Why there shouldn’t be clergy at Ground Zero

That Mayor Bloomberg is not inviting clergy to participate in the ten year anniversary events marking the 9/11 anniversary has provoked not a little outrage.  But Lutheran pastor William Cwirla presents a contrary view:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned clergy from participating in this year’s 9/11 memorial events at Ground Zero. Good for him! He’ll save us all a bunch of post-9/11ecumenical hangover headaches on Monday. As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square. And I’m one of them.

What makes clergy “clergy” is their appointment to serve their “faith communities” as we like to call them. Pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams and the like represent their various religious bodies and teach their various religions to their respective groups. They are public figures within their congregations and circles of influence, not within society at large. At least in this society.

The events of September 1, 2001 were not inherently religious in nature. I know Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and their ilk like to say they were, but they’d find any excuse to bash religion. Yes, the perpetrators were radical fundamentalist Muslims. Yes, they did what they did in part believing they were doing the will of Allah and would be rewarded eternally for their actions. But 9/11 was an attack against the United States of America for its policies and presence in the Middle East. It was not an attack on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other religion. In case we’ve forgotten, the targeted buildings were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and presumably, the White House. No cathedrals were harmed in the atrocity.

The reason we get all religious about 9/11 is two-fold, I think. First, it was an enormous, sudden and violent loss of life, property and personal security. The enormity of what happened that day is hard to fathom let alone put into words. I remember that Tuesday vividly and still don’t quite believe it. We were supposed to have our monthly pastors’ meeting. Instead, we planned our services for later that evening. I remember the silence of the skies overhead as planes were grounded. Events of such enormous loss seek enormous answers in a God who is bigger than the enormity of what happened. When really bad things happen, most people get religious. I do. I get that.

Second, we believe in our patriotic heart of hearts that our being American somehow transcends our being Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. That’s not true, though we like to believe it, at least on days other than Sunday. Hence the parade of religions around 9/11. We did it at the first 9/11 event at Yankee Stadium to show the world how we all get along and play nice in this country. It hasn’t always worked out that way since, but we like to pretend, at least when the cameras are rolling.

America’s civil religion has grown increasingly complex and diverse since our formative years when our largely Deist and Christian founding fathers carved out a place for Divine Providence in the public psyche. Ironically, a few of the founding fathers were skeptical atheists too, including notably Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin. But they, like the Deist Thomas Jefferson, saw the value of a little religion in public life, so long as it was neutered and kept on a short leash. We like our civic religions tame and domesticated in the public square. But as we who worship the Lion of Judah know, God is never tame or domesticated.

So as a Lutheran clergyman with a firm hold on the proper distinction of the two kingdoms, I say, “Good for you, Mayor Bloomberg.” And thank you for giving all of us clergy a day off from the public square. I’ll be sure to get together with my faith community on Sunday, September 11, as is our custom every Sunday, to hear of Jesus’ victory over Sin and Death and receive the gifts of His Sacrifice for the sin of the world.

And we’ll say a prayer for our country, for the government and those who protect us, including you, Mr. Mayor, as well as for all the nations of the world, for our fellow Christians scattered throughout all the world, for our enemies, persecutors, and slanderers, and for that peace that the world cannot give.

via Rev. Cwirla’s Blogosphere – No Clergy at Ground Zero.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    “As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.”

    Yes – in an event (e.g. the post 9-11 Yankee Stadium “service”) orchestrated by the public officials. However, one thing we should cherish and protect in America is the right of the Mormons, Pentecostals, Atheists, Lutherans, Muslims, etc. to rent the city amphitheater and present a concert or lecture series or whatever to share their ideas with the public at large. But I’m pretty certain that Pastor Cwirla was addressing the former issue, not the latter.

  • Pete

    “As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.”

    Yes – in an event (e.g. the post 9-11 Yankee Stadium “service”) orchestrated by the public officials. However, one thing we should cherish and protect in America is the right of the Mormons, Pentecostals, Atheists, Lutherans, Muslims, etc. to rent the city amphitheater and present a concert or lecture series or whatever to share their ideas with the public at large. But I’m pretty certain that Pastor Cwirla was addressing the former issue, not the latter.

  • fws

    Amen

    But it would be easy to misunderstand a distinction Pr Cwirla made between the two kingdoms. The two kingdoms is not church vs state. It is not the Lutheran theory of separation of church and state. It is Sooooo not that!

    The church is one of the 3 “ordos” or kingdoms of the right hand or Earthly kingdom as well. God rules, with the Law, in three ways on Earth, or with 3 governments or orders or “ordos”: family, church and society/civil govt/community

    So the distinction between church and state is not exactly the distinction between Two Kingdoms. Two Kingdoms is really Law vs Gospel. It is all we can see and do vs alone invisible faith. So the visible church and govt are both in the same Earthly, Law driven, right hand kingdom.

    This distinction is precisely the distinction made in Romans 8 of flesh vs spirit. The visible church falls firmly and entirely in the category of “flesh that will perish along with all who trust in it for Life” as does marriage/family and society/government.

    So Pastor Cwirla is making a distinction among vocations that are about the Law. It is a distinction between the 3 forms of Government in the Earthly (right hand ) Kingdom where God rules with the Law rather than the Gospel.

  • fws

    Amen

    But it would be easy to misunderstand a distinction Pr Cwirla made between the two kingdoms. The two kingdoms is not church vs state. It is not the Lutheran theory of separation of church and state. It is Sooooo not that!

    The church is one of the 3 “ordos” or kingdoms of the right hand or Earthly kingdom as well. God rules, with the Law, in three ways on Earth, or with 3 governments or orders or “ordos”: family, church and society/civil govt/community

    So the distinction between church and state is not exactly the distinction between Two Kingdoms. Two Kingdoms is really Law vs Gospel. It is all we can see and do vs alone invisible faith. So the visible church and govt are both in the same Earthly, Law driven, right hand kingdom.

    This distinction is precisely the distinction made in Romans 8 of flesh vs spirit. The visible church falls firmly and entirely in the category of “flesh that will perish along with all who trust in it for Life” as does marriage/family and society/government.

    So Pastor Cwirla is making a distinction among vocations that are about the Law. It is a distinction between the 3 forms of Government in the Earthly (right hand ) Kingdom where God rules with the Law rather than the Gospel.

  • Carl Vehse

    “The events of September 1, 2001 were not inherently religious in nature.”

    This is not correct. On the side of the Islamoterrorists it was inherently religious in nature.

    “No cathedrals were harmed in the atrocity.”

    This is not correct. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York was destroyed in the Islamoterrorist act of war.

  • Carl Vehse

    “The events of September 1, 2001 were not inherently religious in nature.”

    This is not correct. On the side of the Islamoterrorists it was inherently religious in nature.

    “No cathedrals were harmed in the atrocity.”

    This is not correct. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York was destroyed in the Islamoterrorist act of war.

  • kerner

    CV @3:

    “On the side of the Islamoterrorists it was inherently religious in nature.”

    Define your terms, folks. I suppose you could say that the act was inherently “religious” in the sense that the fighting between RC and Protestant Irish is inherently “religious”, in so far as the combatants use their religiou as identifiers. But does the militant position of either side have that much to do with theology? Really?

    I think Pr. Cwirla is saying that using religion to mark political territory is wrong. It’s wrong (both morally and because it is inherantly untrue) to use religion as a basis for political and military conflict. They shouldn’t do it and we shouldn’t either.

    I have pointed out several times that the Israelis don’t treat the Christian Arabs any better than the Muslims, and that the Christian Arabs are not more friendly to the Israelis. Because, ultimately, the conflict isn’t about religion; it’s tribe vs. tribe.

  • kerner

    CV @3:

    “On the side of the Islamoterrorists it was inherently religious in nature.”

    Define your terms, folks. I suppose you could say that the act was inherently “religious” in the sense that the fighting between RC and Protestant Irish is inherently “religious”, in so far as the combatants use their religiou as identifiers. But does the militant position of either side have that much to do with theology? Really?

    I think Pr. Cwirla is saying that using religion to mark political territory is wrong. It’s wrong (both morally and because it is inherantly untrue) to use religion as a basis for political and military conflict. They shouldn’t do it and we shouldn’t either.

    I have pointed out several times that the Israelis don’t treat the Christian Arabs any better than the Muslims, and that the Christian Arabs are not more friendly to the Israelis. Because, ultimately, the conflict isn’t about religion; it’s tribe vs. tribe.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    St. Nicholas was collateral damage. Cwirla is essentially correct, in that the targets were political and economic in nature. One could say that religion played a role, but I think insanity played a bigger role. At the same time, it could be said Cwirla is imposing our worldview that sees religion and secular as separate. Islam does not necessarily make that distinction.

    Though Cwirla makes some good points (I don’t go to do the city council meetings prayer for many of these reasons), I am not sure I necessarily agree with Bloomberg’s no clergy policy. The reason I am not in favor of Bloomberg’s policy is because it seems to be motivated by the idea that religion should not be a factor in public life.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    St. Nicholas was collateral damage. Cwirla is essentially correct, in that the targets were political and economic in nature. One could say that religion played a role, but I think insanity played a bigger role. At the same time, it could be said Cwirla is imposing our worldview that sees religion and secular as separate. Islam does not necessarily make that distinction.

    Though Cwirla makes some good points (I don’t go to do the city council meetings prayer for many of these reasons), I am not sure I necessarily agree with Bloomberg’s no clergy policy. The reason I am not in favor of Bloomberg’s policy is because it seems to be motivated by the idea that religion should not be a factor in public life.

  • kerner

    ” St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York was destroyed in the Islamoterrorist act of war.”

    The picky response is that St. Nicholas is not a cathedral.

    The relevant response is that there is no evidence that it was a target, either. I doubt the terrorists even knew it was there. I certainly didn’t until about three years ago.

  • kerner

    ” St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York was destroyed in the Islamoterrorist act of war.”

    The picky response is that St. Nicholas is not a cathedral.

    The relevant response is that there is no evidence that it was a target, either. I doubt the terrorists even knew it was there. I certainly didn’t until about three years ago.

  • CRB

    Amen! What will be really interesting is to see what the pundits say about all of this, either positively or negatively. I have a hunch that the likes of those who seem to espouse a close relationship between patriotism and religion will be quite vocal with the latter response! I’m particularly thinking of a former Arkansas governor who has a show on the Fox network…

  • CRB

    Amen! What will be really interesting is to see what the pundits say about all of this, either positively or negatively. I have a hunch that the likes of those who seem to espouse a close relationship between patriotism and religion will be quite vocal with the latter response! I’m particularly thinking of a former Arkansas governor who has a show on the Fox network…

  • Kirk

    @7

    Yeah, I’m anxious to see what Pat Robertson thinks. I mean, the space shuttle isn’t flying any more so God will have to find something else to blow up.

  • Kirk

    @7

    Yeah, I’m anxious to see what Pat Robertson thinks. I mean, the space shuttle isn’t flying any more so God will have to find something else to blow up.

  • CRB

    I could not care less about what that false teacher says!!!!!!

  • CRB

    I could not care less about what that false teacher says!!!!!!

  • Dan Kempin

    “clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.”

    I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree.

    “Second, we believe in our patriotic heart of hearts that our being American somehow transcends our being Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. ”

    Oh, I see. This secondary point should have come first. If this is true, then I would have no choice but to agree with the first.

    The problem is that I’m not sure I DO agree. Do we really think that we are Americans first and Christians (or lutherans) second? Hmm. It’s certainly not what we teach. It’s not what we confess. Sure, we face pressure from our culture to acknowledge the unchristian civil religion that you (Pastor Cwirla) identify, and any participation in the public square must be carefully weighed to be sure that we do not give the wrong impression, but on the whole I would say no. I am not persuaded that this is a valid statement.

    So then, just for the sake of argument, drop the premise that our thinking has gone beyond patriotism and become idolatry and defend the naked premise: clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.

    Can we not do a better job of clarifying that?

  • Dan Kempin

    “clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.”

    I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree.

    “Second, we believe in our patriotic heart of hearts that our being American somehow transcends our being Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. ”

    Oh, I see. This secondary point should have come first. If this is true, then I would have no choice but to agree with the first.

    The problem is that I’m not sure I DO agree. Do we really think that we are Americans first and Christians (or lutherans) second? Hmm. It’s certainly not what we teach. It’s not what we confess. Sure, we face pressure from our culture to acknowledge the unchristian civil religion that you (Pastor Cwirla) identify, and any participation in the public square must be carefully weighed to be sure that we do not give the wrong impression, but on the whole I would say no. I am not persuaded that this is a valid statement.

    So then, just for the sake of argument, drop the premise that our thinking has gone beyond patriotism and become idolatry and defend the naked premise: clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.

    Can we not do a better job of clarifying that?

  • Dan Kempin

    Plus, I agree with Carl at #3. The events of September 11 were inherently religious. They were trying to defend Islam. How is that not religious?

  • Dan Kempin

    Plus, I agree with Carl at #3. The events of September 11 were inherently religious. They were trying to defend Islam. How is that not religious?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@11), on what basis do you claim that the 9/11 terrorists were “trying to defend Islam”?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@11), on what basis do you claim that the 9/11 terrorists were “trying to defend Islam”?

  • DonS

    There’s a little too much smirk in Pastor Cwirla’s post for my taste, but his point is essentially correct insofar as he is talking about government-sponsored 9/11 memorial events. But, let’s neither cede the public square to the faithless, nor cede these memorial events solely to government. We all have a right to the public square, and a guaranteed Constitutional right to speak freely on both political and religious matters, and we should definitely use those rights at this important time in our national history. We have an obligation to minister not only to our own, but to the greater community around us. The people of these United States, not merely the government, were the target of the dastardly attacks of September 11, 2001, and it will be better if the more memorable remembrances of that event this weekend were not those sponsored by government.

    The time for the passive attitude of “let the government do it”, should long be past, especially given the lukewarm and unsatisfying results inherent in government action, in any sphere.

  • DonS

    There’s a little too much smirk in Pastor Cwirla’s post for my taste, but his point is essentially correct insofar as he is talking about government-sponsored 9/11 memorial events. But, let’s neither cede the public square to the faithless, nor cede these memorial events solely to government. We all have a right to the public square, and a guaranteed Constitutional right to speak freely on both political and religious matters, and we should definitely use those rights at this important time in our national history. We have an obligation to minister not only to our own, but to the greater community around us. The people of these United States, not merely the government, were the target of the dastardly attacks of September 11, 2001, and it will be better if the more memorable remembrances of that event this weekend were not those sponsored by government.

    The time for the passive attitude of “let the government do it”, should long be past, especially given the lukewarm and unsatisfying results inherent in government action, in any sphere.

  • Carl Vehse

    kerner @4: “Define your terms, folks.”

    From M-W:
    inherently – belonging by nature or habit
    religious – relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged deity
    nature – the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing; an inner force in an individual

    “I have pointed out several times that the Israelis don’t treat the Christian Arabs any better than the Muslims”

    This is a dubious claim, but in any case it has nothing to do with the the fact that the Islamoterrorist attack on 9/11 was inherently religious in nature.

    kerner: “The relevant response is that there is no evidence that it was a target”

    That is as irrelevant as the fact that the individual passengers in the planes murdered in the attack were not specific targets.

  • Carl Vehse

    kerner @4: “Define your terms, folks.”

    From M-W:
    inherently – belonging by nature or habit
    religious – relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged deity
    nature – the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing; an inner force in an individual

    “I have pointed out several times that the Israelis don’t treat the Christian Arabs any better than the Muslims”

    This is a dubious claim, but in any case it has nothing to do with the the fact that the Islamoterrorist attack on 9/11 was inherently religious in nature.

    kerner: “The relevant response is that there is no evidence that it was a target”

    That is as irrelevant as the fact that the individual passengers in the planes murdered in the attack were not specific targets.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #12,

    On the basis that America was considered “The Great Satan,” and was considered so because of her (the USA’s) detrimental global effect on the practice of Islam. The attackers were part of Al Q, and that was pretty much Al Q’s line. That, and the attacks were intended to inaugurate a global jihad. Jihad, as you know, is carried out against the enemies of Islam.

    Not sure I’m getting what’s behind your question, though. Do you disagree that the 911 attacks were religious?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #12,

    On the basis that America was considered “The Great Satan,” and was considered so because of her (the USA’s) detrimental global effect on the practice of Islam. The attackers were part of Al Q, and that was pretty much Al Q’s line. That, and the attacks were intended to inaugurate a global jihad. Jihad, as you know, is carried out against the enemies of Islam.

    Not sure I’m getting what’s behind your question, though. Do you disagree that the 911 attacks were religious?

  • Stephen

    Hmm, let’s see.

    I agree that the attacks were religious in nature. It is a mistake to think that because they didn’t bomb churches that this was purely “secular.” Islam does not make such distinctions (currently!), not really. Maybe that is changing, maybe not.

    But by attacking a (Christian) culture in which money is associated with liberty and is influencing every other culture in a similar way, they saw themselves as defending their holy Islamic dream of an earthly kingdom of Islamic law and “peace” (Islam means peace after all).

    The issue, it seems to me, is to make the mistake of saying Islam = terrorism. Terrorism was/is the thing at stake, not Islam per se. Ilam needs to be dealt with in terms of false beliefs, not based on what fanatics do. If we go the route of saying Islam leads to terrorism, Christianity could easily come in for the same criticism, maybe not exclusively or especially in our day, but certainly at other times. All religion became suspect after 9/11 I’d say, in one way or another. In the face of these kinds of criticisms, Christians keep trying to shake out the difference in terms of what we do or do not do rather than what our actual faith claim is.

    Likewise, we get offended when we are not the preferred brand over all other religions in this culture. We fear not just being silenced, but being left out. I suspect that the “outrage” that is likely to come from this has to do with the latter as much as the former. But it shouldn’t bother us as much as it does. Interfaith dialog, while helpful in some reagrd, as well as rampant ecumenism taken to the extreme are attempts to make religion in our own image.

    While I agree that Christian faith ought not be relegated to the private concerns of the individual in every case and would argue for its place in public dialog, I am surprised that what is not mentioned is the fact that should clergy have been invited to participate in the event, then Christians would be forced to pray with pagans (like Muslims). THAT ought to be the primary concern because it is at the heart of what we claim. In which case, excluding ourselves seems the best witness to me, at least for Lutherans. Rather than distinguishing ourselves “morally” we ought to do so confessionally.

    Of course, choosing that option comes with a cost. Christians would be seen as exclusive or elitist by some even though that is not the point. Nothing can be done about that, and in my experience, this is already the public perception, and often for the wrong reasons. It’s never about the cross, it’s about who is more “moral.”

  • Stephen

    Hmm, let’s see.

    I agree that the attacks were religious in nature. It is a mistake to think that because they didn’t bomb churches that this was purely “secular.” Islam does not make such distinctions (currently!), not really. Maybe that is changing, maybe not.

    But by attacking a (Christian) culture in which money is associated with liberty and is influencing every other culture in a similar way, they saw themselves as defending their holy Islamic dream of an earthly kingdom of Islamic law and “peace” (Islam means peace after all).

    The issue, it seems to me, is to make the mistake of saying Islam = terrorism. Terrorism was/is the thing at stake, not Islam per se. Ilam needs to be dealt with in terms of false beliefs, not based on what fanatics do. If we go the route of saying Islam leads to terrorism, Christianity could easily come in for the same criticism, maybe not exclusively or especially in our day, but certainly at other times. All religion became suspect after 9/11 I’d say, in one way or another. In the face of these kinds of criticisms, Christians keep trying to shake out the difference in terms of what we do or do not do rather than what our actual faith claim is.

    Likewise, we get offended when we are not the preferred brand over all other religions in this culture. We fear not just being silenced, but being left out. I suspect that the “outrage” that is likely to come from this has to do with the latter as much as the former. But it shouldn’t bother us as much as it does. Interfaith dialog, while helpful in some reagrd, as well as rampant ecumenism taken to the extreme are attempts to make religion in our own image.

    While I agree that Christian faith ought not be relegated to the private concerns of the individual in every case and would argue for its place in public dialog, I am surprised that what is not mentioned is the fact that should clergy have been invited to participate in the event, then Christians would be forced to pray with pagans (like Muslims). THAT ought to be the primary concern because it is at the heart of what we claim. In which case, excluding ourselves seems the best witness to me, at least for Lutherans. Rather than distinguishing ourselves “morally” we ought to do so confessionally.

    Of course, choosing that option comes with a cost. Christians would be seen as exclusive or elitist by some even though that is not the point. Nothing can be done about that, and in my experience, this is already the public perception, and often for the wrong reasons. It’s never about the cross, it’s about who is more “moral.”

  • Stephen

    I can imagine a Baptist pastor getting up and thanking God for F-16s, Navy Seals and aircraft carriers, sort of like the guy who prayed at the NASCAR race, thanking God for race cars. While I am thankful for those things/people (yes, even NASCAR – it makes my brother happy), it would be a big mess, not to mention a very poor witness. There would be an outcry for more government scrutiny of religion, ten times worse than Rick Warren at Obama’s inauguration.

