power, Christians took ownership of the executioners’ blocks. The bloody tide of ideological oppression ebbed and flowed.
   There is no bloody tide reaching the beaches of our land. We have instead trivialized persecution and monetized flawed concepts of “freedom”.
   -Is my child’s teacher gay and married? Oh, no! My faith is under attack!
  -So I can’t strip-mine a mountain or operate a factory that kills and sickens workers and neighbors? Oh, no! My freedom is under attack!
  -You say I cannot refuse services to people of a different race or lifestyle? Oh, no! You won’t let me practice my religion!
  -You won’t force nonbelievers to have their taxes run my church schools and propagate my faith? Oh, no! That’s religious persecution!
Do we really think that acknowledging the marriage of that gay teacher, selling clothing or cakes to gay couples, accepting regulations to save our neighbor’s health and clean air and water or being denied public funds for parish schools is a loss of true freedom or is religious oppression marching us towards an executioners’ block?
  We should give the new administration a chance. We should have a serious discussion, not project the worst.

Presumptive President Elect Biden has pledged to be a president for all of America, not just the true Blue. I hope and pray that he lives up to that pledge and honestly listens to and considers the concerns of those from the other side of aisle. I have to agree with Charles' last two sentences of his post. We should give the new administration a chance and have serious discussions, not just projecting the worst and dealing only in hateful caricatures of those with whom we disagree.


Thus I hope and expect that the new president will not engage in discussion as does our local humble correspondent who refuses to actually listen to what others post but rather deals in hateful caricatures of their positions and insists that the extremist fringe elements of their side are representative of their main stream thought while also insisting that the fringe elements of his own side be treated as the extremes that they actually are and be largely ignored. Much easier to dehumanize, delegitimize, and dismiss hateful caricatures than actually having to listen to real people and discover that they have legitimate concerns that need to be considered and actual ideas that may be helpful. Also much easier to put forth the positions and policies of his own side as the only legitimate rational proposals rather than having to craft positions and policies that reflect what is good and needed from both sides. Much, much easier to simply dismiss those others as hateful buffoons to be put down so that we can get on with our oh so good and rational program. When they are ready to listen to the truth, put aside their hate, and be good and rational people, they can join us. Thus we will have unity in our country.


I have seen the folly of my ways. If Pr. Austin ever wants to put aside caricatures and actually discuss issues, I like discussion. Otherwise, I long ago ceased to need aggravation to keep my blood pressure from dropping too low. Now I must watch my diet and take my medication to keep it down. Yes and avoid the aggravation of trying to discuss with people whose interest in discussion extends only to caricaturing those with whom they disagree and virtue signaling.   

[Richard Johnson]

And as long as the words don’t mean anything, they suffice for you today. And as long as they mean what orthodox doctrine says they mean, they suffice for me today.

So you're saying that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is? 

[John_Hannah]

Time to stop the frivolous recount demands and lawsuits surrounding the election?
Note that in 2016, there were recount attempts in WI, NV, PA, MI, and maybe other states.  There were election lawsuits in OH, AZ, NV, NC, PA, NY, and maybe other states.  Demands and lawsuits came from both Democratic and Republican parties as well as Clinton and Trump campaigns.  Somebody named Jill pushed as hard as anyone for changing outcomes, particulalry in WI.

Whining now about such demands by one candidate or party or another but having praised them another time is simply partisan positioning.  Let the system work. 

This is part of the process, unseemly as it will always seem to those on the other side of recount and lawsuit demands.  How can it be solved?  Proceed with recounts where state law requires or allows them when there is less than x votes between candidates.  Let the courts decide the merits of lawsuits.  Actually learn from an election where some jurisdictions seem to have a radically harder time allowing votes or counting votes to occur versus others that have fairly clean sailing.

Don't accept "no need to change" just because your candidate won. 
Work to make the process even better for the next time.

