Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Comments...

• May 24, 2009 20:53:48 Re: The Cost of War - N

  Quote:

  Was there ever an idea so stupid as glory in war?

  As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters. (Gibbon)
• May 24, 2009 16:46:11 Re: The Cost of War - G
  Disputants, listen, I have an idea.
  
  Let's not kill Joseph, let's sell him to those Ishmaelites over there.
  
  Because that's how brothers are supposed to behave, right?
• May 24, 2009 14:43:50 Enough! - SGT Mike Baker
  This petty bickering is fast becoming a black smudge on this year's solemn observance. I am disgusted. To be honest, I am ashamed of my friends and those Lutheran theologians that I have looked up to.
  
  As one who has conducted military honors at numerous funerals I can say that a memorial always seems to bring out the worst in people. Please allow a Soldier to set the record straight so this dreadful thread can be ended and forgotten.
  
  The General Order that established this observance on May 30th 1868 for the Union Army was specifically established for the narrowly defined purposes of decorating the graves of fallen Soldiers and remembering the sacrifice of those who died preserving the republic. You can go to the wikipedia article on Memorial Day and read General Order 11 for yourself.
  
  There is no mention of the remorse for war's cost in any written declaration or law for the observance of a Memorial Day. You are free to infer that as a conclusion I suppose, but that is not its established purpose and it detracts from the countless individual stories and sacrifices that are intended to be recalled and contemplated on this day. In my opinion, if you are distracted by thinking about war in general, you have totally missed the point. Any deviation from General Order 11's stated purpose detracts from the intimate and special character of this holiday. It is you and the honored dead. The rest is garbage for another day.
  
  Just generically thinking about the horrors of war is not the same as standing in front of an actual grave marker, reading the name, and placing a flag. It is not telling your kids the stories of fallen recipients of the Congressional Metal of Honor. Memorial Day is not about philosophy and politics. It is not supposed to be an impersonal, academic, and sterile exercise. It is national grieving.
  
  The truth is that America no longer corporately grieves for her dead. As much as everyone wraps themselves in the flag these days, they actually care very little about those of us who do not come back. By way of example: Of the thousands who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of people cannot even recall a dozen of their names from memory.
  
  Can you?
  
  Ask yourself: Is that memorial grief and true respect? Or is it apathy? I'll let you decide. Are you truly counting war's cost by personally investing yourself with the individual tragedy of each fallen warrior who died in your place? Or are you just speaking in generalities and moving on without a single tremble of the heart... without a single tear or sigh of loss?
  
  This day is supposed to have the character of a wake or individual memorial service. Does it? It should. So I would ask everyone to show a little respect. You have 364 other days to gripe, complain, and pontificate about how our nation carries out war and international relations. There are 364 other days to debate Just War Theory and armchair quarterback over the 10,000 hypotheticals that could have or should have happened in any number of conflicts.
  
  Most importantly, you have 364 other days to settle your personal disputes. Since it is not yet Memorial Day... I suggest you avail yourself of the opportunity that today provides to reconcile yourself with your neighbor and drop your sinful grudges and disputes. If you lack the ability to do this, then I suggest that you man up and nurse your hurt feelings in private so that we can be spared the public emberassment in the future.
  
  And let me assure you that no one could ever even pretend to viserally hate the horrors of war properly until they have experienced it themselves. As to the idea of the modern fascination with "glory in war", I quote Gen. MacArthur:
  
  "This does not mean that you [Soldiers] are war mongers. On the contrary, the Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.'"
  • May 26, 2009 09:34:05 Re: Enough! - Petersen
    Dear Sergeant,
    
    I am sorry for the bickering. I didn't foresee it. I had no intention of causing it and was seriously surprised by it. I thought my post was innocuous. The reality that war, like unto divorce and a host of other things that assail us in this fallen world, is evil is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. It is not my private, political opinion. I do not know how intimate you are with Lutheran Theology, but so also it holds that no true Lutheran can be a pacifist, because the Scriptures clearly teach that the State has the moral duty, not just option, but actual duty, to bear the sword.
    
    While the original general order regarding Memorial Day was about the Union's dead, the day was quickly revised to include the Confederate dead. That is a significant point and it should not be missed: Memorial day commemorates the American war dead on both sides. While it may not be spelled out as such, the idea of remembering all the dead is clearly meant not only to honor the memory of the heroes, but also to count something of the cost and terror of war. There are, of course, other costs to war. But young men and women, cut down far before their time, is the highest and worst cost. This, I think, actually jibes perfectly with what you have written.
    