  • Stephen

    I can imagine a Baptist pastor getting up and thanking God for F-16s, Navy Seals and aircraft carriers, sort of like the guy who prayed at the NASCAR race, thanking God for race cars. While I am thankful for those things/people (yes, even NASCAR – it makes my brother happy), it would be a big mess, not to mention a very poor witness. There would be an outcry for more government scrutiny of religion, ten times worse than Rick Warren at Obama’s inauguration.

  • Grace

    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    Luke 4:18

    Christ comforts, there is no one else. Who will direct those in pain, if not men who are called to preach the gospel to comfort the broken hearted, those who grieve. YES, even in the public square.

    Lutheran pastor William Cwirla states:

    “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned clergy from participating in this year’s 9/11 memorial events at Ground Zero. Good for him! He’ll save us all a bunch of post-9/11ecumenical hangover headaches on Monday. As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square. And I’m one of them.”

    Pastors and clergy have just as much right to participate in the 10th Anniversary of 9-11, as do other US citizens. The public square belongs to each and every citizen of this country. Cwiria’s vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard, and worse yet seen in the ‘public square “is distorted,…. and perhaps grandstanding, as a way of garnering attention from those who are anti Christ, not wanting any mention of the LORD our God in the “public square”

    “So as a Lutheran clergyman with a firm hold on the proper distinction of the two kingdoms, I say, “Good for you, Mayor Bloomberg.” And thank you for giving all of us clergy a day off from the public square

    From what I’ve read of this man’s statement, he’s had the “day off” most all the time. As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square. With his attitude and beliefs, he has nothing to say!

    Comfort for the mournful cometh from the LORD, no other can give the grieving hope. God strengthens us as Believers with HIS love, in turn, those who are Believing Christian pastors can give comfort to those who still weep for those they loved and lost ten years ago.

    We as Americans, no matter what our position is, be it a teacher, farmer, our military, congressman, senator, doctor, lawyer, shopkeeper, banker or president of the US, …. we ALL have a right to the ‘public square – we ALL have a right to be represented, and that includes the clergy!

  • Grace

    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    Luke 4:18

    Christ comforts, there is no one else. Who will direct those in pain, if not men who are called to preach the gospel to comfort the broken hearted, those who grieve. YES, even in the public square.

    Lutheran pastor William Cwirla states:

    “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned clergy from participating in this year’s 9/11 memorial events at Ground Zero. Good for him! He’ll save us all a bunch of post-9/11ecumenical hangover headaches on Monday. As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square. And I’m one of them.”

    Pastors and clergy have just as much right to participate in the 10th Anniversary of 9-11, as do other US citizens. The public square belongs to each and every citizen of this country. Cwiria’s vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard, and worse yet seen in the ‘public square “is distorted,…. and perhaps grandstanding, as a way of garnering attention from those who are anti Christ, not wanting any mention of the LORD our God in the “public square”

    “So as a Lutheran clergyman with a firm hold on the proper distinction of the two kingdoms, I say, “Good for you, Mayor Bloomberg.” And thank you for giving all of us clergy a day off from the public square

    From what I’ve read of this man’s statement, he’s had the “day off” most all the time. As far as I’m concerned, clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square. With his attitude and beliefs, he has nothing to say!

    Comfort for the mournful cometh from the LORD, no other can give the grieving hope. God strengthens us as Believers with HIS love, in turn, those who are Believing Christian pastors can give comfort to those who still weep for those they loved and lost ten years ago.

    We as Americans, no matter what our position is, be it a teacher, farmer, our military, congressman, senator, doctor, lawyer, shopkeeper, banker or president of the US, …. we ALL have a right to the ‘public square – we ALL have a right to be represented, and that includes the clergy!

  • kenneth

    If not in the public square where then may truth be found? As inconvienent as it is to sectarianism (sorry it can’t be done away with) truth needs to be debated with mayors and clergy of any stripe. But I am dismayed at at a proffessing christian who has no time for questions and answer on the one day, 9/11, that many people are listening so intently for something of truth, even though many wouldn’t admit it. And so what if the secularists only video the phenomena?

  • kenneth

    If not in the public square where then may truth be found? As inconvienent as it is to sectarianism (sorry it can’t be done away with) truth needs to be debated with mayors and clergy of any stripe. But I am dismayed at at a proffessing christian who has no time for questions and answer on the one day, 9/11, that many people are listening so intently for something of truth, even though many wouldn’t admit it. And so what if the secularists only video the phenomena?

  • Grace

    GOD and prayer are excluded from the memorial anniversary of 9-11? But yet Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero?

    Fox News: Without Clergy At 9-11 Anniversary It’s “A Victory For The Terrorists”
    August 26, 2011

    Fox Decides: “Banning Clergy” From 9-11 Anniversary Ceremony Is “A Victory For The Terrorists”

    Doocy: “This Comes As A Surprise” That “Mayor Michael Bloomberg Is Banning Clergy From The September 11th, 10th Anniversary Ceremony.” Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy said:

    “DOOCY: Meanwhile, religion has no place at ground zero. That’s because New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is banning the clergy from the September 11th, 10th anniversary ceremony. This comes as a surprise, especially since he recently defended plans to build that mosque near ground zero. Fernando Cabrera is a New York City council member and a pastor at New Life Outreach International, joins us live today. So the mayor says he doesn’t want any religious leaders at the 9-11 memorial.

    CABRERA: I think that’s a mistake. Not only the fact that religious leaders were one of the first ones to be at ground zero when the 9-11 terror took place — the very first person that was taken out of the rubble, as many people remember, was a chaplain.

    [...]

    DOOCY: And so what the — the mayor has not invited any spiritual leaders at all, and there will be no prayer, extraordinarily, at the event.

    CABRERA: That’s shocking. Prayer is what gave us strength, will continue to give us strength, and to help bring comfort out of the pain. To give purpose, to find meaning out of this tragic event. And to remove that, I think, is a tragic mistake.

    DOOCY: We’ve gotten a statement from the mayor’s office, and here’s how it reads, pastor. It says, “Religious leaders or others are free to hold such an event, the focus of this commemoration ceremony is on the family members of those who died.” You know, I haven’t taken a poll of the audience, but I would imagine most of the people who lost somebody on September the 11th would be comforted by some words of prayer. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/25/11] “

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201108260006

  • Grace

    GOD and prayer are excluded from the memorial anniversary of 9-11? But yet Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero?

    Fox News: Without Clergy At 9-11 Anniversary It’s “A Victory For The Terrorists”
    August 26, 2011

    Fox Decides: “Banning Clergy” From 9-11 Anniversary Ceremony Is “A Victory For The Terrorists”

    Doocy: “This Comes As A Surprise” That “Mayor Michael Bloomberg Is Banning Clergy From The September 11th, 10th Anniversary Ceremony.” Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy said:

    “DOOCY: Meanwhile, religion has no place at ground zero. That’s because New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is banning the clergy from the September 11th, 10th anniversary ceremony. This comes as a surprise, especially since he recently defended plans to build that mosque near ground zero. Fernando Cabrera is a New York City council member and a pastor at New Life Outreach International, joins us live today. So the mayor says he doesn’t want any religious leaders at the 9-11 memorial.

    CABRERA: I think that’s a mistake. Not only the fact that religious leaders were one of the first ones to be at ground zero when the 9-11 terror took place — the very first person that was taken out of the rubble, as many people remember, was a chaplain.

    [...]

    DOOCY: And so what the — the mayor has not invited any spiritual leaders at all, and there will be no prayer, extraordinarily, at the event.

    CABRERA: That’s shocking. Prayer is what gave us strength, will continue to give us strength, and to help bring comfort out of the pain. To give purpose, to find meaning out of this tragic event. And to remove that, I think, is a tragic mistake.

    DOOCY: We’ve gotten a statement from the mayor’s office, and here’s how it reads, pastor. It says, “Religious leaders or others are free to hold such an event, the focus of this commemoration ceremony is on the family members of those who died.” You know, I haven’t taken a poll of the audience, but I would imagine most of the people who lost somebody on September the 11th would be comforted by some words of prayer. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/25/11] “

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201108260006

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@15), in answer to my question (@12), replied:

    On the basis that America was considered “The Great Satan”.

    Well, that’s not a very strong start to your claim. The phrase “Great Satan” comes from Iran. Are you suggesting that Iran was behind the events of 9/11? Or are you conflating the Iranian brand of fundamentalist Islam (under the ayatollahs) with that of Al-Qaeda (which, as I understand it, was largely based in Saudi Arabia)?

    …and was considered so because of her (the USA’s) detrimental global effect on the practice of Islam.

    Hmm. Which sounds to me like an argument that it wasn’t so much a religious strike. After all, both you and I appear to agree that they weren’t striking at Christianity or any religion — they were striking at a country. And that country was doing something in their country that they didn’t like. And what was that thing? Was it religious? No, it was — again, from what I’ve read of supposed Al-Qaeda motives — the presence of US troops.

    Yes, there was a religious reason underlying it all (this is almost certainly true for many things), but, best I can tell, 9/11 involved people attacking America for having troops in Saudi Arabia. That’s a pretty darn political motive, one that inclines me to agree with Cwirla that “The events of September 1, 2001 were not inherently religious in nature.”

    But, as Kerner noted (@4 — a point that Vehse completely missed @14, potentially on purpose), we need to define our terms here. What does it mean for an even to be “religious”?

    After all, if the events of 9/11 were religious in nature, then arguably, our war in Afghanistan — which was a direct response to those events — was also religious in nature. Do you think it was?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@15), in answer to my question (@12), replied:

    On the basis that America was considered “The Great Satan”.

    Well, that’s not a very strong start to your claim. The phrase “Great Satan” comes from Iran. Are you suggesting that Iran was behind the events of 9/11? Or are you conflating the Iranian brand of fundamentalist Islam (under the ayatollahs) with that of Al-Qaeda (which, as I understand it, was largely based in Saudi Arabia)?

    …and was considered so because of her (the USA’s) detrimental global effect on the practice of Islam.

    Hmm. Which sounds to me like an argument that it wasn’t so much a religious strike. After all, both you and I appear to agree that they weren’t striking at Christianity or any religion — they were striking at a country. And that country was doing something in their country that they didn’t like. And what was that thing? Was it religious? No, it was — again, from what I’ve read of supposed Al-Qaeda motives — the presence of US troops.

    Yes, there was a religious reason underlying it all (this is almost certainly true for many things), but, best I can tell, 9/11 involved people attacking America for having troops in Saudi Arabia. That’s a pretty darn political motive, one that inclines me to agree with Cwirla that “The events of September 1, 2001 were not inherently religious in nature.”

    But, as Kerner noted (@4 — a point that Vehse completely missed @14, potentially on purpose), we need to define our terms here. What does it mean for an even to be “religious”?

    After all, if the events of 9/11 were religious in nature, then arguably, our war in Afghanistan — which was a direct response to those events — was also religious in nature. Do you think it was?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    If you pay close attention, you’ll note that there’s a difference between Cwirla’s position and that presented by our resident Culture Warriors. They’re not even debating the same questions.

    Consider this snippet from Cwirla:

    Clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.

    And now consider this rebuttal from Grace (@18):

    Pastors and clergy have just as much right to participate in the 10th Anniversary of 9-11, as do other US citizens. The public square belongs to each and every citizen of this country. Cwiria’s vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard, and worse yet “seen“ in the ‘public square “is distorted,…. and perhaps grandstanding, as a way of garnering attention from those who are anti Christ, not wanting any mention of the LORD our God in the “public square”.

    Do you see the difference? Cwirla’s point is about wisdom — what is the best choice, given the many options? But Grace’s is about “rights” — what we’re allowed to do. Cwirla doesn’t deny that, legally, clergy can make their voice heard in the public square. But what’s more troubling is the apparent Culture-War notion that what is legal is, ipso facto, a good idea.

    Of course, you may have noticed that, to make her argument more compelling, Grace misrepresents Cwirla’s position. She talks of “Cwiria’s [sic] vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard”, even going so far as to blame him for wanting to “garner attention”, as if Cwirla himself had advocated for pastors being legally unable to “make their voice heard”.

    But this is how the Culture War distorts things. If somebody suggested to a Culture Warrior that an action might not be the best choice, he’s likely to reply, with a sense of entitlement, “But it’s my right to do so! And so I now will, just because you told me I can’t!” And wisdom gets chucked out the window.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    If you pay close attention, you’ll note that there’s a difference between Cwirla’s position and that presented by our resident Culture Warriors. They’re not even debating the same questions.

    Consider this snippet from Cwirla:

    Clergy are best neither seen nor heard in the public square.

    And now consider this rebuttal from Grace (@18):

    Pastors and clergy have just as much right to participate in the 10th Anniversary of 9-11, as do other US citizens. The public square belongs to each and every citizen of this country. Cwiria’s vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard, and worse yet “seen“ in the ‘public square “is distorted,…. and perhaps grandstanding, as a way of garnering attention from those who are anti Christ, not wanting any mention of the LORD our God in the “public square”.

    Do you see the difference? Cwirla’s point is about wisdom — what is the best choice, given the many options? But Grace’s is about “rights” — what we’re allowed to do. Cwirla doesn’t deny that, legally, clergy can make their voice heard in the public square. But what’s more troubling is the apparent Culture-War notion that what is legal is, ipso facto, a good idea.

    Of course, you may have noticed that, to make her argument more compelling, Grace misrepresents Cwirla’s position. She talks of “Cwiria’s [sic] vision of, who can and cannot make their voice heard”, even going so far as to blame him for wanting to “garner attention”, as if Cwirla himself had advocated for pastors being legally unable to “make their voice heard”.

    But this is how the Culture War distorts things. If somebody suggested to a Culture Warrior that an action might not be the best choice, he’s likely to reply, with a sense of entitlement, “But it’s my right to do so! And so I now will, just because you told me I can’t!” And wisdom gets chucked out the window.

  • SKPeterson

    tODD @ 22 – I think what you are picking up on is the difference between religious expression and modern American civil religion. This civil religion is what Cwirla is opposed to. Or rather, he is opposed to clergy subjugating themselves and their theology to this civil religion. As Pete @ 1 noted, there is nothing preventing the churches of New York City from holding memorial services, or solemn parades or processions.

    From Bloomberg’s perspective he may have viewed invitations to religious figures as a no-win situation – somebody somewhere would have been offended that someone was either invited or not invited, thereby detracting from the commemoration.

  • SKPeterson

    tODD @ 22 – I think what you are picking up on is the difference between religious expression and modern American civil religion. This civil religion is what Cwirla is opposed to. Or rather, he is opposed to clergy subjugating themselves and their theology to this civil religion. As Pete @ 1 noted, there is nothing preventing the churches of New York City from holding memorial services, or solemn parades or processions.

    From Bloomberg’s perspective he may have viewed invitations to religious figures as a no-win situation – somebody somewhere would have been offended that someone was either invited or not invited, thereby detracting from the commemoration.

  • moallen

    Inevitably if the clergy were officially speaking at the ceremony, it would become a parade/pantheon of gods, take your choice! The same problem occurs at the National Cathedral. When the one true and living God is relegated to just being part of the pantheon, then Christians should not take part. Nothing is keeping Christian pastors from being at the event to comfort and console their parishoners – perhaps an even more critical role than making some speech. A mish-mash of deities does no one any good.
    Grace – If you’ve heard Rev. Cwirla speak you know he is a faithful pastor bringing the truth of Jesus. Go to the Issues Etc. website and take a listen to some of the programs he has been on. He also did an interview about this specific topic, which could help provide some insight for you as to his thinking.

  • moallen

    Inevitably if the clergy were officially speaking at the ceremony, it would become a parade/pantheon of gods, take your choice! The same problem occurs at the National Cathedral. When the one true and living God is relegated to just being part of the pantheon, then Christians should not take part. Nothing is keeping Christian pastors from being at the event to comfort and console their parishoners – perhaps an even more critical role than making some speech. A mish-mash of deities does no one any good.
    Grace – If you’ve heard Rev. Cwirla speak you know he is a faithful pastor bringing the truth of Jesus. Go to the Issues Etc. website and take a listen to some of the programs he has been on. He also did an interview about this specific topic, which could help provide some insight for you as to his thinking.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#22 Nice summation. I have experienced this myself when I say that I am not a fan of public prayer in school.

    @#23 I think Cwirla also does the radio show God Whisperers, which can be heard at http://www.piratechristianradio.com/

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#22 Nice summation. I have experienced this myself when I say that I am not a fan of public prayer in school.

    @#23 I think Cwirla also does the radio show God Whisperers, which can be heard at http://www.piratechristianradio.com/

  • norman teigen

    Cwirla is an important voice in these discussions. Sadly, many of my conservative Lutheran friends have swallowed right wing political expressions as though these views were linked to the truths of the faith. Thank you,
    Pastor Cwirla.

  • norman teigen

    Cwirla is an important voice in these discussions. Sadly, many of my conservative Lutheran friends have swallowed right wing political expressions as though these views were linked to the truths of the faith. Thank you,
    Pastor Cwirla.

  • Stephen

    tODD

    “After all, if the events of 9/11 were religious in nature, then arguably, our war in Afghanistan — which was a direct response to those events — was also religious in nature. Do you think it was?”

    I don’t know. I’d say for them it was grounded in religious fanaticism – the US is/was defiling their holy places by its presence, infiltrating and destroying Islamic culture, etc. and they saw the best way to combat it would be an attack on our financial system, at least symbolically (I do think the attack was symbolic), which they see as the heart of our power to diminish the influence of a pure Islam. There are some good studies out there about the bitterness toward the west that has been felt for centuries ever since Islam was pushed out of Europe. We remain “the infidel” that dominates the world.

    But as far as the response of the US, while it may have been couched in religious terms by some, even the president with his “axis of evil” statement, was essentially a response to an act of war upon our country. But to whom do we direct our retaliation? The problem has always been how to fight a war when there’ s no enemy state. We had to cook at least one up (Iraq). Otherwise, if it was by nature a religious response on our part, it seems like we would attack any or all Muslim/Arab countries. We would have rounded up American Muslims, something like WWII and Japanese Americans. Instead, we picked a couple states against which we could legitimate our response as a war, which is what we are more prepared to do, and fight them on their territory, not on ours.

    I think you could make a case that aspects of our response were also symbolic, like with Iraq perhaps, which may not be saying much. But it seems our response was largely about defense whether one agrees with how it has been carried out or not. That, and a bucket of patriotism. Remember how anyone who questioned it was called unpatriotic? And we would not continue to have arguments about profiling if we were fundamentally opposed to Muslims.

    Anyway, if it the “unpatriotic” thing had been perceived more broadly as also “anti-Christian” then maybe we could say we had primarily religious intentions. But I think in the west we separate that out more, unlike the Islamic Middle East. We have supported and continue to safeguard Muslims elsewhere such as in Kosovo and Bosnia. Except for a few vigilantes, the US has not “taken it out” on Islam.

  • Stephen

    tODD

    “After all, if the events of 9/11 were religious in nature, then arguably, our war in Afghanistan — which was a direct response to those events — was also religious in nature. Do you think it was?”

    I don’t know. I’d say for them it was grounded in religious fanaticism – the US is/was defiling their holy places by its presence, infiltrating and destroying Islamic culture, etc. and they saw the best way to combat it would be an attack on our financial system, at least symbolically (I do think the attack was symbolic), which they see as the heart of our power to diminish the influence of a pure Islam. There are some good studies out there about the bitterness toward the west that has been felt for centuries ever since Islam was pushed out of Europe. We remain “the infidel” that dominates the world.

    But as far as the response of the US, while it may have been couched in religious terms by some, even the president with his “axis of evil” statement, was essentially a response to an act of war upon our country. But to whom do we direct our retaliation? The problem has always been how to fight a war when there’ s no enemy state. We had to cook at least one up (Iraq). Otherwise, if it was by nature a religious response on our part, it seems like we would attack any or all Muslim/Arab countries. We would have rounded up American Muslims, something like WWII and Japanese Americans. Instead, we picked a couple states against which we could legitimate our response as a war, which is what we are more prepared to do, and fight them on their territory, not on ours.

    I think you could make a case that aspects of our response were also symbolic, like with Iraq perhaps, which may not be saying much. But it seems our response was largely about defense whether one agrees with how it has been carried out or not. That, and a bucket of patriotism. Remember how anyone who questioned it was called unpatriotic? And we would not continue to have arguments about profiling if we were fundamentally opposed to Muslims.