Yes, there have often been recounts, audits, suit, the longish legal process toward final Congressional recognition, etc. Yet there has never been a Republican candidate who refused to concede shortly after the call by the AP. Embarrassed Republican officials are now beginning to disassociate themselves from the refusal to recognize Biden.

It is somewhat inconsequential. Except Biden should be given the daily classified briefing now.

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called for a lockdown of the city and for families to cancel any traditional Thanksgiving get-togethers. This came a few days after she was photographed with her mask down under her chin in a large group of people celebrating the election. When asked about the contradiction, she replied by defending her decision to participate in the party, saying, "But, yes, there are times when we actually do need to have relief and come together, and I felt like that was one of those times. That crowd was gathered whether I was there or not. But this has been a super hard year on everyone. Everyone feels traumatized."

This is sadly typical of why so many people reject utterly the establishment as elitist. Unless she is seriously deranged and has made a religion out of politics, she needs to know that my faith, family, and traditional get-togethers are way, WAY more important (not by a little, but by a lot) than anything related to an election could possibly be for her or anyone in that crowd. When she and like-minded people have a hard year and need to have relief and come together, it is justified. When normal people have a hard year and need relief and a time to come together, a la Thanksgiving, well, too bad. 

I really do think it is typical of mayors and governors being decree-happy while exempting themselves. Lightfoot famously also defended her decision to get her hair done while salons were ordered shut because she is the face of the city and hygiene is really important to her. She is so despicably un-American and elitist in her attitude toward public service that it beggars belief. So is Gov. Pritzger. The cultural divide is widening, not coming together.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

And as long as the words don’t mean anything, they suffice for you today. And as long as they mean what orthodox doctrine says they mean, they suffice for me today.

The early believers were willing to suffer and die for those words. They meant something much, much more than some doctrine that they agreed with. Among other things it means that nothing else is lord; not the emperor, not the president, not self, and perhaps even, not church confessions and doctrines. Harvey Cox in The Future of Faith, makes a distinction between "faith in Jesus" that was present in the earliest disciples who "live in his Spirit, embrace his hope, and follow him in the work that he had begun" (p. 5). I note that the baptism instruction of Hippolytus of Rome was all about how one lived the Christian life with almost nothing about agreeing to correct doctrines. "Sponsors," affirmed that the convert was able to live a Christian life in the midst of the pagan world.


This changed a decades later with "replacing faith in Jesus with tenants about him." (p. 5). Christianity was about having the correct beliefs, not so much about following the way of Jesus with one's life.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen:
I have seen the folly of my ways. If Pr. Austin ever wants to put aside caricatures and actually discuss issues, I like discussion.
Me:
I reject the charge of caricature, obviously. Pastor Fienen likes to read that into my criticisms. What I say about a few, he pretends that I say about all. And I take a stand, I pick a side, and he doesn’t like that, preferring his “On the one hand, on the other hand” middling.
But we digress.

[David Garner]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

And as long as the words don’t mean anything, they suffice for you today. And as long as they mean what orthodox doctrine says they mean, they suffice for me today.

The early believers were willing to suffer and die for those words. They meant something much, much more than some doctrine that they agreed with. Among other things it means that nothing else is lord; not the emperor, not the president, not self, and perhaps even, not church confessions and doctrines. Harvey Cox in The Future of Faith, makes a distinction between "faith in Jesus" that was present in the earliest disciples who "live in his Spirit, embrace his hope, and follow him in the work that he had begun" (p. 5). I note that the baptism instruction of Hippolytus of Rome was all about how one lived the Christian life with almost nothing about agreeing to correct doctrines. "Sponsors," affirmed that the convert was able to live a Christian life in the midst of the pagan world.


This changed a decades later with "replacing faith in Jesus with tenants about him." (p. 5). Christianity was about having the correct beliefs, not so much about following the way of Jesus with one's life.

How do you follow the way of Jesus with your life if you do not have correct beliefs about Him and His teachings?

How would you even know what the way is?

I assume your sermons are not simply you saying "Jesus is Lord!"