    I myself am not a war veteran, but I consider myself a military man. I am an Army veteran. The most formative part of my life was with the Army and nothing has shaped my thinking more. My father was disqualified for military service because of an eye injury he suffered as a child, but both of his brothers retired as NCOs from the Army. One fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam for 2 tours. The other fought in Korea and did three tours in Vietnam. Boht were awarded purple hearts and bronze stars for valor. Neither died in war, but both are now gone, and I thought on both of them, and the horrors and hardships they endured, often. On top of this, ,y oldest son received a warning order 2 months ago that he will go with the Army Reserves to either Kuwait or Afghanistan. I would not stop him if I could. For I know he is eager to go. He is far more willing to take the risk than I am to have him take the risk, but I know full well he must do his duty and trust that he will do so with honor . So while I myself have not fought in any wars and have not, so far, and hopefully never will, lost any immediate family members to war, I am not unpatriotic or ungrateful, not am I completely unaware of the costs.
    
    So also, I am not unappreciative of military virtues. One of my most serious hobbies is reading military history. I am fascinated by tactical and strategic geniuses like Alexandar the Great, Hannibal, etc, but even more so by the nobility, dignity, and sacrifices of men like Dick Winters, Audrey Murphey, and Joshua Chamberlain. My favorite era is WWII in the European theatre.
    
    And I think that when soldiers, like unto Gen. MacArthur, tell us, or imply, that there is no glory in war, we should believe them.
    
    Thank your service. I pray God keep you safe and give your strength for you mission.
    
    Yours in Christ,
    
    Pastor Petersen
  • May 25, 2009 08:21:44 Thanks and God bless - Rev. Paul T. McCain
    Thanks, Sgt. Baker, for a very well put and well deserved corrective to this conversation.
    
    May God's holy angels continue to protect and defend you, and may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ continue to give you peace and strength.
    
    Thank you for your service to our nation, and we will join you this day in remembering and thanking God for all who have given the last full measure of devotion, in service to their country.
    
    God bless.
• May 23, 2009 16:58:02 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Larry Beane
  These kinds of disagreements are a good reminder of why the Church is on a different calendar than the State. The Church is universal, and transcends nationality. The Church was here long before the USA, and the Church will still be here long after the USA (and indeed the entire world) has ceased to exist.
  
  The Church has her own soldiers - martyrs who died (and continue to die) as citizens of God's kingdom, confessors who rallied 'round (and continue to rally round) the cross.
  
  It gets further complicated when we consider that the U.S. military also includes non-Christians - and even militant atheists and enemies of the cross - in its ranks. There are even Wiccan chaplains serving in the American armed forces. And conversely, we have Christian brothers and sisters in the ranks of those military forces at war with the U.S.
  
  I tend to think we would do well to keep the flag outside the sanctuary. My school gathers (in the gym) to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and sing a patriotic song as we open the day. We fly the U.S. flag on a pole outside 24-7. There is a huge flag on the wall of the gymnasium. There are flags in the hallways and in the classrooms. Almost every social occasion has a color guard, flag ceremony, and the singing of the national anthem.
  
  The Divine Service is one time, and the sanctuary is one place, when we transcend nationality to join with the rest of the Body of Christ around the world. I think of the Church as an embassy of (in the words of the hymn, sung to the tune of "Thaxted") "another country."
  
  We are dual citizens. There are precious few times in our lives where we have the opportunity to be patriotic to our country that isn't symbolized by roaring F-16s, but rather the "still small voice." The Divine Service should really focus on the cross, not Old Glory. I believe that's just not the the time and place - nor was it when I went to an LCC Church on Canada Day and the congregation sang "O Canada" as one of the hymns in the Divine Service.
  
  If you hunt around, you can find a sermon online delivered by a pastor in Atlanta (a Fort Wayne grad, BTW) not named after the Sunday of the church year, but rather called "Sermon for MLK/Obama." I wasn't aware that either one had been canonized.
  
  I think American Christians put a little too much emphasis on their temporal nationality and think a little too lightly of their eternal nationality. I think it is a matter of balance.
  
  Why not celebrate Jesus on Sunday, and the soldiers on Monday? Why not have Holy Communion on Sunday and fireworks and flyovers (if that's your kind of thing) on Monday? Why not sing "Te Deum Laudamus" on Sunday and "O Say Can You See? on Monday?"
  • May 23, 2009 17:13:57 Re: The Cost of War - Peter
    I agree with this. And, I suspect noone here wants to "celebrate" our country in the Divine Service.
    "Pray for" (in both senses of the word) sure, but celebrate, definitely not.
    
    And, I agree with you about flags. Though, I have to admit, I failed in this regard. I took them out, and only after I did did the congregation notice them (or their absence). I guess I wasn't persuasive in my teaching on the matter. Ah, well.
    