    Anyway, if it the “unpatriotic” thing had been perceived more broadly as also “anti-Christian” then maybe we could say we had primarily religious intentions. But I think in the west we separate that out more, unlike the Islamic Middle East. We have supported and continue to safeguard Muslims elsewhere such as in Kosovo and Bosnia. Except for a few vigilantes, the US has not “taken it out” on Islam.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I would also add that it appears that Cwirla is defining the public square as the public venues that serve as the sanctuary of the civil religion. With such a definition of course pastor’s shouldn’t be there so as to not give confusion between the confession of Christians and the confession of civil religionists. This is not saying pastor’s should not have a public voice, but should not be preaching in the sanctuary of a false religion.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I would also add that it appears that Cwirla is defining the public square as the public venues that serve as the sanctuary of the civil religion. With such a definition of course pastor’s shouldn’t be there so as to not give confusion between the confession of Christians and the confession of civil religionists. This is not saying pastor’s should not have a public voice, but should not be preaching in the sanctuary of a false religion.

  • Stephen

    Sorry for getting off topic, but in terms of clarifying things, for Christians to enjoin themselves to this event in such an “officially sanctioned” way seems to me to play into the “crusade” critique that came out of GW Bush making his statement about the axis of evil. If there are going to be religious ceremonies there, for Christians at least (especially Lutherans!) those ought to be carried out separately. In such an enormously culturally and politically significant moment, it will look like the Christians and the Jews have made patsies and doormats out of the cooperative Muslims and fuel the fire when it is played on al Jezeera that America is filled with militant Christians, Zionists and infidels all out destroy Islam.

    Also not wise.

  • Stephen

    Sorry for getting off topic, but in terms of clarifying things, for Christians to enjoin themselves to this event in such an “officially sanctioned” way seems to me to play into the “crusade” critique that came out of GW Bush making his statement about the axis of evil. If there are going to be religious ceremonies there, for Christians at least (especially Lutherans!) those ought to be carried out separately. In such an enormously culturally and politically significant moment, it will look like the Christians and the Jews have made patsies and doormats out of the cooperative Muslims and fuel the fire when it is played on al Jezeera that America is filled with militant Christians, Zionists and infidels all out destroy Islam.

    Also not wise.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen (@27), I think we’re not communicating super well. I’m not arguing that our response was religious in nature. I’m arguing that neither it, nor the events of 9/11, were inherently religious in nature, even if many of those involved in or championing these things used religious language and justifications.

    But as far as the response of the US, while it may have been couched in religious terms by some, even the president with his “axis of evil” statement, was essentially a response to an act of war upon our country.

    And, arguably, the same could be said for Al-Qaeda. While they couched their actions in religious terms, it was essentially a response to what they perceived as an act of war on their turf. Except that, in their perception, their turf is ruled by leaders who are about as bad as we Westerners — and unlikely to attack the West, given that they allowed the US to bring in their soldiers in the first place — so they waged war through non-state means.

    Still, I think your summary makes my case for me:

    The US is/was defiling their holy places by its presence

    The US. Not Christians, but the political entity known as the United States. It’s not like Al-Qaeda was likely to be happy if only Muslim Americans were stationed in Saudi Arabia. If Al-Qaeda made a statement along those lines, then I’d be more inclined to say their beef was religious.

    But it’s with a political entity, not a religious one. So, at most, it’s a semi-religious battle, not a battle between religions.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen (@27), I think we’re not communicating super well. I’m not arguing that our response was religious in nature. I’m arguing that neither it, nor the events of 9/11, were inherently religious in nature, even if many of those involved in or championing these things used religious language and justifications.

    But as far as the response of the US, while it may have been couched in religious terms by some, even the president with his “axis of evil” statement, was essentially a response to an act of war upon our country.

    And, arguably, the same could be said for Al-Qaeda. While they couched their actions in religious terms, it was essentially a response to what they perceived as an act of war on their turf. Except that, in their perception, their turf is ruled by leaders who are about as bad as we Westerners — and unlikely to attack the West, given that they allowed the US to bring in their soldiers in the first place — so they waged war through non-state means.

    Still, I think your summary makes my case for me:

    The US is/was defiling their holy places by its presence

    The US. Not Christians, but the political entity known as the United States. It’s not like Al-Qaeda was likely to be happy if only Muslim Americans were stationed in Saudi Arabia. If Al-Qaeda made a statement along those lines, then I’d be more inclined to say their beef was religious.

    But it’s with a political entity, not a religious one. So, at most, it’s a semi-religious battle, not a battle between religions.

  • steve

    I agree to an extent with Cwirla’s larger point but in his assertion that the events on September 11, 2001 were not inherently religious, he’s misunderstanding Islamist political philosophy. It may not have been about the religious beliefs of most Muslims, but it certainly was about religion. If it’s not about religion then why are the mujahideen only traveling to fellow Muslim countries to help them fight?

  • steve

    I agree to an extent with Cwirla’s larger point but in his assertion that the events on September 11, 2001 were not inherently religious, he’s misunderstanding Islamist political philosophy. It may not have been about the religious beliefs of most Muslims, but it certainly was about religion. If it’s not about religion then why are the mujahideen only traveling to fellow Muslim countries to help them fight?

  • steve

    tODD, #30, you’re right that it’s not a battle between religions. That’s not the same as saying the events of 9/11 were not inherently religious. Maybe that’s not what you’re saying but I want to be clear. When you say “on their turf”, and “their leaders”, about whom are you referring? Not merely Egyptians, or Saudis, or Afghans, right? There is a common underlying theme without which there would be no war.

    Call it a matter of perspective, if you want. If the perspective of the attacking forces of 9/11 was that this was a religious battle, then it follows that without the religious motivation there would be no battle. I don’t think there’s any way you can get Arabs, Afghans, Persians, Pakistanis, Chechens, etc, etc together in a global common cause without one underlying motivation. Do you?

  • steve

    tODD, #30, you’re right that it’s not a battle between religions. That’s not the same as saying the events of 9/11 were not inherently religious. Maybe that’s not what you’re saying but I want to be clear. When you say “on their turf”, and “their leaders”, about whom are you referring? Not merely Egyptians, or Saudis, or Afghans, right? There is a common underlying theme without which there would be no war.

    Call it a matter of perspective, if you want. If the perspective of the attacking forces of 9/11 was that this was a religious battle, then it follows that without the religious motivation there would be no battle. I don’t think there’s any way you can get Arabs, Afghans, Persians, Pakistanis, Chechens, etc, etc together in a global common cause without one underlying motivation. Do you?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #21,

    “Yes, there was a religious reason underlying it all . . .”

    That’s pretty much my entire point in all its subtlety.

    I still don’t think I am tracking with you, though. Bill Cwirla said that 9/11 wasn’t inherently religious. I think that is a sloppy statement. I don’t think you can understand 9/11 apart from Islam. Islam is a religion.

    Now maybe I have given the wrong impression. I don’t think that 9/11 is ENTIRELY religious. It may not even be mostly religious. But it is, in my opinion, inherently religious.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #21,

    “Yes, there was a religious reason underlying it all . . .”

    That’s pretty much my entire point in all its subtlety.

    I still don’t think I am tracking with you, though. Bill Cwirla said that 9/11 wasn’t inherently religious. I think that is a sloppy statement. I don’t think you can understand 9/11 apart from Islam. Islam is a religion.

    Now maybe I have given the wrong impression. I don’t think that 9/11 is ENTIRELY religious. It may not even be mostly religious. But it is, in my opinion, inherently religious.

  • Booklover

    I agree with D.K. @#33 that “the events of 9/11 weren’t inherently religious in nature” is a sloppy statement. Sept. 11 happened because one “worldview” attacked another worldview. Or one “philosophy” attacked another philosophy. Call it what you will, it boils down to religion and beliefs, and those beliefs branched out into action.

    It is also hard for me to picture a memorial event without the comfort of Jesus Christ, so perhaps this calls for individual churches to hold their own memorial service, and of course for individual Christians to pray.

  • Booklover

    I agree with D.K. @#33 that “the events of 9/11 weren’t inherently religious in nature” is a sloppy statement. Sept. 11 happened because one “worldview” attacked another worldview. Or one “philosophy” attacked another philosophy. Call it what you will, it boils down to religion and beliefs, and those beliefs branched out into action.

    It is also hard for me to picture a memorial event without the comfort of Jesus Christ, so perhaps this calls for individual churches to hold their own memorial service, and of course for individual Christians to pray.

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Kempin @33: “Bill Cwirla said that 9/11 wasn’t inherently religious. I think that is a sloppy statement. I don’t think you can understand 9/11 apart from Islam. Islam is a religion.”

    Dan is correct in his summary since the 9/11 act of war was carried out by Muslims against people and property, and not an identified battle between Muslim and Christian forces.

    Thus when steve @32 states: “tODD, #30, you’re right that it’s not a battle between religions.”

    He is also correct, since Rev. Cwirla did not claim the 9/11 events “were not a battle between religions”; Cwirla claimed that the 9/11 events “were not inherently religious in nature.”

    Now, unless Rev. Cwirla’s definition of “The events” includes Christians praying as they sat in their airplane seats before their plane and they disintegated into a fireball when it hit the building, or as some leaped to their deaths rather than being burned alive, or as some, including firefighters, felt the loud rumble of the building collapsing as they were trying to leave or were trapped, then one cannot really say 9/11 was inherently religious in nature on both sides.

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Kempin @33: “Bill Cwirla said that 9/11 wasn’t inherently religious. I think that is a sloppy statement. I don’t think you can understand 9/11 apart from Islam. Islam is a religion.”

    Dan is correct in his summary since the 9/11 act of war was carried out by Muslims against people and property, and not an identified battle between Muslim and Christian forces.

    Thus when steve @32 states: “tODD, #30, you’re right that it’s not a battle between religions.”

    He is also correct, since Rev. Cwirla did not claim the 9/11 events “were not a battle between religions”; Cwirla claimed that the 9/11 events “were not inherently religious in nature.”

    Now, unless Rev. Cwirla’s definition of “The events” includes Christians praying as they sat in their airplane seats before their plane and they disintegated into a fireball when it hit the building, or as some leaped to their deaths rather than being burned alive, or as some, including firefighters, felt the loud rumble of the building collapsing as they were trying to leave or were trapped, then one cannot really say 9/11 was inherently religious in nature on both sides.

  • kerner

    For whatever it may be worth, while we are remembering the Christians who died on 9/11, I think we might do well to remember haw many non-Christians were victims that day. We could start with these:

    http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Muslim-Victims-of-911.pdf

    One site I looked at pointed out that the proportion of Muslim victims is roughly the same as the proportion of Muslims in the US general population.

    Also, judging by their names, there were a significant number of Jews killed that day, as well as a number of Asians who would traditionally been Buddhist or Hindu. But a great many of all of these may have been pretty secular types who practiced no religion at all. They were killed for being part of America, not for their religions.

    Look, I can’t deny that the terrorists have grafted a religious aspect onto their reason for doing what they did. But, what I think Pr. Cwirla was trying to say, however inartfully, is that this was, and is, fundamentally a struggle between forces in the left hand kingdom. Pr. Cwirla, I believe, sees the right hand kingdom as “inherantly religious”, and the left hand kingdom and its wars inherantly, well, not.

    While I concede that the terrorists have construed their violence as a function of their religion, and while I even concede that Islam may have no concept of 2 kingdom theology such that it may lend itself to construing violence as holy war, I still think that Pr. Cwirla’s point is well taken.

  • kerner

    For whatever it may be worth, while we are remembering the Christians who died on 9/11, I think we might do well to remember haw many non-Christians were victims that day. We could start with these:

    http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Muslim-Victims-of-911.pdf

    One site I looked at pointed out that the proportion of Muslim victims is roughly the same as the proportion of Muslims in the US general population.

    Also, judging by their names, there were a significant number of Jews killed that day, as well as a number of Asians who would traditionally been Buddhist or Hindu. But a great many of all of these may have been pretty secular types who practiced no religion at all. They were killed for being part of America, not for their religions.

    Look, I can’t deny that the terrorists have grafted a religious aspect onto their reason for doing what they did. But, what I think Pr. Cwirla was trying to say, however inartfully, is that this was, and is, fundamentally a struggle between forces in the left hand kingdom. Pr. Cwirla, I believe, sees the right hand kingdom as “inherantly religious”, and the left hand kingdom and its wars inherantly, well, not.

    While I concede that the terrorists have construed their violence as a function of their religion, and while I even concede that Islam may have no concept of 2 kingdom theology such that it may lend itself to construing violence as holy war, I still think that Pr. Cwirla’s point is well taken.

  • Grace

    @22 tODD

    “Do you see the difference? Cwirla’s point is about wisdom — what is the best choice, given the many options? But Grace’s is about “rights” — what we’re allowed to do. Cwirla doesn’t deny that, legally, clergy can make their voice heard in the public square. But what’s more troubling is the apparent Culture-War notion that what is legal is, ipso facto, a good idea.

    The words “Culture war” has been overused to mean anything one objects to, anything that doesn’t coincide with an opinion, different from there’s.

    Wikipedia defines Culture war as follows:

    “The culture war (or culture wars) in American usage is a metaphor used to claim that political conflict is based on sets of conflicting cultural values. The term frequently implies a conflict between those values considered traditionalist or conservative and those considered progressive or liberal. The “culture war” is sometimes traced to the 1960s and has taken various forms since then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

    Yes, “Culture war” has been formed, reformed and made to mean almost anything the writer cannot stuff in a plastic bag!

    BANNED – - – - Bloomberg has “banned” clergy as Cwirla states: “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned clergy from participating in this year’s 9/11 memorial events at Ground Zero.

    Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero . . . . interesting

    Representing Christ, at such a time as the 10 Anniversary of 9-11 is not a matter of “Culture war” – It’s not about “Culture wars” it’s about comforting those who grieve. Pastors have the right to comfort. Leaving Christ out, plays right into the definition of progressive or liberal (see definition above)

    Of course those who agree with Bloomberg will blow their horns in mass approval, with this cheap, scrap and morsel. The church at large stands in shock at such an agreement by a denominational pastor.

  • Grace

    @22 tODD

    “Do you see the difference? Cwirla’s point is about wisdom — what is the best choice, given the many options? But Grace’s is about “rights” — what we’re allowed to do. Cwirla doesn’t deny that, legally, clergy can make their voice heard in the public square. But what’s more troubling is the apparent Culture-War notion that what is legal is, ipso facto, a good idea.

    The words “Culture war” has been overused to mean anything one objects to, anything that doesn’t coincide with an opinion, different from there’s.

    Wikipedia defines Culture war as follows:

    “The culture war (or culture wars) in American usage is a metaphor used to claim that political conflict is based on sets of conflicting cultural values. The term frequently implies a conflict between those values considered traditionalist or conservative and those considered progressive or liberal. The “culture war” is sometimes traced to the 1960s and has taken various forms since then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

    Yes, “Culture war” has been formed, reformed and made to mean almost anything the writer cannot stuff in a plastic bag!

    BANNED – - – - Bloomberg has “banned” clergy as Cwirla states: “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned clergy from participating in this year’s 9/11 memorial events at Ground Zero.

    Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero . . . . interesting

    Representing Christ, at such a time as the 10 Anniversary of 9-11 is not a matter of “Culture war” – It’s not about “Culture wars” it’s about comforting those who grieve. Pastors have the right to comfort. Leaving Christ out, plays right into the definition of progressive or liberal (see definition above)

    Of course those who agree with Bloomberg will blow their horns in mass approval, with this cheap, scrap and morsel. The church at large stands in shock at such an agreement by a denominational pastor.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ Carol-Christian Soldier

    seeing as that the “deist”- Jefferson- saw to it that the CHRISTIAN Bible be part of of the curriculum of the public school system in Washington D.C. -( he was superintendent of same as well as Pres of the US)–
    how deist was he really -
    rhetorical ? – no need to answer unless you truly believe the deist take-
    Carol-CS-
    Pres / Founder -LA Lutherans for Life

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ Carol-Christian Soldier

    seeing as that the “deist”- Jefferson- saw to it that the CHRISTIAN Bible be part of of the curriculum of the public school system in Washington D.C. -( he was superintendent of same as well as Pres of the US)–
    how deist was he really -
    rhetorical ? – no need to answer unless you truly believe the deist take-
    Carol-CS-
    Pres / Founder -LA Lutherans for Life

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 36

    Who did the Islamics attack on 9-11? – were they a group, or was it the United States of America, what we stand for and what we don’t accept ?

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!

    YOU WROTE: “While I concede that the terrorists have construed their violence as a function of their religion, and while I even concede that Islam may have no concept of 2 kingdom theology such that it may lend itself to construing violence as holy war, I still think that Pr. Cwirla’s point is well taken.”

    Qur’an 5:33

    5:33

    “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 36

    Who did the Islamics attack on 9-11? – were they a group, or was it the United States of America, what we stand for and what we don’t accept ?

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!

    YOU WROTE: “While I concede that the terrorists have construed their violence as a function of their religion, and while I even concede that Islam may have no concept of 2 kingdom theology such that it may lend itself to construing violence as holy war, I still think that Pr. Cwirla’s point is well taken.”

    Qur’an 5:33

    5:33

    “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
    Sounds like somebody I want teaching my kids the Bible. Public schools teaching the Bible is the worst thing you could ever do. I have been in a state school setting. You know what they taught? The Bible is just another piece of literature to be treated as if you would treat any other book. They also taught Moses did not write the Pentateuch that there were at least 2 authors of Isaiah, and that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. Is that what you want your little ones to learn?

    Now back on topic.

    Ban is too strong a word for what Bloomberg has done. He just didn’t invite them and the political figures that are invited are given preselected readings so as to prevent political speeches. It does not seem that he is making an anti-religion move, but is rather seeking to keep the memorial as simple and as inoffensive as possible. I say he is not being anti-religious because Bloomberg has defended religious symbols being set up at the WTC site. All of the Bloomberg’s statements reflect a desire to keep the event from becoming a monstrosity simply by the number of people who want to have their say at the 10th anniversary event. It is a shame that the culture warriors can’t read beyond the heated rhetoric.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
    Sounds like somebody I want teaching my kids the Bible. Public schools teaching the Bible is the worst thing you could ever do. I have been in a state school setting. You know what they taught? The Bible is just another piece of literature to be treated as if you would treat any other book. They also taught Moses did not write the Pentateuch that there were at least 2 authors of Isaiah, and that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. Is that what you want your little ones to learn?

    Now back on topic.

    Ban is too strong a word for what Bloomberg has done. He just didn’t invite them and the political figures that are invited are given preselected readings so as to prevent political speeches. It does not seem that he is making an anti-religion move, but is rather seeking to keep the memorial as simple and as inoffensive as possible. I say he is not being anti-religious because Bloomberg has defended religious symbols being set up at the WTC site. All of the Bloomberg’s statements reflect a desire to keep the event from becoming a monstrosity simply by the number of people who want to have their say at the 10th anniversary event. It is a shame that the culture warriors can’t read beyond the heated rhetoric.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#37 You aren’t the church at large. You are just one person. So it would be more accurate to say “this person stands in shock.”

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#37 You aren’t the church at large. You are just one person. So it would be more accurate to say “this person stands in shock.”

  • http://www.amongthehills.com/blog Christopher

    I respectfully disagree with Cwirla’s view of two separate kingdoms. Both the heavens and the earth are God’s.

    I wrote a response to Mayor Bloomberg’s plans which includes 10 ways clergy participation would enhance the ceremony, even in a diverse community.

    http://www.amongthehills.com/blog/?p=594

    All respectful feedback is appreciated.

  • http://www.amongthehills.com/blog Christopher

    I respectfully disagree with Cwirla’s view of two separate kingdoms. Both the heavens and the earth are God’s.

    I wrote a response to Mayor Bloomberg’s plans which includes 10 ways clergy participation would enhance the ceremony, even in a diverse community.

    http://www.amongthehills.com/blog/?p=594

    All respectful feedback is appreciated.

  • Jonathan

    This is a good thing for the LCMS. At least it will ensure we don’t have another debate/debacle over the unionism and syncretism stuff like happened after 9/11. Oy veh.

    Funny, though, the Southern Baptists are insensed at being snubbed from participating in the Washington National Cathedral’s “service” where Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus, and what have you, are all participating with the Episcopals.

    Why is unionism/syncretism not an issue for them? What, are they expecting a “fire from heaven falling on the altar” moment?

  • Jonathan

    This is a good thing for the LCMS. At least it will ensure we don’t have another debate/debacle over the unionism and syncretism stuff like happened after 9/11. Oy veh.

    Funny, though, the Southern Baptists are insensed at being snubbed from participating in the Washington National Cathedral’s “service” where Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus, and what have you, are all participating with the Episcopals.

    Why is unionism/syncretism not an issue for them? What, are they expecting a “fire from heaven falling on the altar” moment?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think most of this is the spoiled reaction of a child who is no longer the favorite. It is past time for Christians to begin changing their mindset. We do not live in the 50′s where it was the good Christian Capitalists against the evil Atheist Communist Horde. The world is again expressing its hate for us.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think most of this is the spoiled reaction of a child who is no longer the favorite. It is past time for Christians to begin changing their mindset. We do not live in the 50′s where it was the good Christian Capitalists against the evil Atheist Communist Horde. The world is again expressing its hate for us.