[Brian Stoffregen]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

Did Paul find it sufficient that nothing else was needed and no disagreements so long as that was agreed to?

Contrary to Peter's argument, those weren't just words for Paul. It was a confession of faith and a statement about how one was to live one's life.


Romans 10:9: Because if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and in your heart you have faith that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


1 Corinthians 12:3: So I want to make it clear to you that no one says, “Jesus is cursed!” when speaking by God’s Spirit, and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.


There is a theory, which makes sense to me, that the Greek of this confession: Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, hearkens back to the Christian's use of the LXX where Κύριος was used for the divine name והיה. (Had the Christians used the Hebrew text of Scriptures rather than Greek, that might not have become the early confession.) It was stating the belief that Jesus is YHWH, the God who gave his proper name to Moses.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Literally no one has suggested the First Amendment is unlimited.  But neither is it as limited as you all would like to believe.

And it might be more limited than you all would like to believe.

Every time liberal groupthink runs up against First Amendment protections, you all side with liberal groupthink.  That is the problem.  You want to force people to adopt your views.

And you don't?

Yes.  It would be awful if you couldn't force Christian schools to hire gay teachers wouldn't it?

Who is talking about forcing schools to hire teachers?

Once again, the self-styled "tolerant" are the most intolerant around.  You want your beliefs?  No problem!  Just don't say them out loud or put them into practice or live as if they are true.  We don't want to get so tightly wrapped around "religious freedom" (let's be sure to put that in scare quotes because we all know it's a farce anyway, right?) that we actually give people the freedom to exercise their religion.

You are certainly free to proclaim your beliefs out loud and put them into practice. Just be willing to light up Nero's garden with your life, or maybe suffer some ridicule from those who don't share your beliefs.

I'll remember that the next time you go on a screed about closed communion or female pastors.  "You're all ever so mean!"

"Jesus is Lord was sufficient in biblical times!"

It's like a handy little talisman that allows one to wave away any legitimate discussion through the most absurd reductionism ever.

I have never said that those who disagree with me (and my church body) are mean.


We can certainly have meaningful discussions about what it means to confess that Jesus is (my) Lord. As I've said in other posts, answering the question, "What do you believe?" is much less important than answering the question, "What difference does it make in your life that you believe?"

[Brian Stoffregen]

5. Polls have still been more accurate over the last four years than they were for most of the 20th century. As pollsters get more information about this year’s election and what went wrong, they will try to fix the problems, much as they did in the past. A new challenge: In the smartphone age, poll response rates are far lower than they used to be.

Even our home phone tells us who is calling. We ignore more calls than we answer when we don't recognize the name or number that is calling. It's not just Republicans who are avoiding pollsters.

[David Garner]

Literally no one has suggested the First Amendment is unlimited.  But neither is it as limited as you all would like to believe.

And it might be more limited than you all would like to believe.

Every time liberal groupthink runs up against First Amendment protections, you all side with liberal groupthink.  That is the problem.  You want to force people to adopt your views.

And you don't?

Yes.  It would be awful if you couldn't force Christian schools to hire gay teachers wouldn't it?

Who is talking about forcing schools to hire teachers?

Once again, the self-styled "tolerant" are the most intolerant around.  You want your beliefs?  No problem!  Just don't say them out loud or put them into practice or live as if they are true.  We don't want to get so tightly wrapped around "religious freedom" (let's be sure to put that in scare quotes because we all know it's a farce anyway, right?) that we actually give people the freedom to exercise their religion.

You are certainly free to proclaim your beliefs out loud and put them into practice. Just be willing to light up Nero's garden with your life, or maybe suffer some ridicule from those who don't share your beliefs.

I'll remember that the next time you go on a screed about closed communion or female pastors.  "You're all ever so mean!"

"Jesus is Lord was sufficient in biblical times!"

It's like a handy little talisman that allows one to wave away any legitimate discussion through the most absurd reductionism ever.

I have never said that those who disagree with me (and my church body) are mean.