    As for "American Christians," I say "Hah." Have you ever heard of the Anglican Church, or the "Greek Orthodox Church," or the "Romanian Orthodox Church," or the . . . . I suspect everyone does it. Still, it's good to be reminded that we are citizens of heaven first and eternally, while nations come and go.
    
    As for Memorial Day . . . . : )
    • May 23, 2009 23:09:10 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Larry Beane
      Dear Peter:
      
      David's original post involved hymns during Mass - not simply "praying for" the military (which is done on many Sundays, btw, not just the one near Memorial Day).
      
      I mentioned a couple of examples, such as the national anthem being used as a Divine Service hymn on Canada Day, and the day of the church year being named for MLK and Obama. I think these are indeed examples where the national calendar is pushing the Church toward canonizing the secular. If you ask most American pastors what special day May 25th is, they are unlikely to respond "The Commemoration of St. Bede the Venerable."
      
      Indeed, in state churches, there is a dangerous tango that goes on between Church and State, and even among Americans, many Orthodox churches seem (at least on the surface) to promote ethnicity as much as Christ. You can also see some of this in Roman churches, where the Italian church has a rivalry with the Irish church, for example.
      
      But we Americans are not an ethnic group. We see ourselves in many ways like the Romans - as a superior people, not due to race or ethnicity, but because of our government and shared history. I was born and bred with American exceptionalism, and a sense of manifest destiny. My dad once told me with a straight face that we are the *only* civilized people on the planet (with an exception for Canada, insofar as they are like us). This kind of attitude *can* (not *must*, but *can*) overshadow our citizenship in heaven.
      
      I think we need to be careful of that.
      
      Greeks, Romanians, and Englishmen do not wave the national flag the way we Americans do. Every European and Asian I ever worked with always commented about the ubiquity of our flags (in their countries, they were flown by governments, not so much by private citizens). Foreigners find it odd that we pledge allegiance to the flag, sing the national anthem at sporting events, and hold hands to pray around the flagpole.
      
      We even have the word "Americanism" (which I have heard used in the American Legion award presented to honorees at graduation). Greek, English, and Romanian are ethnicities, but being American is rooted in an ideal. We do believe "vox populi, vox Dei" and we do treat civic rituals, like voting and presidential inaugurations, with mystical quasi-religious pomp - even though we have no state religion or king.
      
      It's just my opinion, but I wish we had a little more sense of being citizens of God's kingdom, a little more of the patriotism we display for the Republic to the Kingdom as well.
      • May 24, 2009 07:16:58 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Paul T. McCain
        Larry:
        
        Your post left me, and others I have heard from, with the impression that the Church is somehow less than Church when it acknowledged specific First Article gifts and blessings. I see your point, but it was carried too far, and it was not a response to anything anyone on this board was advocating.
        
        PTM
        • May 24, 2009 12:13:25 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Thomas C. Messer
          Paul,
          
          You and the mysterious "others" cannot possibly be that dense, can you? Larry puts forth an intelligent, thought-provoking post, in response to Peter's post, alluding to the very real and present dangers of mingling the two kingdoms which exists for the Church in America and you (and "others") conclude that he's advocating that the Church is less than Church when it acknowledges specific First Article gifts and blessings? This is nothing more or less than classic antagonism at work. Please, stop it!
      • May 24, 2009 05:29:38 Re: The Cost of War - Peter
        Again, I have no real disagreement with you. Happy St. Bede Day.
    • May 23, 2009 18:38:12 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Paul T. McCain
      Yes, Pastor Beane' comments, though interesting, really spoke to nothing said in this thread. Nobody has advocated turning the Divine Service into a patriotic festival.
      
      But, carry on, General.
• May 23, 2009 15:04:42 Re: The Cost of War - The Rev. BT Ball
  My uncle, my mother's brother, PFC Dennis L. Harmon, USMC, was killed in action on 21 July, 1966 in Quang Tri, Vietnam.
  
  Memorial Day is a day to remember that war is evil, a necessary one at times, and it is a sign of these latter days. It is a day to remember that many have died in our nation's wars and to be thankful to our Lord that He has seen fit to put us in a land where we may receive His gifts without fear and men sacrifice themselves to make it so. It is also a particular day to give thanks for Christian men who gave their lives for their nation, like my uncle, and who rest from their labors in Christ, not because of righteousness gained by wearing a uniform or in battle, but in Christ alone.
  
  I never met my uncle Denny, he is to me always an 18 year old Marine in a picture, but we are still joined together in the Holy Church, one in Christ. I have his copy of TLH on my desk - a confirmation present he received on March 26, 1961. And when I am home I like to go to his grave, see the cross by his name with the little flag the VFW puts out. (They even named the VFW post after him.) And when I am there I am thankful, not only for his sacrifice, but that he died in Christ.
  