  • –helen

    This person is deeply grateful that Mayor Bloomberg has not planned a situation which would lead us to another 9/23!

    [Of course, the "Gatecrasher" then could well be egotistic enough to try it again!]

    We’ll hope that those who desire spiritual comfort will seek it in churches/synagogues/mosques etc.

  • –helen

    This person is deeply grateful that Mayor Bloomberg has not planned a situation which would lead us to another 9/23!

    [Of course, the "Gatecrasher" then could well be egotistic enough to try it again!]

    We’ll hope that those who desire spiritual comfort will seek it in churches/synagogues/mosques etc.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@37) said:

    The words “Culture war” has been overused to mean anything one objects to, anything that doesn’t coincide with an opinion, different from there’s.

    But this is obviously false, as even a reading of the Wikipedia article you link to shows. Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc. Just because you don’t like a label doesn’t mean it’s meaningless.

    Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero . . . . interesting

    Here again, we see that, through the Culture Warrior’s eyes, there is no difference between not being opposed to something and “supporting” it — provided that something is bad in the eyes of the Culture Warrior. This is also interesting because of Grace’s continued insistence on what she has a legal right to. Do Muslims have a legal right to own property in the United States of America? Will Grace support that right? Or are such rights only for Christians?

    It’s not about “Culture wars” it’s about comforting those who grieve. Pastors have the right to comfort.

    If a pastor has to speak at a government-run event in order to comfort his flock, then he is a poor pastor indeed! Why is he not, you know, actually talking to his flock, whether when they gather for worship, or as he makes his regular calls to their houses? Pastors do not have a right to be invited to whatever government-run event they demand.

    And, as DLit2C already noted (@41), you’re not “the church at large” — you only speak for yourself, though you seem to enjoy speaking on behalf of everyone who isn’t actively disagreeing with you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@37) said:

    The words “Culture war” has been overused to mean anything one objects to, anything that doesn’t coincide with an opinion, different from there’s.

    But this is obviously false, as even a reading of the Wikipedia article you link to shows. Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc. Just because you don’t like a label doesn’t mean it’s meaningless.

    Bloomberg supports plans to build a “MOSQUE” near ground zero . . . . interesting

    Here again, we see that, through the Culture Warrior’s eyes, there is no difference between not being opposed to something and “supporting” it — provided that something is bad in the eyes of the Culture Warrior. This is also interesting because of Grace’s continued insistence on what she has a legal right to. Do Muslims have a legal right to own property in the United States of America? Will Grace support that right? Or are such rights only for Christians?

    It’s not about “Culture wars” it’s about comforting those who grieve. Pastors have the right to comfort.

    If a pastor has to speak at a government-run event in order to comfort his flock, then he is a poor pastor indeed! Why is he not, you know, actually talking to his flock, whether when they gather for worship, or as he makes his regular calls to their houses? Pastors do not have a right to be invited to whatever government-run event they demand.

    And, as DLit2C already noted (@41), you’re not “the church at large” — you only speak for yourself, though you seem to enjoy speaking on behalf of everyone who isn’t actively disagreeing with you.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 46: “Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc.”

    That’s a bit narrow, isn’t it? What about those who consider themselves “liberal”, Democratic, etc.?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 46: “Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc.”

    That’s a bit narrow, isn’t it? What about those who consider themselves “liberal”, Democratic, etc.?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@39), I also had to chuckle at this statement of yours:

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!

    Because all of a week ago, you were making the opposite claim:

    I don’t believe ANYONE who took PART in the Nazi regime was a Christian.

    So which is it, Grace. Do you know who was a Christian, or don’t you?

    Anyhow, DLit2C, I agree with your points here.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@39), I also had to chuckle at this statement of yours:

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!

    Because all of a week ago, you were making the opposite claim:

    I don’t believe ANYONE who took PART in the Nazi regime was a Christian.

    So which is it, Grace. Do you know who was a Christian, or don’t you?

    Anyhow, DLit2C, I agree with your points here.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What about them, DonS (@47)?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What about them, DonS (@47)?

  • Grace

    tODD@ 46

    YOU WROTE: “If a pastor has to speak at a government-run event in order to comfort his flock, then he is a poor pastor indeed! Why is he not, you know, actually talking to his flock, whether when they gather for worship, or as he makes his regular calls to their houses? Pastors do not have a right to be invited to whatever government-run event they demand.”

    Your comment above is short sighted, and limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel.

    We cannot concern ourselves with what other pastors, or clergy are doing, but what WE are doing to spread God’s Word among the lost, that is key.

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Most people do not attend church.

    Jesus spoke openly, out on the hillsides, anywhere, anytime. He went into the Temple and taught, even though many of the Jews didn’t believe, HE continued to minister to any and all who would listen.

    If any pastor stays within the walls of his church, OR goes only to make “calls to their houses” his ministry isn’t going out beyond the confines of his congregants.

  • Grace

    tODD@ 46

    YOU WROTE: “If a pastor has to speak at a government-run event in order to comfort his flock, then he is a poor pastor indeed! Why is he not, you know, actually talking to his flock, whether when they gather for worship, or as he makes his regular calls to their houses? Pastors do not have a right to be invited to whatever government-run event they demand.”

    Your comment above is short sighted, and limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel.

    We cannot concern ourselves with what other pastors, or clergy are doing, but what WE are doing to spread God’s Word among the lost, that is key.

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Most people do not attend church.

    Jesus spoke openly, out on the hillsides, anywhere, anytime. He went into the Temple and taught, even though many of the Jews didn’t believe, HE continued to minister to any and all who would listen.

    If any pastor stays within the walls of his church, OR goes only to make “calls to their houses” his ministry isn’t going out beyond the confines of his congregants.

  • Grace

    Century – 41
    I posted @ 37 — “Of course those who agree with Bloomberg will blow their horns in mass approval, with this cheap, scrap and morsel. The church at large stands in shock at such an agreement by a denominational pastor.”

    Century @ 41 — “@#37 You aren’t the church at large. You are just one person. So it would be more accurate to say “this person stands in shock.”

    Century, there are a great many people who agree with me, just as there are those who agree with you. The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    The world will be watching on Sunday, as to what will be said, and who will say it. Leaving pastors out of the Memorial 10th Anniversary of 9-11 is just what the heathen are cheering for.

    There will always be those who preach a false doctrine, sitting on the platform with others who do teach God’s Word. Better to have those who’s ears are OPEN to the Gospel hear one pastor tell of God’s love, HIS Son’s death and resurrection, Salvation for those that believe, comfort for those who weep, than NOTHING AT ALL ….. just because it might offend the heathen and pagans.

  • Grace

    Century – 41
    I posted @ 37 — “Of course those who agree with Bloomberg will blow their horns in mass approval, with this cheap, scrap and morsel. The church at large stands in shock at such an agreement by a denominational pastor.”

    Century @ 41 — “@#37 You aren’t the church at large. You are just one person. So it would be more accurate to say “this person stands in shock.”

    Century, there are a great many people who agree with me, just as there are those who agree with you. The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    The world will be watching on Sunday, as to what will be said, and who will say it. Leaving pastors out of the Memorial 10th Anniversary of 9-11 is just what the heathen are cheering for.

    There will always be those who preach a false doctrine, sitting on the platform with others who do teach God’s Word. Better to have those who’s ears are OPEN to the Gospel hear one pastor tell of God’s love, HIS Son’s death and resurrection, Salvation for those that believe, comfort for those who weep, than NOTHING AT ALL ….. just because it might offend the heathen and pagans.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 49: I was asking you to clarify your definition of “culture warrior” — it seemed a bit narrow and ideologically one-sided to me.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 49: I was asking you to clarify your definition of “culture warrior” — it seemed a bit narrow and ideologically one-sided to me.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 48

    You write: “Grace (@39), I also had to chuckle at this statement of yours:”

    The comment I made on this thread @ 39 “You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!” has no correlation regarding the thread you posted from “Human Experimentation” using the quote below:

    My Post @ 46 “I don’t believe ANYONE who took PART in the Nazi regime was a Christian. No one could do the things they did, hate the Jews, as they did could be Christians. They often times quoted Romans 13 as their EXCUSE, no matter how twisted their reasoning, just as their hatred for the Jewish people, it’s all a sham – however the EXCUSES persist which are not believed, except in the world of ‘hatred of the Jews’ -”

    Two different threads thrown into tODD’s blender!

  • Grace

    tODD @ 48

    You write: “Grace (@39), I also had to chuckle at this statement of yours:”

    The comment I made on this thread @ 39 “You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!” has no correlation regarding the thread you posted from “Human Experimentation” using the quote below:

    My Post @ 46 “I don’t believe ANYONE who took PART in the Nazi regime was a Christian. No one could do the things they did, hate the Jews, as they did could be Christians. They often times quoted Romans 13 as their EXCUSE, no matter how twisted their reasoning, just as their hatred for the Jewish people, it’s all a sham – however the EXCUSES persist which are not believed, except in the world of ‘hatred of the Jews’ -”

    Two different threads thrown into tODD’s blender!

  • Grace

    tODD,

    I’m wondering IF…. you brought this post from another thread up, just so you could once again insert ‘hatred of the Jews’ and the Nazi’s?

    It’s ‘odd, because it has no correlation with this thread, or the discussion!

  • Grace

    tODD,

    I’m wondering IF…. you brought this post from another thread up, just so you could once again insert ‘hatred of the Jews’ and the Nazi’s?

    It’s ‘odd, because it has no correlation with this thread, or the discussion!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Century, there are a great many people who agree with me, just as there are those who agree with you. The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    Again you are not the church at large, you are just Grace. At least on this board I have proof positive that I am not the only Christian who holds my position, or are you saying tODD, helen, and others are not Christian. I used to have an elder who when he complained always prefaced with “people are saying,” when I dug a bit, I found it was just him saying.

    Also, as a Pastor (I think that trumps p.k.), I can say from experience that it is not wise to mix with heathens and share a “pulpit.” The world is already convinced there is no difference between Christianity and the pagan religions. The world already see our supposed commonality is its all about behaving and being a good person. For a Christian minister to go and share a pulpit, or a stage with Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, etc only reinforces their misconception.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Century, there are a great many people who agree with me, just as there are those who agree with you. The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    Again you are not the church at large, you are just Grace. At least on this board I have proof positive that I am not the only Christian who holds my position, or are you saying tODD, helen, and others are not Christian. I used to have an elder who when he complained always prefaced with “people are saying,” when I dug a bit, I found it was just him saying.

    Also, as a Pastor (I think that trumps p.k.), I can say from experience that it is not wise to mix with heathens and share a “pulpit.” The world is already convinced there is no difference between Christianity and the pagan religions. The world already see our supposed commonality is its all about behaving and being a good person. For a Christian minister to go and share a pulpit, or a stage with Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, etc only reinforces their misconception.

  • Grace

    Century @ 55

    YOU WROTE: “Also, as a Pastor (I think that trumps p.k.),”

    No a pastor does not trump a pastors daughter, or any other Christian Believer. We are all called to serve the LORD in a given field. As you elevate yourself, and deminish my calling, it is to your shame!

  • Grace

    Century @ 55

    YOU WROTE: “Also, as a Pastor (I think that trumps p.k.),”

    No a pastor does not trump a pastors daughter, or any other Christian Believer. We are all called to serve the LORD in a given field. As you elevate yourself, and deminish my calling, it is to your shame!

  • kerner

    Grace:

    “Kerner @ 36

    Who did the Islamics attack on 9-11? – were they a group, or was it the United States of America, what we stand for and what we don’t accept ?

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!”

    I believe that the atac was on the USA, and that the people who were murdered that day were killed because they were Americans, not because of their religion per se.

    And I agree with you that we can’t know for sure who is a question and who is not. Bt I think it is fair to assume for purposes of this discussion that those victims who professed to be something other than Christian were, in fact, not Christian. And I would think you would agree hat there has been a sufficient falling away from faith in North America such that we can assume that there woud be at least some unbelievers among a group of 3000 people, even those descended from historically Christian cultures.

    But my point is that American culture today is too pluralistic for an American “civil religion” to be manageable. What if your clergy, and mine, had shown up to lead the crowd in prayer, and then a Muslim Imam also attended to lead the crowd in prayers to Allah for the souls of the murdered Muslims? What if Hindu and Buddhist clergy also attended, or a Jewish Rabbi? What if there was a Wiccan who died in the rubble? Would you really want Christians to unite in prayer with all those unbelievers addressing their imaginary deities? God forbid.

    If, faced with such a real possibility, Pr. Cwirla is saying that it is better that no clergy attended at all, I agree with him.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    “Kerner @ 36

    Who did the Islamics attack on 9-11? – were they a group, or was it the United States of America, what we stand for and what we don’t accept ?

    You nor I know who was a Christian and who isn’t!”

    I believe that the atac was on the USA, and that the people who were murdered that day were killed because they were Americans, not because of their religion per se.

    And I agree with you that we can’t know for sure who is a question and who is not. Bt I think it is fair to assume for purposes of this discussion that those victims who professed to be something other than Christian were, in fact, not Christian. And I would think you would agree hat there has been a sufficient falling away from faith in North America such that we can assume that there woud be at least some unbelievers among a group of 3000 people, even those descended from historically Christian cultures.

    But my point is that American culture today is too pluralistic for an American “civil religion” to be manageable. What if your clergy, and mine, had shown up to lead the crowd in prayer, and then a Muslim Imam also attended to lead the crowd in prayers to Allah for the souls of the murdered Muslims? What if Hindu and Buddhist clergy also attended, or a Jewish Rabbi? What if there was a Wiccan who died in the rubble? Would you really want Christians to unite in prayer with all those unbelievers addressing their imaginary deities? God forbid.

    If, faced with such a real possibility, Pr. Cwirla is saying that it is better that no clergy attended at all, I agree with him.

  • kerner

    please forgive my many typos.

  • kerner

    please forgive my many typos.

  • Grace

    Kerner at 57

    YOU WROTE: “What if your clergy, and mine, had shown up to lead the crowd in prayer, and then a Muslim Imam also attended to lead the crowd in prayers to Allah for the souls of the murdered Muslims? What if Hindu and Buddhist clergy also attended, or a Jewish Rabbi? What if there was a Wiccan who died in the rubble? Would you really want Christians to unite in prayer with all those unbelievers addressing their imaginary deities? God forbid.”

    What if

    IF, I could stand anyhwhere and proclaim the Word of God, I would do it. Those who stand next to me, who are pagan, cultist, or any other form of disbelievers, gives me the opportunity to speak the Word of God. There will always be those who ‘stop up their ears, ….. HOWEVER, if only one comes to know the Savior, Jesus Christ, that’s the most important.

    I don’t know if you watched Ronald Reagans funeral, I did. There were a lot of words, there were three children who spoke. But there was just one, who gave his testimony and spoke clearly about the LORD, and that was Michael Reagan the adopted son of President Reagan. It was a moment I won’t forget. I have no idea how many lives were touched, but as a Believer the words touched mine.

    My husband and I attended the funeral of a close relative. Most attending were not Believers, or they were those who were from extreme liberal backgrounds. My husband went forward to speak, he gave a short 5 minute message about Christ and Salvation. There were those who recognized the difference.

    My point is, take the opportunity if you can, OR do what you can to have the LORD proclaimed.

    Standing with others on a platform doesn’t mean we are UNITED, it’s what we say that counts, and most likely will divide if it’s the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • Grace

    Kerner at 57

    YOU WROTE: “What if your clergy, and mine, had shown up to lead the crowd in prayer, and then a Muslim Imam also attended to lead the crowd in prayers to Allah for the souls of the murdered Muslims? What if Hindu and Buddhist clergy also attended, or a Jewish Rabbi? What if there was a Wiccan who died in the rubble? Would you really want Christians to unite in prayer with all those unbelievers addressing their imaginary deities? God forbid.”

    What if

    IF, I could stand anyhwhere and proclaim the Word of God, I would do it. Those who stand next to me, who are pagan, cultist, or any other form of disbelievers, gives me the opportunity to speak the Word of God. There will always be those who ‘stop up their ears, ….. HOWEVER, if only one comes to know the Savior, Jesus Christ, that’s the most important.

    I don’t know if you watched Ronald Reagans funeral, I did. There were a lot of words, there were three children who spoke. But there was just one, who gave his testimony and spoke clearly about the LORD, and that was Michael Reagan the adopted son of President Reagan. It was a moment I won’t forget. I have no idea how many lives were touched, but as a Believer the words touched mine.

    My husband and I attended the funeral of a close relative. Most attending were not Believers, or they were those who were from extreme liberal backgrounds. My husband went forward to speak, he gave a short 5 minute message about Christ and Salvation. There were those who recognized the difference.

    My point is, take the opportunity if you can, OR do what you can to have the LORD proclaimed.

    Standing with others on a platform doesn’t mean we are UNITED, it’s what we say that counts, and most likely will divide if it’s the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@50) said:

    Your comment above is short sighted, and limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel.

    Again, if failing to be invited to a government-run memorial service “limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel”, then he’s not very good at his job.

    We cannot concern ourselves with what other pastors, or clergy are doing

    This statement of yours gainsays your very point here. You are concerning yourself with what other pastors are doing … or not doing, as the case may be, at a government-run memorial service.

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel.

    If you think the fact that you’re a PK means something to anyone, um, well, enjoy that feeling.

    Anyhow, it’s patently untrue that pastors “speak anywhere, anytime”, just as it’s untrue that Christians do this. Hopefully, we all use wisdom to discern when and how to talk to our neighbors — I, for one, am glad that pastors have not taken the opportunity to try to preach to me in the middle of the night or when I am in the bathroom. Others have already demonstrated why it might be quite unwise for pastors to speak at such a service — even if they were invited, which, again, they weren’t.

    If any pastor stays within the walls of his church, OR goes only to make “calls to their houses” his ministry isn’t going out beyond the confines of his congregants.

    Um, hello? I mentioned those two places in specific context of “comforting his flock”, because you were whining (@37) about how the pastors’ not being invited to this event somehow precluded them from comforting people.

    Nothing is stopping the pastors from speaking out in the open — whether on hillsides or in whatever other public space (subject, as we all are, to various legal constraints). But that doesn’t mean they’re invited to speak at any and every event. I mean, perhaps every single citizen should be whining that he wasn’t given a personal invitation to speak at this memorial? That would seem to fit your logic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@50) said:

    Your comment above is short sighted, and limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel.

    Again, if failing to be invited to a government-run memorial service “limits a pastor from spreading the Gospel”, then he’s not very good at his job.

    We cannot concern ourselves with what other pastors, or clergy are doing

    This statement of yours gainsays your very point here. You are concerning yourself with what other pastors are doing … or not doing, as the case may be, at a government-run memorial service.

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel.

    If you think the fact that you’re a PK means something to anyone, um, well, enjoy that feeling.

    Anyhow, it’s patently untrue that pastors “speak anywhere, anytime”, just as it’s untrue that Christians do this. Hopefully, we all use wisdom to discern when and how to talk to our neighbors — I, for one, am glad that pastors have not taken the opportunity to try to preach to me in the middle of the night or when I am in the bathroom. Others have already demonstrated why it might be quite unwise for pastors to speak at such a service — even if they were invited, which, again, they weren’t.

    If any pastor stays within the walls of his church, OR goes only to make “calls to their houses” his ministry isn’t going out beyond the confines of his congregants.

    Um, hello? I mentioned those two places in specific context of “comforting his flock”, because you were whining (@37) about how the pastors’ not being invited to this event somehow precluded them from comforting people.

    Nothing is stopping the pastors from speaking out in the open — whether on hillsides or in whatever other public space (subject, as we all are, to various legal constraints). But that doesn’t mean they’re invited to speak at any and every event. I mean, perhaps every single citizen should be whining that he wasn’t given a personal invitation to speak at this memorial? That would seem to fit your logic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@51), you really should try letting your arguments stand on their own, instead of making claims about how very many people allegedly agree with you. When you resort to pretending to speak for lots of people, it gives the appearance that even you do not have confidence that your argument stands on its own.

    The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    Oh, really? Well, try this on for a counter-argument: All real Christians think you’re wrong. And only the Satanists are fine with your arguments here.

    Tada! (Wonder why they never taught me that tactic in debate club?)

    The world will be watching on Sunday, as to what will be said, and who will say it.

    Oh, will it? Are you predicting the future, then? Care to give me some estimated Nielsen ratings?

    Leaving pastors out of the Memorial 10th Anniversary of 9-11 is just what the heathen are cheering for.

    Spoken like a person who doesn’t actually know any heathen. Most of my friends are unbelievers, and I haven’t heard word one from any of them about this topic. The only people who’ve brought it to my attention are whiny Culture Warriors … and Cwirla here.