We can certainly have meaningful discussions about what it means to confess that Jesus is (my) Lord. As I've said in other posts, answering the question, "What do you believe?" is much less important than answering the question, "What difference does it make in your life that you believe?"

I'm not going to even try to format this.

No, I don't want to force people to adopt my views.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?  If you do, present it.

Your side is looking to force Christian schools to hire gay teachers.  There has been a Supreme Court case on the topic.  It involved a Lutheran school.  We've talked about it here.  I favor policies that allow Lutheran schools to decide who to hire based on their religious beliefs.

Your zeal for my martyrdom is cute, but perhaps you should be more concerned with your own.  It's easy to call for the martyrdom of other people.  It's also unchristian.  Repent.

Finally, the only way belief can make a difference in one's life is if one is allowed to practice it.  As best I can tell, it is primarily, if not solely, your political side of the fence that wishes to foreclose people from acting on their religious belief.  Why you would get in bed with them is baffling to me, because they will eventually come for you as well.

[peter_speckhard]

If the concern over the Equality Act is for religious freedom, Pr. Stoffregen has repeated pointed out that the beliefs affected by the Act are not necessary to hold on to the core Christian belief that Jesus is Lord, and Pr. Austin's pointed out that many Christians, many Lutherans even, have no beliefs that would be in conflict with the Act, would even welcome it. So where's the problem? If your beliefs would pose a  problem just be reasonable and adopt the beliefs of other Christians that are more reasonable and unproblematic. You can still be Christian,  no sweat. Just a pinch of tolerance incense. 

The confession, Jesus is Lord, was sufficient in biblical times.

Did Paul find it sufficient that nothing else was needed and no disagreements so long as that was agreed to?

Contrary to Peter's argument, those weren't just words for Paul. It was a confession of faith and a statement about how one was to live one's life.


Romans 10:9: Because if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and in your heart you have faith that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


1 Corinthians 12:3: So I want to make it clear to you that no one says, “Jesus is cursed!” when speaking by God’s Spirit, and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.


There is a theory, which makes sense to me, that the Greek of this confession: Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, hearkens back to the Christian's use of the LXX where Κύριος was used for the divine name והיה. (Had the Christians used the Hebrew text of Scriptures rather than Greek, that might not have become the early confession.) It was stating the belief that Jesus is YHWH, the God who gave his proper name to Moses.

My argument is not that they were just words to St. Paul. My argument is that all words are just words to you, including "Jesus is Lord" and agreeing with you on the truth of those words is no different than agreeing with you that "Floopy is droop." We agree as long as nobody defines them or applies the meaning of them to anything beyond just agreeing.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And as long as the words don’t mean anything, they suffice for you today. And as long as they mean what orthodox doctrine says they mean, they suffice for me today.

So you're saying that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is? 

Seems that I recall a discussion about that concerning, "This is my body …."

[Brian Stoffregen]

How do you follow the way of Jesus with your life if you do not have correct beliefs about Him and His teachings?

The great commandment(s) (which come from the Old Testament, not just from Jesus).


The golden rule - which is found in nearly all religions.

How would you even know what the way is?

Prayer, meditation, scripture reading, and a belief that when Jesus is Lord, there is a Holy Spirit in my life helping and guiding my thoughts and actions.

I assume your sermons are not simply you saying "Jesus is Lord!"

… and what does it mean for our lives to confess that Jesus is Lord.

[David Garner]

How do you follow the way of Jesus with your life if you do not have correct beliefs about Him and His teachings?

The great commandment(s) (which come from the Old Testament, not just from Jesus).


The golden rule - which is found in nearly all religions.

How would you even know what the way is?

Prayer, meditation, scripture reading, and a belief that when Jesus is Lord, there is a Holy Spirit in my life helping and guiding my thoughts and actions.

I assume your sermons are not simply you saying "Jesus is Lord!"

… and what does it mean for our lives to confess that Jesus is Lord.

You err at the outset when you separate the Old Testament from its source.