  Bottom line, I'm not offended by Dave's remarks at all.
  
  Ball
• May 23, 2009 14:52:43 Re: The Cost of War - Peter
  This is an odd post, and, as far as I can tell, a redefinition of the day. We should all remember the terrible cost of war. But, on this day we should also be reminded that some things are worth fighting for.
  
  As American citizens, it's a great day to fly the flag, and remember our Founding Fathers with gratitude. And, as Christians, it's a great time to implore our Lord's blessings, and, yes, to sing, "God Bless Our Native Land." (And of course, citizens of each and every country ought to pray God's blessings upon their land)
  
  
• May 23, 2009 14:43:17 Re: The Cost of War - Susan
  Paul, read again what he wrote. "The cost of war" IS the lives given to defend us. If it's necessary to protect us, it's necessary. But it's not something to revel in. I'm trying to figure out why you think Pastor would disagree with your last paragraph.
  • May 23, 2009 15:12:02 Re: The Cost of War - PTM
    Susan, it is precisely because I read what he wrote, that I said what he said. It is, as Peter rightly points out, an odd post on Memorial Day weekend.
    
    It is not a weekend to lament the evil necessity of war, but to honor those who died defending our nation. Pr. Petersen apparently feels a need to take Memorial Day in an unfortunate direction.
    • May 23, 2009 15:32:11 Re: The Cost of War - Petersen
      From past experience, I know there is almost no hope of getting Rev. McCain to read anything I write as it is written. His opinions about me are not textual and it is vain to respond to him. You can't have a discussion with a man bent on being the prosecuting attorney and reading between the lines.
      
      Nonetheless, since he has once again laid a serious moral charge at my feet, because he may have confused others, I will respond briefly. There is a time and a place to remember and celebrate military victories and acts of great valor and courage by American servicemen and women. There is a time and a place to celebrate the great virtues and principals of America. We recognize those days, in part, at Redeemer by singing patriotic hymns as part of the Service. I myself am an American veteran of a peacetime Army.
      
      But memorial day was meant as a day to remember all the dead who died in war, not just the heroes and not just the victors, but all the dead. That is a sober distinction, and worth noting. It is part of what makes Memorial Day distinct from Pearl Harbor Day or the 4th of July: we remember all the dead.
      
      Again, there is a time to celebrate America's victories and to think on the great sacrifices and virtues that American soldiers have made and demonstrated. But I don't know any war vet whose heart swells with national pride at the thought of his dead enemies. Think on this: memorial day is about all the dead, good and bad, brave and cowardly, victorious and defeated. If this has seemed an odd post, I suspect that is because we've largely forgotten what we are memoralizing and have inadvertently made Memorial Day into a day of national pride or virtue and not the war dead.
      
      Days of national pride have their place. But a day to remember the terrible cost of war is also valuable. That is not just my opinion. It was also the opinion of our forefathers.
      • May 23, 2009 16:24:43 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Paul T. McCain
        In his usual passive-aggresive style, Pastor Petersen avoids criticism by claiming his words have been misread, misunderstood or ignored. Silly.
        
        And even more silly is his fundamental misunderstanding of Memorial Day. It was not started to "observe the cost of war" and "lament the tragic cost of war."
        
        It was begun to honor those who died preserving the republic, after the Civil War. It has always been a day to honor those who gave their lives in service to our nation in a war.
        
        Is it too much to ask you all to spare us your hand-wringing nonsense and simply be grateful for God's gift of men who gave their lives to preserve the freedom of this nation?
        
        You can indulge in your pacifistic-sounding twaddle some other time.
        
        And I'm more than a little amused that Lutheran Worship is being hailed as some great sedes doctrinae for this nonsense.
        
        It is embarrassing that one of our pastors feels such a need to draw attention to himself that he must sully a national holiday with this kind of blog post.
        
        
        • May 23, 2009 21:05:32 Re: The Cost of War - Beth
          I'm curious as to why Rev. McCain is so hostile to Rev. Petersen. As an outsider who just happened upon this blog about Memorial Day, I think Rev. McCain seems inordinately critical of the fact that someone else has an opinion that differs from his. As a layman, I find it disturbing to read such insulting comments from one Lutheran pastor to another. I won't take Rev. McCain's comments as typical of a Lutheran pastor, because I know many who don't treat their brothers in such a disrespectful manner. A page like this, which can be read by anyone, should certainly entertain healthy debate, but should not be used to take pot shots at someone whose "politics" you don't like. It ends up being a poor Christian witness.
          • May 29, 2009 20:36:11 Re: The Cost of War - helen

            Quote:

            I'm curious as to why Rev. McCain is so hostile to Rev. Petersen.