    Oh, and Grace (@53,54) the reason I brought up that other quote of yours was because it contradicted what you were saying here. Because I believe that a person who changes his arguments from day to day and week to week, based on what best suits her in an argument, may not be terribly serious about what she says. So which is it, Grace: can you know who was a Christian, or can’t you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@51), you really should try letting your arguments stand on their own, instead of making claims about how very many people allegedly agree with you. When you resort to pretending to speak for lots of people, it gives the appearance that even you do not have confidence that your argument stands on its own.

    The Church at large doesn’t agree with you, but the unbelievers, atheists, and those who don’t believe in Christ are fine with your assessment.

    Oh, really? Well, try this on for a counter-argument: All real Christians think you’re wrong. And only the Satanists are fine with your arguments here.

    Tada! (Wonder why they never taught me that tactic in debate club?)

    The world will be watching on Sunday, as to what will be said, and who will say it.

    Oh, will it? Are you predicting the future, then? Care to give me some estimated Nielsen ratings?

    Leaving pastors out of the Memorial 10th Anniversary of 9-11 is just what the heathen are cheering for.

    Spoken like a person who doesn’t actually know any heathen. Most of my friends are unbelievers, and I haven’t heard word one from any of them about this topic. The only people who’ve brought it to my attention are whiny Culture Warriors … and Cwirla here.

    Oh, and Grace (@53,54) the reason I brought up that other quote of yours was because it contradicted what you were saying here. Because I believe that a person who changes his arguments from day to day and week to week, based on what best suits her in an argument, may not be terribly serious about what she says. So which is it, Grace: can you know who was a Christian, or can’t you?

  • Grace

    tODD – 60

    YOU WROTE: “I, for one, am glad that pastors have not taken the opportunity to try to preach to me in the middle of the night or when I am in the bathroom. Others have already demonstrated why it might be quite unwise for pastors to speak at such a service — even if they were invited, which, again, they weren’t.”

    LOL – ….. :lol: “in the bathroom”

  • Grace

    tODD – 60

    YOU WROTE: “I, for one, am glad that pastors have not taken the opportunity to try to preach to me in the middle of the night or when I am in the bathroom. Others have already demonstrated why it might be quite unwise for pastors to speak at such a service — even if they were invited, which, again, they weren’t.”

    LOL – ….. :lol: “in the bathroom”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@52), though you might feel it unfair, the terms “Culture War” and “Culture Warrior” are typically applied only to those on the right/”conservative”/Republican side of things. That’s just how the terms are used.

    That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t accuse those on the “other side” of also waging a culture war. But, just as the term “Evangelical” is used to describe a narrow set of those who actually preach the Evangel (and, arguably, is also applied to some who aren’t so good at that), so it is with Culture Warriors. Take the issue up with the people using the terms.

    For instance, Bill O’Reilly, who, in his book, Culture Warrior, repeatedly identifies as a, well, “culture warrior”. Yes, he uses the term for liberals as well, but the title appears to refer mainly to himself.

    Then you have other conservatives” using the term to refer specifically to cultural conservatives, as when TownHall.com (which calls itself “the #1 conservative website”) asked “What turned a CEO and restaurant mogul into an overnight Christian conservative sensation?” in its article, “The Overnight Culture Warrior”[1]. Or when HumanEvents.com (their motto: “More Powerful Conservative Voices”) asked “Mitch Daniels, Culture Warrior?” regarding Daniels’ being “swept up in a political controversy involving abortion”[2]. Or when The American Conservative wrote an article[3] about Santorum, claiming “The ex-senator sets the Culture War aside” as well as this bit:

    In his post Senate speeches, Santorum has explained how he transformed from culture warrior to foreign-policy warrior: “As I went on the campaign trail, it was very obvious to me that we were losing the war. Yes, we were losing the war in Baghdad to some degree, but more important we were losing the war on the streets of Pennsylvania.”

    Just a sampling, of course. Feel free to show me evidence that there’s widespread usage of the term to refer to liberals/Democrats (especially by those who do not also refer to themselves as Culture Warriors — after all, those who see themselves engaged in a Culture War will necessarily assume that their “enemies” are, too).

    [1]townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/08/04/the_overnight_culture_warrior
    [2]humanevents.com/article.php?id=43919
    [3]amconmag.com/article/2007/jul/30/00021/

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@52), though you might feel it unfair, the terms “Culture War” and “Culture Warrior” are typically applied only to those on the right/”conservative”/Republican side of things. That’s just how the terms are used.

    That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t accuse those on the “other side” of also waging a culture war. But, just as the term “Evangelical” is used to describe a narrow set of those who actually preach the Evangel (and, arguably, is also applied to some who aren’t so good at that), so it is with Culture Warriors. Take the issue up with the people using the terms.

    For instance, Bill O’Reilly, who, in his book, Culture Warrior, repeatedly identifies as a, well, “culture warrior”. Yes, he uses the term for liberals as well, but the title appears to refer mainly to himself.

    Then you have other conservatives” using the term to refer specifically to cultural conservatives, as when TownHall.com (which calls itself “the #1 conservative website”) asked “What turned a CEO and restaurant mogul into an overnight Christian conservative sensation?” in its article, “The Overnight Culture Warrior”[1]. Or when HumanEvents.com (their motto: “More Powerful Conservative Voices”) asked “Mitch Daniels, Culture Warrior?” regarding Daniels’ being “swept up in a political controversy involving abortion”[2]. Or when The American Conservative wrote an article[3] about Santorum, claiming “The ex-senator sets the Culture War aside” as well as this bit:

    In his post Senate speeches, Santorum has explained how he transformed from culture warrior to foreign-policy warrior: “As I went on the campaign trail, it was very obvious to me that we were losing the war. Yes, we were losing the war in Baghdad to some degree, but more important we were losing the war on the streets of Pennsylvania.”

    Just a sampling, of course. Feel free to show me evidence that there’s widespread usage of the term to refer to liberals/Democrats (especially by those who do not also refer to themselves as Culture Warriors — after all, those who see themselves engaged in a Culture War will necessarily assume that their “enemies” are, too).

    [1]townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/08/04/the_overnight_culture_warrior
    [2]humanevents.com/article.php?id=43919
    [3]amconmag.com/article/2007/jul/30/00021/

  • DonS

    tODD @ 63: Hmm. Even just looking at the definition in Wikipedia that both you and Grace referenced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war), it talks about the battle for the culture waged between conservative and progressive forces. In the context of that definition, both sides are “culture warriors”, and those on the offensive in wanting to change and subvert historic cultural values certainly can’t be exempt from the label in favor of those defending traditional norms. It just seems very odd to me to label the defenders, and not the aggressors, as “culture warriors”.

    Now, it may be true that people like Bill O’Reilley have embraced the label and the cause, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to both sides of the “war”. It takes two sides to battle, after all.

    I’m not speaking of fairness, as much as I am of truth and accuracy here. It’s kind of hard to argue that those arguing for wrenching societal change, and even more to the point, asserting that traditionalists should be marginalized as being bigoted and discriminatory, aren’t “warriors”.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 63: Hmm. Even just looking at the definition in Wikipedia that both you and Grace referenced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war), it talks about the battle for the culture waged between conservative and progressive forces. In the context of that definition, both sides are “culture warriors”, and those on the offensive in wanting to change and subvert historic cultural values certainly can’t be exempt from the label in favor of those defending traditional norms. It just seems very odd to me to label the defenders, and not the aggressors, as “culture warriors”.

    Now, it may be true that people like Bill O’Reilley have embraced the label and the cause, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to both sides of the “war”. It takes two sides to battle, after all.

    I’m not speaking of fairness, as much as I am of truth and accuracy here. It’s kind of hard to argue that those arguing for wrenching societal change, and even more to the point, asserting that traditionalists should be marginalized as being bigoted and discriminatory, aren’t “warriors”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@64), you can use words however you want. But that doesn’t change how the terms are commonly used.

    And sure, if one takes as a given the worldview implied in the whole “culture war” idiom, then yes, there are two sides, each apparently equally guilty as to wanting shape our culture’s values.

    But ask yourself: what kind of people are promoting this worldview in the first place? That is, who is it talking about the “culture war”? Bill O’Reilly. Rick Santorum. Pat Buchanan. Anything in common there?

    Most liberals I see discussing the “culture war” are reacting to “conservatives” like the ones just mentioned.

    Can you name any liberals who are actively promoting the idea that we are in a war for our culture? Or who label themselves as “culture warriors”?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@64), you can use words however you want. But that doesn’t change how the terms are commonly used.

    And sure, if one takes as a given the worldview implied in the whole “culture war” idiom, then yes, there are two sides, each apparently equally guilty as to wanting shape our culture’s values.

    But ask yourself: what kind of people are promoting this worldview in the first place? That is, who is it talking about the “culture war”? Bill O’Reilly. Rick Santorum. Pat Buchanan. Anything in common there?

    Most liberals I see discussing the “culture war” are reacting to “conservatives” like the ones just mentioned.

    Can you name any liberals who are actively promoting the idea that we are in a war for our culture? Or who label themselves as “culture warriors”?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    No a pastor does not trump a pastors daughter, or any other Christian Believer. We are all called to serve the LORD in a given field. As you elevate yourself, and deminish my calling, it is to your shame!

    So it is ok when you pull trump, but when I play trump all the sudden it is shameful and elevating myself. You can’t have it both ways. Pull the plank out of your eye, Grace, it is blinding you. My being an officer’s brat doesn’t make me an authority on what it takes to be an officer, no more than you being a pk makes you an authority on pastoral care and wisdom. As a pastor, I can speak from experience about what pastors do and do not do. Any pastor worth his salt needs to ask “will I clarify or will I confuse”. And if the answer is “I will confuse” than it is best not to do. The last thing this world needs is more confusing. Pastorally speaking, Mayor Bloomberg’s venue is not the best place to offer comfort. Quietly, away from the pitiful grandstanding politicians blathering empty words is a far better place and time. Another pastor, a mentor, learned this the hard way as he found him subjected to the civil religion and limited in his speech. He made a greater impact when he was with the small groups and individuals as they needed a shoulder to cry on during the rescue efforts.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    No a pastor does not trump a pastors daughter, or any other Christian Believer. We are all called to serve the LORD in a given field. As you elevate yourself, and deminish my calling, it is to your shame!

    So it is ok when you pull trump, but when I play trump all the sudden it is shameful and elevating myself. You can’t have it both ways. Pull the plank out of your eye, Grace, it is blinding you. My being an officer’s brat doesn’t make me an authority on what it takes to be an officer, no more than you being a pk makes you an authority on pastoral care and wisdom. As a pastor, I can speak from experience about what pastors do and do not do. Any pastor worth his salt needs to ask “will I clarify or will I confuse”. And if the answer is “I will confuse” than it is best not to do. The last thing this world needs is more confusing. Pastorally speaking, Mayor Bloomberg’s venue is not the best place to offer comfort. Quietly, away from the pitiful grandstanding politicians blathering empty words is a far better place and time. Another pastor, a mentor, learned this the hard way as he found him subjected to the civil religion and limited in his speech. He made a greater impact when he was with the small groups and individuals as they needed a shoulder to cry on during the rescue efforts.

  • Grace

    Century @ 66

    YOU WRITE: “So it is ok when you pull trump, but when I play trump all the sudden it is shameful and elevating myself. You can’t have it both ways. Pull the plank out of your eye, Grace, it is blinding you. My being an officer’s brat doesn’t make me an authority on what it takes to be an officer, no more than you being a pk makes you an authority on pastoral care and wisdom. “

    You equated yourself as superior in post 55 “Also, as a Pastor (I think that ,trumps p.k.), I can say from experience that it is not wise to mix with heathens and share a “pulpit.”

    Century,

    There is a vast difference between an ‘officer’s brat” and a young woman who is the daughter of a pastor who serves the Savior. I’m not an authority, but I am a servant of my LORD and Savior, of which my father was as well. My “authority” is given of God, which can be withdrawn at any time. My life as a pastor’s daughter, servant and Believer are by God’s sovereign Will, HIS design, to glorify HIM.

    You puff yourself up as a pastor, but you show me nothing of what my father represented to us, or those who needed to be comforted and cared for. You calling me a p.K. is nothing less than a male who cannot show respect for a woman who was the daughter of a humble servant of God. You Century, are to be pitied!

  • Grace

    Century @ 66

    YOU WRITE: “So it is ok when you pull trump, but when I play trump all the sudden it is shameful and elevating myself. You can’t have it both ways. Pull the plank out of your eye, Grace, it is blinding you. My being an officer’s brat doesn’t make me an authority on what it takes to be an officer, no more than you being a pk makes you an authority on pastoral care and wisdom. “

    You equated yourself as superior in post 55 “Also, as a Pastor (I think that ,trumps p.k.), I can say from experience that it is not wise to mix with heathens and share a “pulpit.”

    Century,

    There is a vast difference between an ‘officer’s brat” and a young woman who is the daughter of a pastor who serves the Savior. I’m not an authority, but I am a servant of my LORD and Savior, of which my father was as well. My “authority” is given of God, which can be withdrawn at any time. My life as a pastor’s daughter, servant and Believer are by God’s sovereign Will, HIS design, to glorify HIM.

    You puff yourself up as a pastor, but you show me nothing of what my father represented to us, or those who needed to be comforted and cared for. You calling me a p.K. is nothing less than a male who cannot show respect for a woman who was the daughter of a humble servant of God. You Century, are to be pitied!

  • Grace

    Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrath.

    Proverbs 21:24

  • Grace

    Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrath.

    Proverbs 21:24

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @67 Do you search for ways to be insulted? P.k is only a description it is neither an insult or degrading. I have three p.k.’s of my own and I do not see it as insulting to them to be called a p.k.
    Officer’s brat, p.k. are exactly the same they are descriptions based upon parentage. They do not add credibility to one’s position.

    I show you nothing because you see nothing for you have a plank in your eye. You are puffing your self up and the fact you can’t see it is quite funny. You claim authority where you have none. You claim your parentage gives credence to your argument, when it doesn’t.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @67 Do you search for ways to be insulted? P.k is only a description it is neither an insult or degrading. I have three p.k.’s of my own and I do not see it as insulting to them to be called a p.k.
    Officer’s brat, p.k. are exactly the same they are descriptions based upon parentage. They do not add credibility to one’s position.

    I show you nothing because you see nothing for you have a plank in your eye. You are puffing your self up and the fact you can’t see it is quite funny. You claim authority where you have none. You claim your parentage gives credence to your argument, when it doesn’t.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@67), it’s obvious that you mentioned (@50) that you’re “a pastors [sic] daughter” for some reason, and it’s pretty clear from the context that it was to express your authority on pastoral things in a comparative sense — i.e. “I’m a pastor’s daughter, so I know what I’m talking about here.” Let’s look at your assertion in context, once more:

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Most people do not attend church.

    Let’s see. Mentioned you’re a pastor’s daughter? Check. And then proceeded to tell us what pastors do or how they act? Check.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure that DLit2C actually being a pastor trumps your knowledge on this topic, in the same way that I think anyone in a profession knows more about that profession than do his children. I can’t believe you would try to convince anyone otherwise. Or that you would then accuse DLit2C of “deminishing [sic]” your calling for pointing out the obvious.

    You calling me a p.K. is nothing less than a male who cannot show respect for a woman who was the daughter of a humble servant of God.

    What does DLit2C’s being a male have to do with anything, Grace? Just thought you’d add “sexism” to the list of ridiculous accusations you’re tossing out tonight, did you? Or did you not notice that “PK” is a non-gender-specific term — one which, I might add, is not inherently indicative of anything besides who one’s father is, duh. Oh, but you’re too busy playing offended right now, I guess.

    And, sorry, but pastor’s children don’t get respect merely for being pastor’s children. The office itself deserves respect, yes, but you never held that office. You know who does? DLit2C! And guess what? You’re not showing him much respect at all. So how’s that for hypocrisy? You demand respect for being the daughter of someone in an office that you don’t show repect for. You want to bask in reflected glory, but you won’t even show deference yourself.

    And then you have the absolute chutzpah to accuse DLit2C of being “proud and haughty” for pointing out that he actually knows something about his job — you, who have time and time again boasted arrogantly on this site about all the knowledge you’ve amassed by spending years studying this or that! You who try to convince us that you know more than any of us on any number of topics, even though your arguments seldom back you up. And you’re the one accusing someone of being “proud and haughty”?

    Man, that’s rich.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@67), it’s obvious that you mentioned (@50) that you’re “a pastors [sic] daughter” for some reason, and it’s pretty clear from the context that it was to express your authority on pastoral things in a comparative sense — i.e. “I’m a pastor’s daughter, so I know what I’m talking about here.” Let’s look at your assertion in context, once more:

    As a pastors daughter, …. a pastor speaks anywhere, anytime he has the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Most people do not attend church.

    Let’s see. Mentioned you’re a pastor’s daughter? Check. And then proceeded to tell us what pastors do or how they act? Check.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure that DLit2C actually being a pastor trumps your knowledge on this topic, in the same way that I think anyone in a profession knows more about that profession than do his children. I can’t believe you would try to convince anyone otherwise. Or that you would then accuse DLit2C of “deminishing [sic]” your calling for pointing out the obvious.

    You calling me a p.K. is nothing less than a male who cannot show respect for a woman who was the daughter of a humble servant of God.

    What does DLit2C’s being a male have to do with anything, Grace? Just thought you’d add “sexism” to the list of ridiculous accusations you’re tossing out tonight, did you? Or did you not notice that “PK” is a non-gender-specific term — one which, I might add, is not inherently indicative of anything besides who one’s father is, duh. Oh, but you’re too busy playing offended right now, I guess.

    And, sorry, but pastor’s children don’t get respect merely for being pastor’s children. The office itself deserves respect, yes, but you never held that office. You know who does? DLit2C! And guess what? You’re not showing him much respect at all. So how’s that for hypocrisy? You demand respect for being the daughter of someone in an office that you don’t show repect for. You want to bask in reflected glory, but you won’t even show deference yourself.

    And then you have the absolute chutzpah to accuse DLit2C of being “proud and haughty” for pointing out that he actually knows something about his job — you, who have time and time again boasted arrogantly on this site about all the knowledge you’ve amassed by spending years studying this or that! You who try to convince us that you know more than any of us on any number of topics, even though your arguments seldom back you up. And you’re the one accusing someone of being “proud and haughty”?

    Man, that’s rich.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 65:

    Can you name any liberals who are actively promoting the idea that we are in a war for our culture? Or who label themselves as “culture warriors”?

    Your second question is irrelevant. Self-identification is irrelevant as to whether your actions and attitudes fit a particular definition. Just because you don’t want to be labeled a “Culture Warrior” certainly doesn’t mean you are not one. Take, for example, the “resident Culture Warriors” you referenced in Post 22 above. They did not label themselves such, but that didn’t stop you from applying the label, and in a clearly pejorative way.

    As for your first question, please. Do you seriously not see anyone on the left actively engaging in a war for our culture? What about the gay marriage movement? Or the abortion movement? What about those who are insisting on public school curriculum changes in order to mold the values of the next generation of school children? Whether or not you agree with their objectives or motives, you certainly cannot deny that they are engaged in figurative warfare for the purpose of changing our culture. How, pray tell, is that not “cultural warfare”?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 65:

    Can you name any liberals who are actively promoting the idea that we are in a war for our culture? Or who label themselves as “culture warriors”?

    Your second question is irrelevant. Self-identification is irrelevant as to whether your actions and attitudes fit a particular definition. Just because you don’t want to be labeled a “Culture Warrior” certainly doesn’t mean you are not one. Take, for example, the “resident Culture Warriors” you referenced in Post 22 above. They did not label themselves such, but that didn’t stop you from applying the label, and in a clearly pejorative way.

    As for your first question, please. Do you seriously not see anyone on the left actively engaging in a war for our culture? What about the gay marriage movement? Or the abortion movement? What about those who are insisting on public school curriculum changes in order to mold the values of the next generation of school children? Whether or not you agree with their objectives or motives, you certainly cannot deny that they are engaged in figurative warfare for the purpose of changing our culture. How, pray tell, is that not “cultural warfare”?

  • Grace

    Century- 69

    What one calls another, sometimes depends upon where they live and how they were brought up.

    Enough said!

  • Grace

    Century- 69

    What one calls another, sometimes depends upon where they live and how they were brought up.

    Enough said!

  • Grace

    Do you have a career tODD? – or do you graze this blog looking for prickles to scratch your ego?