            Beth,
            It appears that is so because on this blog, PTM is allowed to get away with it. Whereas, on PTM's own blog, if you disagree as rudely as he has here, your post will never see the light of day. Someone else described that kind of behavior, I think. :(
            
            (I can't very well recommend a moderator to Pr. Petersen; I might not appear either.) :)
            
            But if either of us (Paul or me) makes a fool of ourself, it's soon evident and we have only ourselves to blame.
        • May 23, 2009 16:36:07 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Paul T. McCain
          By the way, since we've brought up the Civil War, isn't it time to cue Larry "General Scuttlebutt" Beane?
          • May 23, 2009 20:09:16 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Larry Beane
            Paul:
            
            Rather than being known as "General" I was known as "Commander" of the post of the military organization I was elected to serve when I lived in Pennsylvania. I was often called "Commander," but never "General." I was also called "Sergeant" for a while when I started a group to honor POWs. But that was a long time ago. I'm only wearing a black uniform these days, without a saber.
            
            But since you seem determined to continually try to dig up speculative dirty laundry on me, completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, maybe you'd like a little of your own medicine. I know I should turn the other cheek, but I think you are a bully. I think you throw your weight around and try to intimidate people. Maybe it's about time everyone stop kowtowing to you, and just come out and tell you we've had enough of your blather.
            
            I was number "83" in the online petition to bring back Issues, Etc. I was wondering what your number was, Paul? In fact, at the time I was wondering if your blog was going to be renamed "SilentBrethren" when Issues was under attack by your fellow synodicrats in St. Louis. I found your (non) response to be interesting. To be truthful, I was sadly disappointed that one of the loudest keyboards in Lutheranism proved himself nothing more than a "paper tiger" when confession might have been costly.
            
            You lost all moral authority with me when you refused to join the thousands of others and stick your neck out even a little.
            
            And while we're on the topic of trying to root out anonymous writers, "What About" this? Didn't you write a few documents for the LCMS and put someone else's name on them? When my students do that, they get an "F" and a detention. But here you are on a self-righteous jihad to root out the author of a now non-existent blog that is obviously a joke. How sad.
            
            It's only my opinion, Paul, but here it is: whatever the synod is paying you is too much by that very amount.
            
            It's really too bad that you never (and I mean never) add any quality to any theological discussion, Paul. It's quite a waste of someone who is obviously as well read as you are to squander your abilities on drivel and picking fights over nonsense. You take honest disagreements and turn every one of them into the nuclear option.
            
            You seem determined to do your part to make Lutheranism look like a joke, a pathetic self-parody of a church. I hold you personally responsible, at least in part, for some of our defections from Lutheranism. And somehow, I don't think I'm alone in my opinion.
            • May 24, 2009 12:28:35 A necessary response - Rev. Paul T. McCain
              Larry,
              
              Your emotions, unfortunately, caused you get carried away and slander the good name and reputation of a man no longer here to defend himself.
              
              Anything that was published with the name "A.L. Barry" on it was A.L. Barry's document. Did I draft things for him? Of course. No big secret there. Did Dr. Barry review every word, changing, editing, rewriting or rejecting things I had drafted for him? Of course. All the time. He was the author of these materials. Period.
              
              What Dr. Barry did not do was create a blog site, under a fictional name, and proceed to trash people like you have done with your pseudonym, "General Scuttlebutt."
              
              You are free to attack, criticize and say what you want about what I've written and posted, anywhere, anytime. I've got no problem with that.
              
              But your comments here are calling into question the integrity and character of a man I was honored to serve, and serve with, and that I will not allow to stand without a response.
              
              P.T. McCain
              
              Paul
              • May 25, 2009 02:17:03 Re: A necessary response - Rev. Larry Beane
                No, Paul, this isn't about Barry, it's about you. Nice try. You should be ashamed of yourself, Paul. You're now using the late Dr. Barry to run interference for you so that you can divert criticism of yourself.
                
                *You* are the one who has a knack for becoming a pariah. I never heard of Pastor Barry behaving in the abominable way that you do on a regular basis. Your ugly conduct is a reflection on yourself, not on anyone else.
                
                People are entitled to their opinions. It is my opinion that the practice of "ghostwriting" is disgraceful - no matter how common it may be. I have had junior high students "ghostwrite" for one another. Funny, they offered the same defense of the practice that you did. You are not going to convince me that this is something I need to respect - because I don't.
                
                I also found your silence in the face of what was being done to Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz to speak volumes. You let others stick out their necks and do the heavy lifting while you kept your head safely in the sand. I don't even know what one can say to that. I don't know how you were able to show yourself in public after that.
                
                As far as "General Scuttlebutt" goes, I think I know who it is, but I have no intention of telling you. I've heard rumors about this person and that person. Who cares? The difference is, you apparently believe rumors - especially when they serve your purposes. I don't even think the blog exists anymore. It made fun of everybody, myself included. I didn't always get the jokes, but it made me laugh. I don't understand why you're being such a baby about the whole thing. Are you that thin-skinned that a single insignificant parody blog makes you lose sleep? Goodness!
                
                You've made yourself a stench in the nostrils of many, and you should be able to figure out why. There is something terribly pathetic about a middle aged man acting like a school yard bully.
                
                Once again, Paul, you may be able to play the "don't you know who I am?" card with a certain demographic in the LCMS, but I hate to break it to you, there are a lot of younger pastors coming out of seminary who have no idea who you are, couldn't care less, and simply find you to be boorish and interminable. Furthermore, anyone who has graduated since 2006 has actually had as much experience in the parish as you have - your posing as some kind of elder statesman notwithstanding.
                
                I really don't need to put a label on your character based on the way you conduct yourself - you've done quite a convincing job of that yourself.
                
                You should be ashamed of yourself, Paul. But you're not. But look on the bright side, you have a whole lot of other people being ashamed of you, so you don't have to do it all yourself. That's got to be worth something.
            • May 23, 2009 21:36:43 Re: The Cost of War - Tim Schellenbach
              Ditto to what Fr. Beane wrote. It's very seldom that Editor McCain responds negatively to a post and actually shows any understanding at all of what was said. It's also rare that he will admit that he misread when it is pointed out that he has done so. It's unfortunately quite common, however, for him to try to dodge the argument with pop-psychological ad hominem attacks such as calling someone "passive aggressive" (or comparing one's wife to the Taliban). Not to mention that he time and time claims to know better than a congregation's own pastor what "pastoral wisdom" would call for in a matter of adiaphora, despite his unfamiliarity with the particular situation, and despite his own pastoral career only been having spent in the parish for three years.
              • May 24, 2009 12:44:28 Head coverings revisited - Rev. Paul T. McCain
                I'm sure if Tim Schellenbach were to refresh his memory of the situation to which he refers in his post, he will recall that his wife posted a dicussion on Wittenberg Trail advocating that women practice "covering" ... the wearing of a head covering, at all times they are out in public.
                
                Her justification for doing so was incorrect exegesis of the Biblical text. At no point did I call her, or compare her, to the Taliban. I merely put forward a question as to why only cover the head and why not a full body covering? With a photo showing it, since she had previously posted links to various levels of head covering.
                
                The consistency of her position was at issue and I found the responses and discussions that ensued to be interesting.
                
                If/when people put a position out on the Internet, they should expect it to be critiqued and criticized. You are free to do the same, Tim, but it is good to at least get the facts correct.
                • May 24, 2009 22:48:24 Re: Head coverings revisited - Tim Schellenbach
                  As I recall, you accused her of advocating her practice as normative, despite the fact that both she and I pointed out numerous times that she merely was trying to explain her own choice in a matter of adiaphora. In connection with that accusation or insinuation (namely, that she was advocating the practice for others, not merely explaining the reasons for her own choice), you also posted a picture of that which the Taliban advocates (indeed, enforces) upon the women in their midst. As such, what you posted was, in fact, comparing my wife to the Taliban.
                  
                  As evidence that you misread her, I point out that you here, once again, accuse her of "advocating" something, when she was merely explaining the reasons for her decision to wear a head-covering, a practice which she freely admitted and, indeed, pointed out before you even entered the thread, is a matter of adiaphora. Because you accuse her of "advocating" something rather than simply explaining her own practice (as was her intention), you are once again, for reasons outlined above, "comparing her to the Taliban."
                  
                  As to the matter of how accurate her interpretation the text in question was, the only resource you quoted attempting to show that there is, in fact, an authoritative exegesis of that text compared to which one that differs can be said to be "incorrect," was a document which at no time has been adopted by our Synod as in any way authoritative, but which was issued by the office of the Synodical President during Dr. Barry's incumbency of that office. I think we all know who wrote the rough draft of the document in question, calling into question your own objectivity in trying to see to it she accepted that document's interpretation of the text in question as correct.
                  
                  Not to mention the fact that every time you get into an argument that could potentially embarrass CPH, you find some excuse to quit the WT, knowing full well that action will immediately erase everything you had posted there since the last time you joined. I think the fact that you vanished from the WT once again (rather than leaving your profile in place and simply exercising self-control wrt your level of participation) immediately after the discussion in question, is noteworthy.
                  