  • Grace

    Do you have a career tODD? – or do you graze this blog looking for prickles to scratch your ego?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Since Grace brought up (@68) “proud and haughty”, I thought I’d do a search for the times she’s done her own boasting and (attempted) trumping on this blog:

    I have studied the Bible for a very long time, up to 6-10 plus hours per day for a number of years. It’s because I have studied, that I understand, it’s by God’s grace that HE gives me the ability to comprehend.*[1]

    I have studied the story of Lazarus with great interest many times.[2]

    I have studied the Word of God, doctrines from many different denominations, grappled with many passages of Scripture, until I’ve come to terms with what it means – I’m not likely to change my mind.[3]

    I have studied the book of James for years[4]

    I have studied, and understand what Lutherans believe, including many, many other denominations, cults, etc. … Understanding the Word of God, trumps all else. Your comment, is condescending. I don’t think you have clue, as to how much I have studied, it is obvious by your comments.[5]

    As my father was a learned man of the Bible, spending endless hours in his study, I too follow the same path in many ways. The difference being, he was a pastor, I am a woman who must use what I have studied a different way.[6]

    I have studied many other religions, denominations and cults. It takes a great deal of time, however the rewards, when given the opportunity to talk with others who question either the Bible, their denomination or cult, can be answered.[7]

    I have studied WW2 and Hitler. Not just as a hobby, but really studied.[8]

    I have studied to long to change my mind, the Bible doesn’t teach it, as it was used passed the days of the Apostles.[9]

    I too am concerned regarding LDS and JW’s – those are two cults I have studied for the past seven plus years (endless hours)[10]

    *Was an attempt to boast to DLi2tC in particular
    [1]geneveith.com/2011/08/17/the-new-lutheran-denomination/#comment-124661
    [2]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-92591
    [3]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-93115
    [4]geneveith.com/2011/08/12/rick-perry-is-running-for-president/#comment-124334
    [5]geneveith.com/2010/10/27/bringing-the-reformation-to-protestantism/#comment-95631
    [6]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91182
    [7]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91187
    [8]geneveith.com/2010/10/20/crystal-cathedral-goes-bankrupt/#comment-95013
    [9]geneveith.com/2010/10/29/discuss-the-theses-here/#comment-95890
    [10]geneveith.com/2010/11/12/how-christianity-conquered-pagan-culture/#comment-97688

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Since Grace brought up (@68) “proud and haughty”, I thought I’d do a search for the times she’s done her own boasting and (attempted) trumping on this blog:

    I have studied the Bible for a very long time, up to 6-10 plus hours per day for a number of years. It’s because I have studied, that I understand, it’s by God’s grace that HE gives me the ability to comprehend.*[1]

    I have studied the story of Lazarus with great interest many times.[2]

    I have studied the Word of God, doctrines from many different denominations, grappled with many passages of Scripture, until I’ve come to terms with what it means – I’m not likely to change my mind.[3]

    I have studied the book of James for years[4]

    I have studied, and understand what Lutherans believe, including many, many other denominations, cults, etc. … Understanding the Word of God, trumps all else. Your comment, is condescending. I don’t think you have clue, as to how much I have studied, it is obvious by your comments.[5]

    As my father was a learned man of the Bible, spending endless hours in his study, I too follow the same path in many ways. The difference being, he was a pastor, I am a woman who must use what I have studied a different way.[6]

    I have studied many other religions, denominations and cults. It takes a great deal of time, however the rewards, when given the opportunity to talk with others who question either the Bible, their denomination or cult, can be answered.[7]

    I have studied WW2 and Hitler. Not just as a hobby, but really studied.[8]

    I have studied to long to change my mind, the Bible doesn’t teach it, as it was used passed the days of the Apostles.[9]

    I too am concerned regarding LDS and JW’s – those are two cults I have studied for the past seven plus years (endless hours)[10]

    *Was an attempt to boast to DLi2tC in particular
    [1]geneveith.com/2011/08/17/the-new-lutheran-denomination/#comment-124661
    [2]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-92591
    [3]geneveith.com/2010/09/28/the-rich-man-lazarus/#comment-93115
    [4]geneveith.com/2011/08/12/rick-perry-is-running-for-president/#comment-124334
    [5]geneveith.com/2010/10/27/bringing-the-reformation-to-protestantism/#comment-95631
    [6]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91182
    [7]geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/#comment-91187
    [8]geneveith.com/2010/10/20/crystal-cathedral-goes-bankrupt/#comment-95013
    [9]geneveith.com/2010/10/29/discuss-the-theses-here/#comment-95890
    [10]geneveith.com/2010/11/12/how-christianity-conquered-pagan-culture/#comment-97688

  • Grace

    tODD

    All of what you posted is true. I have studied for a long time. My father was a great source of joy in my life, I am honored to have had my father and mother for parents.

    My career in medicine was also very enjoyable and rewarding.

    It’s amusing that you keep such records on those who post on this blog, such as Peter Leavitt, myself and a few others,…… and what does that say of you?

    God has blessed me richly, I am blessed.

  • Grace

    tODD

    All of what you posted is true. I have studied for a long time. My father was a great source of joy in my life, I am honored to have had my father and mother for parents.

    My career in medicine was also very enjoyable and rewarding.

    It’s amusing that you keep such records on those who post on this blog, such as Peter Leavitt, myself and a few others,…… and what does that say of you?

    God has blessed me richly, I am blessed.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@75):

    All of what you posted is true. I have studied for a long time.

    I see. So when you are shown extensive examples of your own arrogance, you simply state that all your haughty claims about yourself are “true”.

    And yet you still have accused DLit2C of having “puffed himself up”, merely for noting that he is a pastor — and, as such, more knowledgeable about being a pastor than you, who are but a child of a pastor.

    The cognitive dissonance required to maintain your position is, indeed, boggling. It must have taken lots of mental practice to achieve, perhaps up to 10 hours a day for several years.

    To say nothing, again, of your demanding respect for being the child of a position for which you show no respect. That’s my favorite.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@75):

    All of what you posted is true. I have studied for a long time.

    I see. So when you are shown extensive examples of your own arrogance, you simply state that all your haughty claims about yourself are “true”.

    And yet you still have accused DLit2C of having “puffed himself up”, merely for noting that he is a pastor — and, as such, more knowledgeable about being a pastor than you, who are but a child of a pastor.

    The cognitive dissonance required to maintain your position is, indeed, boggling. It must have taken lots of mental practice to achieve, perhaps up to 10 hours a day for several years.

    To say nothing, again, of your demanding respect for being the child of a position for which you show no respect. That’s my favorite.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and Grace? Pro tip: those who complain about my having too much free time (@73), or who pretend that they find my research into their own hypocrisy “amusing” (@75)? They’ve all but conceded that they have nothing of substance to say in reply.

    Another pro tip: I don’t actually “keep such records” on anyone. It’s called Google, and it keeps records of most conversations here, and makes them available in under a second to those who know how to use it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and Grace? Pro tip: those who complain about my having too much free time (@73), or who pretend that they find my research into their own hypocrisy “amusing” (@75)? They’ve all but conceded that they have nothing of substance to say in reply.

    Another pro tip: I don’t actually “keep such records” on anyone. It’s called Google, and it keeps records of most conversations here, and makes them available in under a second to those who know how to use it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@71):

    Take, for example, the “resident Culture Warriors” you referenced in Post 22 above. They did not label themselves such, but that didn’t stop you from applying the label, and in a clearly pejorative way.

    I don’t think you’ve looked very hard at what they said, Don. Nor do I really know what your overall point is. But, as to your specific claim, let’s look at Buchanan’s 1992 speech to the RNC[1]:

    Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so to the Buchanan Brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.

    Or Buchanan’s 1996 announcement that he was running for President[2]:

    And as we defend our country from threats from abroad, we shall fight and win the cultural war for the soul of America. Because that struggle is about who we are, what we believe, and the kind of people we shall become. And that struggle is being waged every day in every town and school room of America.

    Seems pretty clear that he defines himself as a Culture Warrior, Don. He’s leading “brigades”, for heaven’s sake!

    And you could not be more wrong when it comes to O’Reilly, especially in his book Culture Warrior (I mean, come on!):

    For a variety of reasons that I will explain, I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America.[3]

    And later on in the book, he states:

    To this culture warrior, gay marriage is not a vital issue. I don’t believe the republic will collapse if Larry marries Brendan.[4]

    And, while I’m getting tired of doing your research for you, there was this quote from Santorum’s speech earlier this year[5]:

    America is about an idea, and it has to be about shared value, or what is it? What is it? And that’s why these moral issues, that everyone says “Oh, maybe we should set to the side and have a truce on” — you can’t. It is who we are. It is the purpose of our country. And I have been out fighting the wars on these moral issues.

    [1]americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan1992rnc.htm
    [2]4president.org/speeches/buchanan1996announcement.htm
    [3]From p. 2 of that book
    [4]Ibid., p. 16
    [5]youtube.com/watch?v=AtBz0tSR0kU

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@71):

    Take, for example, the “resident Culture Warriors” you referenced in Post 22 above. They did not label themselves such, but that didn’t stop you from applying the label, and in a clearly pejorative way.

    I don’t think you’ve looked very hard at what they said, Don. Nor do I really know what your overall point is. But, as to your specific claim, let’s look at Buchanan’s 1992 speech to the RNC[1]:

    Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so to the Buchanan Brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.

    Or Buchanan’s 1996 announcement that he was running for President[2]:

    And as we defend our country from threats from abroad, we shall fight and win the cultural war for the soul of America. Because that struggle is about who we are, what we believe, and the kind of people we shall become. And that struggle is being waged every day in every town and school room of America.

    Seems pretty clear that he defines himself as a Culture Warrior, Don. He’s leading “brigades”, for heaven’s sake!

    And you could not be more wrong when it comes to O’Reilly, especially in his book Culture Warrior (I mean, come on!):

    For a variety of reasons that I will explain, I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America.[3]

    And later on in the book, he states:

    To this culture warrior, gay marriage is not a vital issue. I don’t believe the republic will collapse if Larry marries Brendan.[4]

    And, while I’m getting tired of doing your research for you, there was this quote from Santorum’s speech earlier this year[5]:

    America is about an idea, and it has to be about shared value, or what is it? What is it? And that’s why these moral issues, that everyone says “Oh, maybe we should set to the side and have a truce on” — you can’t. It is who we are. It is the purpose of our country. And I have been out fighting the wars on these moral issues.

    [1]americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan1992rnc.htm
    [2]4president.org/speeches/buchanan1996announcement.htm
    [3]From p. 2 of that book
    [4]Ibid., p. 16
    [5]youtube.com/watch?v=AtBz0tSR0kU

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    That said, DonS, I’ve gotten distracted from my own point about Culture Warriors. It’s not merely that they view the world framed in an Us-vs.-Them “war”.

    No, what defines the Culture Warrior is his prescription for the problems of the world. Which is, of course, to “win” the war — and, to a Culture Warrior, the war is always winnable, if only you follow his advice — by gaining control (i.e. power) of cultural and political institutions.

    Culture Warriors do not see the world as being in a hopelessly degenerate state. They believe that, with the right initiatives, (or, more often) with the right laws, you can begin to address the problem of sin.

    The Culture Warrior doesn’t usually frame things in terms of sin, though, as sin is generally acknowledged to be a problem we all share. Ah, but in the Culture Warrior’s mind, people are divided into Good and Bad, Us and Them — typically, these are equivalent to “conservative” and “liberal”, though O’Reilly prefers to frame it as “S-P’s” (“secular progressives”) vs. “traditionalists”. Whatever.

    Anyhow, point being, the Culture Warrior doesn’t think it’s sufficient to merely preach the truth. No, he has to make others act in accordance with what he believes, through the force of law. Typically, this is combined with some belief that the Culture Warrior’s nation is special in a religious sense and needs to do something in a political sense in order to maintain that religious privilege.

    It’s this latter part that tends to distinguish the aforementioned (“conservative”) Culture Warriors from the liberals who might fit with the earlier part of the definition.

    But, like I said, if it’s important to you that liberals be equally targeted by this term, have at it. You might want to try convincing other people, however, to join you in your usage. Try to get the liberals to use the terms in the same ways their “conservative” counterparts have.

    Myself, I have always bristled at the so-called “conservative” Culture Warriors precisely because they’re always trying to co-opt my faith — not just Christianity, but, specifically, confessional Lutheranism — to their politico-cultural ends. They want me/us to join them on the “battle lines”, voting for this or donating money to that.

    That’s what annoys me so much about them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    That said, DonS, I’ve gotten distracted from my own point about Culture Warriors. It’s not merely that they view the world framed in an Us-vs.-Them “war”.

    No, what defines the Culture Warrior is his prescription for the problems of the world. Which is, of course, to “win” the war — and, to a Culture Warrior, the war is always winnable, if only you follow his advice — by gaining control (i.e. power) of cultural and political institutions.

    Culture Warriors do not see the world as being in a hopelessly degenerate state. They believe that, with the right initiatives, (or, more often) with the right laws, you can begin to address the problem of sin.

    The Culture Warrior doesn’t usually frame things in terms of sin, though, as sin is generally acknowledged to be a problem we all share. Ah, but in the Culture Warrior’s mind, people are divided into Good and Bad, Us and Them — typically, these are equivalent to “conservative” and “liberal”, though O’Reilly prefers to frame it as “S-P’s” (“secular progressives”) vs. “traditionalists”. Whatever.

    Anyhow, point being, the Culture Warrior doesn’t think it’s sufficient to merely preach the truth. No, he has to make others act in accordance with what he believes, through the force of law. Typically, this is combined with some belief that the Culture Warrior’s nation is special in a religious sense and needs to do something in a political sense in order to maintain that religious privilege.

    It’s this latter part that tends to distinguish the aforementioned (“conservative”) Culture Warriors from the liberals who might fit with the earlier part of the definition.

    But, like I said, if it’s important to you that liberals be equally targeted by this term, have at it. You might want to try convincing other people, however, to join you in your usage. Try to get the liberals to use the terms in the same ways their “conservative” counterparts have.

    Myself, I have always bristled at the so-called “conservative” Culture Warriors precisely because they’re always trying to co-opt my faith — not just Christianity, but, specifically, confessional Lutheranism — to their politico-cultural ends. They want me/us to join them on the “battle lines”, voting for this or donating money to that.

    That’s what annoys me so much about them.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @75 It says he is efficient and good at research?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @75 It says he is efficient and good at research?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @79 Does it make one a “culture warrior” to believe all laws should reflect moral law yet not expect the laws to change a person’s heart?

    It makes a logical sense to say that if all authority is derived from God then all authority is subject to God’s will. The Law is an expression of God’s will, in that it delineates what is good and what is bad. Logically then, a good government will have laws that reflect what is good and what is bad in agreement with the good and bad laid out by the Law.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @79 Does it make one a “culture warrior” to believe all laws should reflect moral law yet not expect the laws to change a person’s heart?

    It makes a logical sense to say that if all authority is derived from God then all authority is subject to God’s will. The Law is an expression of God’s will, in that it delineates what is good and what is bad. Logically then, a good government will have laws that reflect what is good and what is bad in agreement with the good and bad laid out by the Law.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@81), it depends on what you mean by “all laws should reflect moral law”. Do you mean that anything that God condemns should likewise be condemned by a country’s laws? Or that every law that exists should only punish and reward that which God called bad or good, respectively?

    Tell me about Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Does that law reflect God’s will?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@81), it depends on what you mean by “all laws should reflect moral law”. Do you mean that anything that God condemns should likewise be condemned by a country’s laws? Or that every law that exists should only punish and reward that which God called bad or good, respectively?

    Tell me about Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Does that law reflect God’s will?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 78 & 79:

    I don’t think you’ve looked very hard at what they said, Don. Nor do I really know what your overall point is. But, as to your specific claim, let’s look at Buchanan’s 1992 speech to the RNC[1]:

    What does Buchanan have to do with all of this anyway? You hate it when people bring up Al Gore or other celebrities in connection with global warming arguments, and yet here you are repeatedly referencing Bill O’Reilley and Pat Buchanan when they are not at issue. The issue is that you labeled commenters on this blog (“resident Culture Warriors”) in a pejorative and dismissive way. Those commenters have not self-identified as “Culture Warriors”. You laid that label on them.

    “And, while I’m getting tired of doing your research for you” — you’re not doing my research! I don’t care about any of these guys, particularly in the context of this discussion. You’re the one who keeps bringing them up. Are you saying that, @ comment 22, when you said “resident Culture Warriors”, you were actually only referring to Buchanan, O’Reilley, and Santorum, and not to commenters here? Because that doesn’t make sense in view of your comment @ 46:

    Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc. Just because you don’t like a label doesn’t mean it’s meaningless.

    where you are clearly labeling Grace, not Buchanan.

    “Nor do I really know what your overall point is” — my point is as stated @ 47. You set up a straw man (the “Culture Warrior”) to conveniently dismiss those commenters you disagreed with. It takes two sides to fight the “Culture War”, and the aggressors (the left) cannot avoid the label of “Culture Warrior”, especially when it is applied to pejoratively dismiss the ideas and convictions underlying the issue, just because they don’t want to be called such, or because it just isn’t done. The reason liberal culture warriors don’t self-identify as such is because they are engaged in a radical make-over of traditional society and they want to do it in a stealthy way, especially since much of what they want to do isn’t politically popular. On the other hand, those defending traditional cultural values want to call attention to their cause.

    As to your post @ 79:

    No, what defines the Culture Warrior is his prescription for the problems of the world. Which is, of course, to “win” the war — and, to a Culture Warrior, the war is always winnable, if only you follow his advice — by gaining control (i.e. power) of cultural and political institutions.

    Yes. And both sides do it. Read Alinsky, a true culture warrior of the left.

    Culture Warriors do not see the world as being in a hopelessly degenerate state. They believe that, with the right initiatives, (or, more often) with the right laws, you can begin to address the problem of sin.

    The notion of fixing society with laws is more an issue of culture warriors of the left, not the right. Except that they typically don’t acknowledge the sinful state of man (except for business people and Republicans of course). Actually, most “culture warriors” of the right have no desire to legislate morality, unlike those on the left. They merely want to establish a bulwark of protections which will allow them to continue to fully participate in society without compromising their religious values and consciences, and to be free to raise up their children in a manner of their choosing. By the way, all three “culture warriors” you specifically identify are Catholic, not evangelical. So they wouldn’t necessarily frame things as an evangelical would.

    The Culture Warrior doesn’t usually frame things in terms of sin, though, as sin is generally acknowledged to be a problem we all share. Ah, but in the Culture Warrior’s mind, people are divided into Good and Bad, Us and Them — typically, these are equivalent to “conservative” and “liberal”, though O’Reilly prefers to frame it as “S-P’s” (“secular progressives”) vs. “traditionalists”. Whatever.

    I’m not sure whom you’re referencing, except for O’Reilley, but generally speaking, culture warriors of the left also don’t frame things in terms of sin. And they certainly divide people into Good and Bad, Us and Them, etc. So, I’m not sure of your point here. It’s human nature, especially in politics. Read any political fundraising letter, from either side of the aisle and you’ll see what I mean.

    Anyhow, point being, the Culture Warrior doesn’t think it’s sufficient to merely preach the truth. No, he has to make others act in accordance with what he believes, through the force of law. Typically, this is combined with some belief that the Culture Warrior’s nation is special in a religious sense and needs to do something in a political sense in order to maintain that religious privilege.

    OK. Again, being Catholics, I’m not sure they have the same view of truth as you or I do. Certainly both sides, and particularly the left, wants to make others act in accordance with what they believe. Just look at the myriad of environmental laws forcing behavior on everyone in accordance with the beliefs of some, or forced multi-culti curriculum in schools, or “sensitivity training”, as just a few examples.

    It’s this latter part that tends to distinguish the aforementioned (“conservative”) Culture Warriors from the liberals who might fit with the earlier part of the definition.

    Nope. I think I’ve shown that above. The left is extremely interested in forcing our culture to “modernize” and conform to its cultural point of view.

    But, like I said, if it’s important to you that liberals be equally targeted by this term, have at it. You might want to try convincing other people, however, to join you in your usage. Try to get the liberals to use the terms in the same ways their “conservative” counterparts have.

    OK. I think I’ve proved my point. But, liberals won’t adopt the term, because they don’t want to be seen for the radicals that they are. That, however, doesn’t mean the term doesn’t apply.

    Myself, I have always bristled at the so-called “conservative” Culture Warriors precisely because they’re always trying to co-opt my faith — not just Christianity, but, specifically, confessional Lutheranism — to their politico-cultural ends. They want me/us to join them on the “battle lines”, voting for this or donating money to that.

    So, you bristle at three Catholics trying to co-opt your faith? If you don’t want to identify with them, don’t. But, I don’t think they are trying to co-opt your faith. They are just trying to defend cultural norms that have been in place for many centuries, and which are being systematically overthrown by some who no longer regard Scripture as truth.

    But more to the point, in the context of this discussion, you were addressing commenters who thought that clergy should have a place at the memorial service. You may disagree (I do as well — see my comment @ 13), but it is a legitimate point of view, particularly in a society where culture warriors of the left are repeatedly and actively trying to exclude religious viewpoints from the public square. If you disagree with those commenters, fine. But, they are not trying to co-opt your faith. They are merely stating their point of view. You are free to agree or disagree. But, engage the ideas, and avoid the pejorative labels.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 78 & 79:

    I don’t think you’ve looked very hard at what they said, Don. Nor do I really know what your overall point is. But, as to your specific claim, let’s look at Buchanan’s 1992 speech to the RNC[1]:

    What does Buchanan have to do with all of this anyway? You hate it when people bring up Al Gore or other celebrities in connection with global warming arguments, and yet here you are repeatedly referencing Bill O’Reilley and Pat Buchanan when they are not at issue. The issue is that you labeled commenters on this blog (“resident Culture Warriors”) in a pejorative and dismissive way. Those commenters have not self-identified as “Culture Warriors”. You laid that label on them.

    “And, while I’m getting tired of doing your research for you” — you’re not doing my research! I don’t care about any of these guys, particularly in the context of this discussion. You’re the one who keeps bringing them up. Are you saying that, @ comment 22, when you said “resident Culture Warriors”, you were actually only referring to Buchanan, O’Reilley, and Santorum, and not to commenters here? Because that doesn’t make sense in view of your comment @ 46:

    Culture Warriors have always been those, like you, who consider themselves “conservative”, Republican, etc. Just because you don’t like a label doesn’t mean it’s meaningless.

    where you are clearly labeling Grace, not Buchanan.

    “Nor do I really know what your overall point is” — my point is as stated @ 47. You set up a straw man (the “Culture Warrior”) to conveniently dismiss those commenters you disagreed with. It takes two sides to fight the “Culture War”, and the aggressors (the left) cannot avoid the label of “Culture Warrior”, especially when it is applied to pejoratively dismiss the ideas and convictions underlying the issue, just because they don’t want to be called such, or because it just isn’t done. The reason liberal culture warriors don’t self-identify as such is because they are engaged in a radical make-over of traditional society and they want to do it in a stealthy way, especially since much of what they want to do isn’t politically popular. On the other hand, those defending traditional cultural values want to call attention to their cause.

    As to your post @ 79:

    No, what defines the Culture Warrior is his prescription for the problems of the world. Which is, of course, to “win” the war — and, to a Culture Warrior, the war is always winnable, if only you follow his advice — by gaining control (i.e. power) of cultural and political institutions.

    Yes. And both sides do it. Read Alinsky, a true culture warrior of the left.

    Culture Warriors do not see the world as being in a hopelessly degenerate state. They believe that, with the right initiatives, (or, more often) with the right laws, you can begin to address the problem of sin.

    The notion of fixing society with laws is more an issue of culture warriors of the left, not the right. Except that they typically don’t acknowledge the sinful state of man (except for business people and Republicans of course). Actually, most “culture warriors” of the right have no desire to legislate morality, unlike those on the left. They merely want to establish a bulwark of protections which will allow them to continue to fully participate in society without compromising their religious values and consciences, and to be free to raise up their children in a manner of their choosing. By the way, all three “culture warriors” you specifically identify are Catholic, not evangelical. So they wouldn’t necessarily frame things as an evangelical would.

    The Culture Warrior doesn’t usually frame things in terms of sin, though, as sin is generally acknowledged to be a problem we all share. Ah, but in the Culture Warrior’s mind, people are divided into Good and Bad, Us and Them — typically, these are equivalent to “conservative” and “liberal”, though O’Reilly prefers to frame it as “S-P’s” (“secular progressives”) vs. “traditionalists”. Whatever.

    I’m not sure whom you’re referencing, except for O’Reilley, but generally speaking, culture warriors of the left also don’t frame things in terms of sin. And they certainly divide people into Good and Bad, Us and Them, etc. So, I’m not sure of your point here. It’s human nature, especially in politics. Read any political fundraising letter, from either side of the aisle and you’ll see what I mean.

    Anyhow, point being, the Culture Warrior doesn’t think it’s sufficient to merely preach the truth. No, he has to make others act in accordance with what he believes, through the force of law. Typically, this is combined with some belief that the Culture Warrior’s nation is special in a religious sense and needs to do something in a political sense in order to maintain that religious privilege.

    OK. Again, being Catholics, I’m not sure they have the same view of truth as you or I do. Certainly both sides, and particularly the left, wants to make others act in accordance with what they believe. Just look at the myriad of environmental laws forcing behavior on everyone in accordance with the beliefs of some, or forced multi-culti curriculum in schools, or “sensitivity training”, as just a few examples.

    It’s this latter part that tends to distinguish the aforementioned (“conservative”) Culture Warriors from the liberals who might fit with the earlier part of the definition.

    Nope. I think I’ve shown that above. The left is extremely interested in forcing our culture to “modernize” and conform to its cultural point of view.

    But, like I said, if it’s important to you that liberals be equally targeted by this term, have at it. You might want to try convincing other people, however, to join you in your usage. Try to get the liberals to use the terms in the same ways their “conservative” counterparts have.

    OK. I think I’ve proved my point. But, liberals won’t adopt the term, because they don’t want to be seen for the radicals that they are. That, however, doesn’t mean the term doesn’t apply.

    Myself, I have always bristled at the so-called “conservative” Culture Warriors precisely because they’re always trying to co-opt my faith — not just Christianity, but, specifically, confessional Lutheranism — to their politico-cultural ends. They want me/us to join them on the “battle lines”, voting for this or donating money to that.

    So, you bristle at three Catholics trying to co-opt your faith? If you don’t want to identify with them, don’t. But, I don’t think they are trying to co-opt your faith. They are just trying to defend cultural norms that have been in place for many centuries, and which are being systematically overthrown by some who no longer regard Scripture as truth.

    But more to the point, in the context of this discussion, you were addressing commenters who thought that clergy should have a place at the memorial service. You may disagree (I do as well — see my comment @ 13), but it is a legitimate point of view, particularly in a society where culture warriors of the left are repeatedly and actively trying to exclude religious viewpoints from the public square. If you disagree with those commenters, fine. But, they are not trying to co-opt your faith. They are merely stating their point of view. You are free to agree or disagree. But, engage the ideas, and avoid the pejorative labels.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@83), first, an apology. I misread your earlier comment (@71), so my response (@78) doesn’t make complete sense. When you said “They did not label themselves such”, I thought you were referring to the celebrity Culture Warriors I mentioned. Sorry.

    As for why I brought them up in the first place, you may recall it was all part of the discussion prompted by your question (@47) — namely, who or what is a Culture Warrior.

    The issue is that you labeled commenters on this blog (“resident Culture Warriors”) in a pejorative and dismissive way. Those commenters have not self-identified as “Culture Warriors”. You laid that label on them.

    I really don’t get your emphasis on nomenclature here. Whether or not you and Grace disagree with the label or self-identify with it or not, I disagree at a fairly fundamental level with your approaches to culture, politics, and religion — especially how the latter should influence the former two. Surely you get that.

    I think the term “Culture Warrior” neatly references the issues I have with your approach. Even if you reject the term, the issues are still there. It’s not a “straw man” to come up with a term for it.

    You are free to agree or disagree. But, engage the ideas, and avoid the pejorative labels.

    Okay, DonS, how about this: I’ll avoid the use of “Culture Warrior” if you avoid the use of your own pejorative labels: the left, liberals, climate scientists, environmentalists, elites, the ACLU, secularists, unions, teacher’s unions, etc. Engage the ideas, Don. Don’t resort to pojorative labels.

    Whaddya say? Fair?

    Anyhow…

    Actually, most “culture warriors” of the right have no desire to legislate morality, unlike those on the left. They merely want to establish a bulwark of protections which will allow them to continue to fully participate in society without compromising their religious values and consciences, and to be free to raise up their children in a manner of their choosing.

    Yeah, so, that second sentence pretty much disproves the first one. “A bulwark of protections” somehow always seems to play out into legislation. And the issue of gay marriage completely fails to fit your would-be description of how right-wing Culture Warriors deal with things.

    You may disagree (I do as well — see my comment @ 13), but it is a legitimate point of view, particularly in a society where culture warriors of the left are repeatedly and actively trying to exclude religious viewpoints from the public square.

    No, I don’t agree it’s a “legitimate” point of view — it’s a point of view, yes, but obviously I don’t consider it legitimate. You sound like a liberal, Don, demanding that I “respect” or “tolerate” your viewpoint.

    And your justification there is a fairly pitch-perfect piece of right-wing Culture Warrior talk. Even if you don’t like the label, even if you happen to sort of maybe agree with Cwirla’s original point, you really sound like a Culture Warrior. Why? See how you frame things in terms of a reaction? “They have done this, so it is entirely legitimate to argue that we should oppose that by doing [this thing to gain political power or influence in the culture]!”

    As such, my only question is why you don’t like the term.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@83), first, an apology. I misread your earlier comment (@71), so my response (@78) doesn’t make complete sense. When you said “They did not label themselves such”, I thought you were referring to the celebrity Culture Warriors I mentioned. Sorry.

    As for why I brought them up in the first place, you may recall it was all part of the discussion prompted by your question (@47) — namely, who or what is a Culture Warrior.

    The issue is that you labeled commenters on this blog (“resident Culture Warriors”) in a pejorative and dismissive way. Those commenters have not self-identified as “Culture Warriors”. You laid that label on them.

    I really don’t get your emphasis on nomenclature here. Whether or not you and Grace disagree with the label or self-identify with it or not, I disagree at a fairly fundamental level with your approaches to culture, politics, and religion — especially how the latter should influence the former two. Surely you get that.

    I think the term “Culture Warrior” neatly references the issues I have with your approach. Even if you reject the term, the issues are still there. It’s not a “straw man” to come up with a term for it.

    You are free to agree or disagree. But, engage the ideas, and avoid the pejorative labels.

    Okay, DonS, how about this: I’ll avoid the use of “Culture Warrior” if you avoid the use of your own pejorative labels: the left, liberals, climate scientists, environmentalists, elites, the ACLU, secularists, unions, teacher’s unions, etc. Engage the ideas, Don. Don’t resort to pojorative labels.

    Whaddya say? Fair?

    Anyhow…

    Actually, most “culture warriors” of the right have no desire to legislate morality, unlike those on the left. They merely want to establish a bulwark of protections which will allow them to continue to fully participate in society without compromising their religious values and consciences, and to be free to raise up their children in a manner of their choosing.

    Yeah, so, that second sentence pretty much disproves the first one. “A bulwark of protections” somehow always seems to play out into legislation. And the issue of gay marriage completely fails to fit your would-be description of how right-wing Culture Warriors deal with things.

    You may disagree (I do as well — see my comment @ 13), but it is a legitimate point of view, particularly in a society where culture warriors of the left are repeatedly and actively trying to exclude religious viewpoints from the public square.

    No, I don’t agree it’s a “legitimate” point of view — it’s a point of view, yes, but obviously I don’t consider it legitimate. You sound like a liberal, Don, demanding that I “respect” or “tolerate” your viewpoint.

    And your justification there is a fairly pitch-perfect piece of right-wing Culture Warrior talk. Even if you don’t like the label, even if you happen to sort of maybe agree with Cwirla’s original point, you really sound like a Culture Warrior. Why? See how you frame things in terms of a reaction? “They have done this, so it is entirely legitimate to argue that we should oppose that by doing [this thing to gain political power or influence in the culture]!”

    As such, my only question is why you don’t like the term.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Not quite the verse I was expecting, but then I am more used to politically liberal people in liberal denominations. I am not used to politically liberal folks from a confessional church that cares about Scripture as the word of God (I think you are the only one I “know”), so normally don’t have to deal with having to respond to this verse. Yes, it is the revealed will of God, in that it is Scripture. How to approach it takes thought because while God finds divorce detestable, he did allow it.
    As the word of God it does apply to us and we should take it to heart, yet also understand it in its context. Contextually, this is a law for the running of the civil realm of Israel. So it is not immediately applicable to the civil realm of another country. Now, as I write that do not think I am saying it has no place, rather it is not a prescribed precept for every nation. I see this as having more pastoral counseling application in the church today as the passage does give the appearance of referring to a habitually unfaithful wife and the foolishness of bringing her sin back.

    At the same time, it does serve as an example of civil law reflecting moral law. In some ways, I would suggest that one implication of this verse is the repeal of no fault divorce as the biblical divorce decree allowed divorce with cause-infidelity. I realize this isn’t perfectly moral, but do remember divorce its self in Scripture is not a simple black and white topic.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Not quite the verse I was expecting, but then I am more used to politically liberal people in liberal denominations. I am not used to politically liberal folks from a confessional church that cares about Scripture as the word of God (I think you are the only one I “know”), so normally don’t have to deal with having to respond to this verse. Yes, it is the revealed will of God, in that it is Scripture. How to approach it takes thought because while God finds divorce detestable, he did allow it.
    As the word of God it does apply to us and we should take it to heart, yet also understand it in its context. Contextually, this is a law for the running of the civil realm of Israel. So it is not immediately applicable to the civil realm of another country. Now, as I write that do not think I am saying it has no place, rather it is not a prescribed precept for every nation. I see this as having more pastoral counseling application in the church today as the passage does give the appearance of referring to a habitually unfaithful wife and the foolishness of bringing her sin back.

    At the same time, it does serve as an example of civil law reflecting moral law. In some ways, I would suggest that one implication of this verse is the repeal of no fault divorce as the biblical divorce decree allowed divorce with cause-infidelity. I realize this isn’t perfectly moral, but do remember divorce its self in Scripture is not a simple black and white topic.

  • Grace

    74 – tODD September 8, 2011 at 2:08 am

    “Since Grace brought up (@68) “proud and haughty”, I thought I’d do a search for the times she’s done her own boasting and (attempted) trumping on this blog:

    That is not boasting, as you make a list of comments made over the course of three years on this blog, on a variety of subjects regarding my background, and education .. it’s the truth. Keep in mind tODD, there are people who have studied – because they have, they have come to conclusions that others may or may not agree with. Education is a valuable tool, I am grateful for mine.

  • Grace

    74 – tODD September 8, 2011 at 2:08 am

    “Since Grace brought up (@68) “proud and haughty”, I thought I’d do a search for the times she’s done her own boasting and (attempted) trumping on this blog:

    That is not boasting, as you make a list of comments made over the course of three years on this blog, on a variety of subjects regarding my background, and education .. it’s the truth. Keep in mind tODD, there are people who have studied – because they have, they have come to conclusions that others may or may not agree with. Education is a valuable tool, I am grateful for mine.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 84:

    I appreciate the apology. Maybe we can put Buchanan, Santorum, and O’Reilley behind us in this discussion. Despite your explanation, I’m still not clear on why you brought them up in the first place, particularly given your prior penchant to object to arguments concerning climate change which include reference to celebrities.

    I really don’t get your emphasis on nomenclature here. Whether or not you and Grace disagree with the label or self-identify with it or not, I disagree at a fairly fundamental level with your approaches to culture, politics, and religion — especially how the latter should influence the former two. Surely you get that.

    Yes, I get that. But you don’t need to pejoratively label people to make that point. Just simply disagree without the name-calling, especially when you are unwilling to accept the same label for people having similar approaches from the other side of the aisle, i.e. the “culture warriors” of the left.

    I think the term “Culture Warrior” neatly references the issues I have with your approach. Even if you reject the term, the issues are still there. It’s not a “straw man” to come up with a term for it.

    Well, I disagree, since you aren’t just summarizing or referencing. You’re also demeaning, by throwing in things like

    this is how the Culture War distorts things. If somebody suggested to a Culture Warrior that an action might not be the best choice, he’s likely to reply, with a sense of entitlement, “But it’s my right to do so! And so I now will, just because you told me I can’t!” And wisdom gets chucked out the window.

    And yet, you refuse to apply the same label to those engaging in “culture war” from the left, which is my real beef.

    Okay, DonS, how about this: I’ll avoid the use of “Culture Warrior” if you avoid the use of your own pejorative labels: the left, liberals, climate scientists, environmentalists, elites, the ACLU, secularists, unions, teacher’s unions, etc. Engage the ideas, Don. Don’t resort to pojorative labels.

    Labels, themselves, when evenly applied to everyone who falls within the definition, regardless of ideology, are not necessarily a bad thing. They can be a helpful shorthand, when not used pejoratively. Though I would certainly be interested in how you believe “climate scientist” or “unions” or “secularists”, or “the left” or “the right” are inherently pejorative. When labels are used disrespectfully, or to dismiss the underlying ideas of people bearing those labels, then we have a different issue. I will continue to endeavor to avoid using labels in a pejorative way. I don’t care if you use the term “culture warrior”, but I am certainly going to call you on it when you use it as a pejorative and then refuse to apply it evenly to leftist culture warriors, or even to acknowledge that many on the left are engaged in an aggressive culture war.

    Yeah, so, that second sentence pretty much disproves the first one. “A bulwark of protections” somehow always seems to play out into legislation. And the issue of gay marriage completely fails to fit your would-be description of how right-wing Culture Warriors deal with things.

    There is a difference between legislating to ensure that the rights of all are protected to act freely in accordance with their conscience, and legislating to control the actions of another. The left in recent years has fallen in love with doing the latter, imposing their cultural viewpoints on society at large to prohibit people from engaging in business unless they violate their conscience (an example being forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the “morning after” pill, or a Christian to rent a room to a co-habiting couple). Legislating to ensure that a Christian Bible club can have equal access to meeting space on a public university campus is an example of the former, and the type of thing I mean by “bulwark of protections”. The gay marriage issue seems to be the only one you can think of as to how so-called “Culture Warriors” are actually imposing their views on others. But, it’s weak sauce. For one thing, it is the leftist culture warriors who are seeking to change the law. The right just wants to keep things the way they have been since the dawn of time. So who are the real “culture warriors”? Secondly, the right doesn’t want to prohibit gays from partnering, living together, or doing whatever else it is they want to do. They are not seeking to control the activities of gays. They are only wanting to continue to have the right, as a free democratic society, to recognize the unique relationship that is a heterosexual man and wife, as the backbone of the American family and the means by which we continue humankind to future generations. We’ve been through all of this before. We disagree, but it is certainly not just about the right wanting to impose its views on the left. It is much more, in fact, the opposite.

    No, I don’t agree it’s a “legitimate” point of view — it’s a point of view, yes, but obviously I don’t consider it legitimate. You sound like a liberal, Don, demanding that I “respect” or “tolerate” your viewpoint.

    Wow! So if someone believes clergy should be permitted to participate in the 9/11 memorial service, that is not even legitimate? I guess anyone who disagrees with you is per se illegitimate? Well, needless to say, I think you are way out of the mainstream on that one, and you will no doubt find it difficult to have any kind of intelligent discussion with those with whom you disagree given that attitude. To clarify, I certainly agree with the notion that we should tolerate and respect opposing viewpoints. That doesn’t make me a “liberal”, many of whom conflate “tolerance” with “acceptance” or “acquiescence”, particularly when it comes to issues of biblical morality.

    And your justification there is a fairly pitch-perfect piece of right-wing Culture Warrior talk. Even if you don’t like the label, even if you happen to sort of maybe agree with Cwirla’s original point, you really sound like a Culture Warrior. Why? See how you frame things in terms of a reaction? “They have done this, so it is entirely legitimate to argue that we should oppose that by doing [this thing to gain political power or influence in the culture]!”

    As such, my only question is why you don’t like the term.

    I don’t care for the term because I believe the left has co-opted it as a pejorative, and to avoid engaging the underlying issues. If someone wants to label themselves using that term, go for it. As for the rest of your comment, all of politics and human engagement involves reaction. I’ve already pointed out, ad nauseum, how the left also engages in reaction, and does, often more fervently, the things you identify with “Culture Warriors”. And yet, you refuse to apply the term to culture warriors of the left, apparently because liberal culture warriors don’t want to be so identified. Why is that? Why are they entitled to a different level of deference than the commenters you singled out on this thread?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 84:

    I appreciate the apology. Maybe we can put Buchanan, Santorum, and O’Reilley behind us in this discussion. Despite your explanation, I’m still not clear on why you brought them up in the first place, particularly given your prior penchant to object to arguments concerning climate change which include reference to celebrities.

    I really don’t get your emphasis on nomenclature here. Whether or not you and Grace disagree with the label or self-identify with it or not, I disagree at a fairly fundamental level with your approaches to culture, politics, and religion — especially how the latter should influence the former two. Surely you get that.

    Yes, I get that. But you don’t need to pejoratively label people to make that point. Just simply disagree without the name-calling, especially when you are unwilling to accept the same label for people having similar approaches from the other side of the aisle, i.e. the “culture warriors” of the left.

    I think the term “Culture Warrior” neatly references the issues I have with your approach. Even if you reject the term, the issues are still there. It’s not a “straw man” to come up with a term for it.

    Well, I disagree, since you aren’t just summarizing or referencing. You’re also demeaning, by throwing in things like

    this is how the Culture War distorts things. If somebody suggested to a Culture Warrior that an action might not be the best choice, he’s likely to reply, with a sense of entitlement, “But it’s my right to do so! And so I now will, just because you told me I can’t!” And wisdom gets chucked out the window.