                  Further, you also told me that I should order her to take the head-covering off if I didn't want to have problems in my next congregation, if I even got one again. I've been preaching every Sunday for the last six months at a congregation which is strongly considering extending me a call, and Tina's head-covering has not created a problem at all. Of course, you probably don't think the congregation in question is really a Lutheran congregation anyway, since they keep the remaining elements from the Supper in a tabernacle (a practice which predates my vacancy pastorate there, btw).
                • May 24, 2009 22:12:27 Re: Head coverings revisited - CSchellenbach
                  Actually, I think the reason why he was so upset is that you were rather disrespectful about it. Instead of sticking to the matter at hand wrt the headcovering as a *Christian* witness, you instead brought up false religion, something not advocated by me nor even suggested.
                  
                  Whether you agreed or disagreed was really not the question (nor do I care if you do or not- it makes no difference to me in what I do in daily life), but rather how you dealt with it. You insinuated, attacked, and then pleaded ignorance because you put it under the guise of "asking a question". And, as much as I would love to link the good people of this blog to the saga, you quit the WT, erasing those remarks only to rejoin again and start anew. Perhaps you should have stuck around instead so that your words would be on public record for the public eye instead of doing a "he said- she said" thing. Just food for thought- at least most of the people who disagreed with me stuck around so their comments would be part of public record.
            • May 23, 2009 20:36:54 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Thomas C. Messer
              Larry,
              
              You are quite correct, my friend - you are definitely NOT alone in your opinion. Thank you for speaking up, 'cause it's getting sooooo old!
      • May 23, 2009 15:46:31 Re: The Cost of War - Peter
        I agree it's a day to honor those who died. But, it's not simply that they "died in war." Otherwise, we'd have an international memorial day (which would be fine by me, too). But Memorial Day is a day when we as Americans honor those who died specifically in service of our country. Hence, we fly the flag and remember their sacrifice, and that their sacrifice was not without purpose. (And, I definitely am all for repenting of our national sins as well.)
      • May 23, 2009 15:40:06 Re: The Cost of War - Pr. H. R. Curtis
        This collect would teach us an attitude toward war that is not very popular in our nation, but that comports well with your thoughts, Dave.
        
        "O Almighty God, we acknowledge that our own and our nation's sins have brought the anguish and trial of war to our country. Yet we implore you, save and deliver us from the hands of our enemies that we, being strengthened by your defense, may be preserved from all danger and glorify you as the only Giver of victory and peace; through the merits of your Son Jesus Christ, our Savior."
        
        Lutheran Worship, Collect #230, In Times of War
        
        +HRC
        • May 23, 2009 16:01:34 Re: The Cost of War - Beisel
          How was WWII, for example, a result of ours and our nation's sins? I really don't see the connection.
          • May 27, 2009 08:24:47 Re: The Cost of War - Susan
            Pr B, did the Israelites do anything to provoke war with the Philistines? I'm not sure, but I think probably not. But God used the Philistines to accomplish His ends in bringing Israel to repentance for their sins.
            
            I think there is a Lutheran way to look at 9-11 as punishment for our sins, with a gracious God calling our nation to repentance. There is also a PC liberal way to look at 9-11 as punishment for our "sins" of being wealthy or whatever we have supposedly done to make the Muslim hate us. If WWII was a result of our nation's sins, that wouldn't necessarily mean that we did something that directly caused the war to come about, in a clinically historical sense.
          • May 23, 2009 18:42:02 Re: The Cost of War - Pr. H. R. Curtis
            That's exactly how that collect is supposed to function, Paul: to make you ask that question.
            
            How does the Bible talk about war and nations? Is any nation shown innocent at any time? Ben Mayes has a good meditation on this collect somewhere, but I can't find it right now. He wrote it after 9/11 if I remember correctly.
            
            That's a rather benign theological answer to your question, and I think it's as far as we need to go to justify this collect as Biblical.
            
            But if you want to explore history, where judgments are less sure, there is no "Thus says the Lord" and opinions are diverse among men of differing views: you might start by asking a German Lutheran whose old enough what he remembers about life in the US during WWI and how and why we got into Wilson's war, thinking about how that war lead to WWII and reading Thomas Wood's A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
            
            +HRC
            • May 26, 2009 11:29:42 Re: The Cost of War - Beisel
              Heath,
              
              My point was, how can one country be guilty for the sins of another country? If a country is led into war in order to defend itself or its allies from the attacks of others, is there nothing noble in this? Is it all sinful? Is it all pointless? I don't see it as so. But I know we'll probably not come to an agreement on this. That's okay with me.
              • May 27, 2009 11:01:01 Re: The Cost of War - Pr. H. R. Curtis
                Paul,
                
                You're a father, so you know well how one person can be guilty of another's sins: little brother harasses big sister (a sin) until she flies off the handle and beats the tar out of him (a sin she was goaded into on purpose by the little brat, but it's still her sin for which she is guilty).
                
                Happens all the time on a larger scale with nation states as well.
                
                +HRC
                • May 27, 2009 17:21:03 Re: The Cost of War - Bad Ice
                  9-11-01 3000 dead because we are free.
                  
                  We did not goad. We did not sin.
                • May 27, 2009 15:44:52 Re: The Cost of War - Bad ICe
                  December 7th, 1941 A day of infamy. The planes that attacked came in two waves and left 2400 American sailors dead.
                  
                  We were not and are not guilty of any sin.
                  
                  Pete
                  
                  • May 27, 2009 21:11:37 Re: The Cost of War - Pr. H. R. Curtis
                    Pete,
                    
                    "Sin" is a hard word to apply to nation states. I meant my example from family life to be an analogy. Nation states are always poking and prodding one another and then someone overreacts and a war results. Call it "bad diplomacy" or "unintended consequences" but actions, reactions, and overreactions are rarely causeless.
                    
                    In addition, fresh wounds in which we have a personal stake (like my grandfather being in the first wave on Omaha Beach) make it hard for us to reach objective judgments - no man can be the judge of his own case, and we still very much feel WWII to be our own case. Judgments on history that fresh will be for future generations to make. In the meantime, we pray for wisdom and peace, and act in humility and repentance.
                    
                    Going beyond that calls for a wisdom I don't claim to have. The more I learn of history, the more I appreciate the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. For example, I found this essay about Herbert Hoover's view of Japan and the War very interesting and very challenging. He was all for fighting after the Japanese attack, but he also refused to see his government as blameless.
                    
                    Was Hoover right in his comments below? I don't know. But I'm a Christian interested in justice and godliness much more than I'm an American interested in justifying government actions of more than 60 years ago. So his words don't offend me. I'm willing to give him a hearing and submit final judgment to the Lord while I pray that neither our country nor any other may suffer violent attack ever again.
                    
                    +HRC
                    
                    Link to the whole essay: http://mises.org/j...jls/8_2/8_2_10.pdf
                    
                    A quotation: "United States relations with Japan only compounded Hoover's fears. Hoover had endorsed nonrecognition during the Manchurian crisis, but he would go no further, and during the thirties he opposed applying further pressure. In November 1938, he called Japan's war on China "as horrible as that of Genghis Khan." In July 1939, however, he argued against terminating the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. He feared that its renunciation would result in Japanese outrages upon American citizens in Asia that, in turn, would result in war. To embargo aviation gasoline and high grade iron and steel scrap was simply "sticking a pin in a rattlesnake." . . .
                    
                    "When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hoover publicly called upon his countrymen to close ranks. "We must fight with everything we have," he said. Privately he was extremely critical of his government. If Japan bad "been allowed
                    to go without these trade restrictions and provocations," he commented, "she would have collapsed from internal economic pressures alone within a couple of years." "The Japanese," he declared soon after the attack, were "exhausted by the war with China." However, the economic sanctions levied by the Western powers drove them "to desperation." Hull's "ultimatum" of November 26, in which the secretary demanded complete withdrawal from China and Indochina, "meant war."" Hoover wrote to commentator Boake Carter, "The day will come when this war will be put in the scales of judgment, and when this time comes you and I will be found to have been right." (The Anti-Interventionism of Herbert Hoover by Justus D. Doenecke.)
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
        • May 23, 2009 15:57:26 Re: The Cost of War - The Rev. BT Ball
          Dave-
          for what it is worth Harvard University has understood a Memorial the way you have explained. Memorial Church at Harvard was dedicated to the graduates who died in WWI. Their names are listed in the chapel, along with the names of 4 graduates who "under opposite standards gave their lives for their country." That is members of the Kaiser's army. The Church also holds the name of an alum who died as an enemy casualty in WWII, a grad of the Div. School who died serving the 3rd Reich.
          
          That said, Harvard didn't give the graduates who died serving in the Confederacy the same honor. When Memorial Hall was built in the 1870's they only put the names of the Union Harvard men who fell as memorial.
          
          Ball
• May 23, 2009 14:23:07 Re: The Cost of War - Rev. Paul T. McCain
  Pr. Petersen, you might want to take care when making these kinds of pronouncements.
  
  Memorial Day honors those who have paid the ultimate price to defend our liberties.
  
  I can only imagine how a WW II veteran might feel, reading your post, and remembering watching his buddies get blown to bits while defeating the Nazi regime, saving our nation from destruction and liberating countless millions from Nazi occupied territories.
  
  Perhaps the time to make your personal opinions known about war is not on the Memorial Day weekend.
  
  I for one am going to be thanking God for all those men who died, serving honorably in the vocation of soldier.