    And yet, you refuse to apply the same label to those engaging in “culture war” from the left, which is my real beef.

    Okay, DonS, how about this: I’ll avoid the use of “Culture Warrior” if you avoid the use of your own pejorative labels: the left, liberals, climate scientists, environmentalists, elites, the ACLU, secularists, unions, teacher’s unions, etc. Engage the ideas, Don. Don’t resort to pojorative labels.

    Labels, themselves, when evenly applied to everyone who falls within the definition, regardless of ideology, are not necessarily a bad thing. They can be a helpful shorthand, when not used pejoratively. Though I would certainly be interested in how you believe “climate scientist” or “unions” or “secularists”, or “the left” or “the right” are inherently pejorative. When labels are used disrespectfully, or to dismiss the underlying ideas of people bearing those labels, then we have a different issue. I will continue to endeavor to avoid using labels in a pejorative way. I don’t care if you use the term “culture warrior”, but I am certainly going to call you on it when you use it as a pejorative and then refuse to apply it evenly to leftist culture warriors, or even to acknowledge that many on the left are engaged in an aggressive culture war.

    Yeah, so, that second sentence pretty much disproves the first one. “A bulwark of protections” somehow always seems to play out into legislation. And the issue of gay marriage completely fails to fit your would-be description of how right-wing Culture Warriors deal with things.

    There is a difference between legislating to ensure that the rights of all are protected to act freely in accordance with their conscience, and legislating to control the actions of another. The left in recent years has fallen in love with doing the latter, imposing their cultural viewpoints on society at large to prohibit people from engaging in business unless they violate their conscience (an example being forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the “morning after” pill, or a Christian to rent a room to a co-habiting couple). Legislating to ensure that a Christian Bible club can have equal access to meeting space on a public university campus is an example of the former, and the type of thing I mean by “bulwark of protections”. The gay marriage issue seems to be the only one you can think of as to how so-called “Culture Warriors” are actually imposing their views on others. But, it’s weak sauce. For one thing, it is the leftist culture warriors who are seeking to change the law. The right just wants to keep things the way they have been since the dawn of time. So who are the real “culture warriors”? Secondly, the right doesn’t want to prohibit gays from partnering, living together, or doing whatever else it is they want to do. They are not seeking to control the activities of gays. They are only wanting to continue to have the right, as a free democratic society, to recognize the unique relationship that is a heterosexual man and wife, as the backbone of the American family and the means by which we continue humankind to future generations. We’ve been through all of this before. We disagree, but it is certainly not just about the right wanting to impose its views on the left. It is much more, in fact, the opposite.

    No, I don’t agree it’s a “legitimate” point of view — it’s a point of view, yes, but obviously I don’t consider it legitimate. You sound like a liberal, Don, demanding that I “respect” or “tolerate” your viewpoint.

    Wow! So if someone believes clergy should be permitted to participate in the 9/11 memorial service, that is not even legitimate? I guess anyone who disagrees with you is per se illegitimate? Well, needless to say, I think you are way out of the mainstream on that one, and you will no doubt find it difficult to have any kind of intelligent discussion with those with whom you disagree given that attitude. To clarify, I certainly agree with the notion that we should tolerate and respect opposing viewpoints. That doesn’t make me a “liberal”, many of whom conflate “tolerance” with “acceptance” or “acquiescence”, particularly when it comes to issues of biblical morality.

    And your justification there is a fairly pitch-perfect piece of right-wing Culture Warrior talk. Even if you don’t like the label, even if you happen to sort of maybe agree with Cwirla’s original point, you really sound like a Culture Warrior. Why? See how you frame things in terms of a reaction? “They have done this, so it is entirely legitimate to argue that we should oppose that by doing [this thing to gain political power or influence in the culture]!”

    As such, my only question is why you don’t like the term.

    I don’t care for the term because I believe the left has co-opted it as a pejorative, and to avoid engaging the underlying issues. If someone wants to label themselves using that term, go for it. As for the rest of your comment, all of politics and human engagement involves reaction. I’ve already pointed out, ad nauseum, how the left also engages in reaction, and does, often more fervently, the things you identify with “Culture Warriors”. And yet, you refuse to apply the term to culture warriors of the left, apparently because liberal culture warriors don’t want to be so identified. Why is that? Why are they entitled to a different level of deference than the commenters you singled out on this thread?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@86), quite simply, it is boasting to tell everyone how learned you are. Are you just in denial? Whether or not it is true doesn’t make it not proud and boastful — one hopes that arrogant people are at least telling the truth when they puff themselves up!

    Keep in mind tODD, there are people who have studied – because they have, they have come to conclusions that others may or may not agree with.

    That’s a load of vague gibberish. But hey, you know who else has studied a lot? Any Lutheran pastor!

    Education is a valuable tool, I am grateful for mine.

    Great. But you show no respect for anyone else’s. Like DLit2C’s.

    Seems like you keep wanting all the praise and glory for yourself — “I’m a pastor’s daughter! I’ve studied a lot!” — but refuse to give the same to people who disagree with you.

    Intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise people do not have to make explicit claims about how intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise they are. It’s obvious from what they say. So why not spend less time trying to convince us how learned you are — merely by repeatedly stating that claim as blunt fact — and instead craft your comments here so that your learnedness shows through? Of what value is all your years of education if it doesn’t show?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@86), quite simply, it is boasting to tell everyone how learned you are. Are you just in denial? Whether or not it is true doesn’t make it not proud and boastful — one hopes that arrogant people are at least telling the truth when they puff themselves up!

    Keep in mind tODD, there are people who have studied – because they have, they have come to conclusions that others may or may not agree with.

    That’s a load of vague gibberish. But hey, you know who else has studied a lot? Any Lutheran pastor!

    Education is a valuable tool, I am grateful for mine.

    Great. But you show no respect for anyone else’s. Like DLit2C’s.

    Seems like you keep wanting all the praise and glory for yourself — “I’m a pastor’s daughter! I’ve studied a lot!” — but refuse to give the same to people who disagree with you.

    Intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise people do not have to make explicit claims about how intelligent, knowledgeable, and wise they are. It’s obvious from what they say. So why not spend less time trying to convince us how learned you are — merely by repeatedly stating that claim as blunt fact — and instead craft your comments here so that your learnedness shows through? Of what value is all your years of education if it doesn’t show?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@85), first off, I didn’t realize you were replying to me at first, so, you know, names and comment numbers are helpful…

    Contextually, this is a law for the running of the civil realm of Israel.

    Of course. My point was not that the Israelite civil law applies directly to us as a nation today.

    My point was that, in allowing divorce, God himself appeared to break your (apparent) rule (@81) that “all laws should reflect moral law”. God himself allowed, in the laws he gave to Israel, for something that he himself detested. And what was his stated reason for doing this? “Because of your hardness of heart.”

    So when someone — yes, that would be a Culture Warrior — tells me that I have to support this law or vote for that politician who supports this law, all because it’s somehow in keeping with God’s Will, well, I tend to remember how God himself handled it.

    Of course, divorce isn’t exactly a hot-button topic among Culture Warriors today — they’ve kind of given up the battle on that one, perhaps because so many of us (and them) are divorced, or know someone who is. But I could easily imagine them telling me that I as a Christian have to support some law prohibiting divorce, in the same way that I am repeatedly told today that I have to support some law prohibiting gay marriage.

    Here’s my question: is there any room for recognizing man’s hardness of heart when it comes to gay marriage? Not to the Culture Warrior. Again, wisdom — and a recognition of the problem that is man’s hardness of heart — seems to have been tossed out the window. If God calls something wrong, goes the argument, then we must ban it with a law.

    Also, one will note that the commandment that Jesus said was “most important” is never subject to these silly politico-cultural movements. If it’s important that we ban gay marriage, isn’t it all the more important that we ban idolatry? Shouldn’t we make it illegal to not attend an orthodox church regularly?

    Or should we realize that such laws would be pointless, and, recognizing the hardness of man’s heart, allow him to thumb his nose at God, even though that clearly contravenes God’s will?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@85), first off, I didn’t realize you were replying to me at first, so, you know, names and comment numbers are helpful…

    Contextually, this is a law for the running of the civil realm of Israel.

    Of course. My point was not that the Israelite civil law applies directly to us as a nation today.

    My point was that, in allowing divorce, God himself appeared to break your (apparent) rule (@81) that “all laws should reflect moral law”. God himself allowed, in the laws he gave to Israel, for something that he himself detested. And what was his stated reason for doing this? “Because of your hardness of heart.”

    So when someone — yes, that would be a Culture Warrior — tells me that I have to support this law or vote for that politician who supports this law, all because it’s somehow in keeping with God’s Will, well, I tend to remember how God himself handled it.

    Of course, divorce isn’t exactly a hot-button topic among Culture Warriors today — they’ve kind of given up the battle on that one, perhaps because so many of us (and them) are divorced, or know someone who is. But I could easily imagine them telling me that I as a Christian have to support some law prohibiting divorce, in the same way that I am repeatedly told today that I have to support some law prohibiting gay marriage.

    Here’s my question: is there any room for recognizing man’s hardness of heart when it comes to gay marriage? Not to the Culture Warrior. Again, wisdom — and a recognition of the problem that is man’s hardness of heart — seems to have been tossed out the window. If God calls something wrong, goes the argument, then we must ban it with a law.

    Also, one will note that the commandment that Jesus said was “most important” is never subject to these silly politico-cultural movements. If it’s important that we ban gay marriage, isn’t it all the more important that we ban idolatry? Shouldn’t we make it illegal to not attend an orthodox church regularly?

    Or should we realize that such laws would be pointless, and, recognizing the hardness of man’s heart, allow him to thumb his nose at God, even though that clearly contravenes God’s will?

  • Grace

    tODD @88

    You are engaging in an illogical game of “the vicious circle.”

    Century being a pastor doesn’t trump me, nor anyone else who is a Christian Believer. Calling pastors children p.K.’s is disrespectful. It may play well in other parts of the country, or in the military, but not where I come from, or the way I was raised. I’ve been referred to, using that term perhaps two times in my entire life. We are all sinners saved by grace, no on trumps another. We as Christians work together as a body, to glorify the LORD.

    You wrote: “Of what value is all your years of education if it doesn’t show?”

    If it doesn’t show, and you cannot see it, so be it – my career and present involvement, speak for themselves, I couldn’t have done it without study or more importantly, the LORD’s guidance and direction. Your approval means nothing to me.

  • Grace

    tODD @88

    You are engaging in an illogical game of “the vicious circle.”

    Century being a pastor doesn’t trump me, nor anyone else who is a Christian Believer. Calling pastors children p.K.’s is disrespectful. It may play well in other parts of the country, or in the military, but not where I come from, or the way I was raised. I’ve been referred to, using that term perhaps two times in my entire life. We are all sinners saved by grace, no on trumps another. We as Christians work together as a body, to glorify the LORD.

    You wrote: “Of what value is all your years of education if it doesn’t show?”

    If it doesn’t show, and you cannot see it, so be it – my career and present involvement, speak for themselves, I couldn’t have done it without study or more importantly, the LORD’s guidance and direction. Your approval means nothing to me.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#89

    Sorry about the lack of numbering for response.

    Ah well, I guess I have to give up the title Culture Warrior. Although I can’t say I ever really fit into their camp. As I would say only a government with God truly at it’s head aka, Old Israel and *the new Israel, the church, should even try to enforce the first three commandments.

    To the homosexual question, I am more in favor of what could be considered the civil equivalent of putting them out into the “tender” care of satan for a time in the hopes they would feel the weight of their sin. In other words, make no laws granting them rights on the basis of their relationship, nor make any laws to punish their actions (this partly because I believe it is stupid to make laws you really can’t enforce).

    As to your final question, where do you draw the line? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to steal? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to murder? I am not using slippery slope. I am basically to ask where can we humans safely draw the line between practical law and what God has revealed in His moral Law.

    Also, Grace is conflating the two kingdoms. The right hand recognizes no difference between people, where as left does recognize differences in level of ability, authority, and position. She seems to think the right applies in the left.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#89

    Sorry about the lack of numbering for response.

    Ah well, I guess I have to give up the title Culture Warrior. Although I can’t say I ever really fit into their camp. As I would say only a government with God truly at it’s head aka, Old Israel and *the new Israel, the church, should even try to enforce the first three commandments.

    To the homosexual question, I am more in favor of what could be considered the civil equivalent of putting them out into the “tender” care of satan for a time in the hopes they would feel the weight of their sin. In other words, make no laws granting them rights on the basis of their relationship, nor make any laws to punish their actions (this partly because I believe it is stupid to make laws you really can’t enforce).

    As to your final question, where do you draw the line? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to steal? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to murder? I am not using slippery slope. I am basically to ask where can we humans safely draw the line between practical law and what God has revealed in His moral Law.

    Also, Grace is conflating the two kingdoms. The right hand recognizes no difference between people, where as left does recognize differences in level of ability, authority, and position. She seems to think the right applies in the left.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@87),

    Maybe we can put Buchanan, Santorum, and O’Reilley behind us in this discussion. Despite your explanation, I’m still not clear on why you brought them up in the first place, particularly given …

    Um, Don? If you want to put them “behind us”, then please let it go. If you want to discuss them, then please allow me to do so, as well. Thanks.

    And yet, you refuse to apply the same label to those engaging in “culture war” from the left, which is my real beef.

    Yes, that does seem to be a theme with you — it seems like one can’t criticize a “conservative” in your presence without criticizing a liberal equally, if not more. And yet this claim of yours seems to miss my entire point, repeated several times, about how the word is commonly used.

    Once again, consider the label “Evangelical”. I don’t refer to myself as an (unqualified) Evangelical these days, even though I certainly fit the denotation at some level. Why? Because that’s not how the word is commonly used. Are Lutherans “Evangelicals”? Sure, but trying to force that point only confuses things. Your beef is with the fact that people — not me, but the whole world of English-speakers — are far more likely to apply the term “culture warrior” to a right-winger than to a left-winger. Doubtless, you will blame this on liberal media bias and an out-of-touch academic elite, but then, of course you would. You’re a Culture Warrior.

    Labels, themselves, when evenly applied to everyone who falls within the definition, regardless of ideology, are not necessarily a bad thing.

    Hmm. Why didn’t you trot out that explanation when you were complaining about my “pejoratively labeling people”? Why did you only bring this excuse out when I mentioned some of the labels you like to use? Here: the label “Culture Warrior” is not necessarily a bad thing. It is for me, of course. But some people obviously embrace the term for themselves.

    I would certainly be interested in how you believe “climate scientist” or “unions” or “secularists”, or “the left” or “the right” are inherently pejorative.

    I don’t think the terms are. But it’s news to me if you ever use those terms in a non-pejorative sense. Besides, I only made reference to the nice forms of those labels you used. Do I really need to Google to find the obviously defamatory adjectives you sometimes add to them?

    The gay marriage issue seems to be the only one you can think of as to how so-called “Culture Warriors” are actually imposing their views on others.

    Ah, yes. “The only one”. Because it’s not like Culture Warriors expend much time or energy discussing gay marriage. It’s but one issue, after all.

    For one thing, it is the leftist culture warriors who are seeking to change the law.

    Which is a curious rebuttal to the accusation that, in the gay marriage issue, right-wing Culture Warriors “have no desire to legislate morality” (@83). Pretty certain that’s exactly what they’re doing.

    So if someone believes clergy should be permitted to participate in the 9/11 memorial service, that is not even legitimate? I guess anyone who disagrees with you is per se illegitimate?

    Criminy. Do I have to think that your — or anyone’s — every argument is “legitimate”? Will it hurt your feelings if I think otherwise? Do you want me to respect and tolerate everything you say, as well? Pfft. Some people who disagree with me still make arguments I consider legitimate. Some don’t. Do you have an issue with this? Do you consider all arguments legitimate, Don?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@87),

    Maybe we can put Buchanan, Santorum, and O’Reilley behind us in this discussion. Despite your explanation, I’m still not clear on why you brought them up in the first place, particularly given …

    Um, Don? If you want to put them “behind us”, then please let it go. If you want to discuss them, then please allow me to do so, as well. Thanks.

    And yet, you refuse to apply the same label to those engaging in “culture war” from the left, which is my real beef.

    Yes, that does seem to be a theme with you — it seems like one can’t criticize a “conservative” in your presence without criticizing a liberal equally, if not more. And yet this claim of yours seems to miss my entire point, repeated several times, about how the word is commonly used.

    Once again, consider the label “Evangelical”. I don’t refer to myself as an (unqualified) Evangelical these days, even though I certainly fit the denotation at some level. Why? Because that’s not how the word is commonly used. Are Lutherans “Evangelicals”? Sure, but trying to force that point only confuses things. Your beef is with the fact that people — not me, but the whole world of English-speakers — are far more likely to apply the term “culture warrior” to a right-winger than to a left-winger. Doubtless, you will blame this on liberal media bias and an out-of-touch academic elite, but then, of course you would. You’re a Culture Warrior.

    Labels, themselves, when evenly applied to everyone who falls within the definition, regardless of ideology, are not necessarily a bad thing.

    Hmm. Why didn’t you trot out that explanation when you were complaining about my “pejoratively labeling people”? Why did you only bring this excuse out when I mentioned some of the labels you like to use? Here: the label “Culture Warrior” is not necessarily a bad thing. It is for me, of course. But some people obviously embrace the term for themselves.

    I would certainly be interested in how you believe “climate scientist” or “unions” or “secularists”, or “the left” or “the right” are inherently pejorative.

    I don’t think the terms are. But it’s news to me if you ever use those terms in a non-pejorative sense. Besides, I only made reference to the nice forms of those labels you used. Do I really need to Google to find the obviously defamatory adjectives you sometimes add to them?

    The gay marriage issue seems to be the only one you can think of as to how so-called “Culture Warriors” are actually imposing their views on others.

    Ah, yes. “The only one”. Because it’s not like Culture Warriors expend much time or energy discussing gay marriage. It’s but one issue, after all.

    For one thing, it is the leftist culture warriors who are seeking to change the law.

    Which is a curious rebuttal to the accusation that, in the gay marriage issue, right-wing Culture Warriors “have no desire to legislate morality” (@83). Pretty certain that’s exactly what they’re doing.

    So if someone believes clergy should be permitted to participate in the 9/11 memorial service, that is not even legitimate? I guess anyone who disagrees with you is per se illegitimate?

    Criminy. Do I have to think that your — or anyone’s — every argument is “legitimate”? Will it hurt your feelings if I think otherwise? Do you want me to respect and tolerate everything you say, as well? Pfft. Some people who disagree with me still make arguments I consider legitimate. Some don’t. Do you have an issue with this? Do you consider all arguments legitimate, Don?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@90) said:

    It may play well in other parts of the country, or in the military, but not where I come from, or the way I was raised.

    Do you feel like you have a right to be offended, Grace? Honestly, you’re talking to people from all over the country, who were not raised the way you were (whatever that means). You brought up the fact that you’re a pastor’s kid yourself. But now you claim a special privilege to be offended by abbreviating that to “PK” because of the circumstances of your upbringing, which nobody could possibly know about? If you’re that sensitive, then maybe you shouldn’t be talking to people outside of “where you come from” — especially when you enjoy being as abrasive to others as you do.

    We are all sinners saved by grace, no on trumps another.

    As DLit2C already noted (@91), this is a terrible application of Scripture. The Bible makes clear that God gives different gifts to different people. We’re not all equal. Some people have more experience, some have more talent, some have more intelligence.

    We as Christians work together as a body, to glorify the LORD.

    Yes, I get that. But go reread 1 Cor. 12:

    There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. … All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

    So don’t try to tell me that we’re all equally gifted, with no one better at anything than anyone else. That’s obviously false. And, when it comes to knowledge about pastoring, DLit2C is obviously more, well, knowledgeable.

    Or would you claim that I’m just as knowledgeable about all things medical as you are. Since, you know, “We are all sinners saved by grace, no on [sic] trumps another.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@90) said:

    It may play well in other parts of the country, or in the military, but not where I come from, or the way I was raised.

    Do you feel like you have a right to be offended, Grace? Honestly, you’re talking to people from all over the country, who were not raised the way you were (whatever that means). You brought up the fact that you’re a pastor’s kid yourself. But now you claim a special privilege to be offended by abbreviating that to “PK” because of the circumstances of your upbringing, which nobody could possibly know about? If you’re that sensitive, then maybe you shouldn’t be talking to people outside of “where you come from” — especially when you enjoy being as abrasive to others as you do.

    We are all sinners saved by grace, no on trumps another.

    As DLit2C already noted (@91), this is a terrible application of Scripture. The Bible makes clear that God gives different gifts to different people. We’re not all equal. Some people have more experience, some have more talent, some have more intelligence.

    We as Christians work together as a body, to glorify the LORD.

    Yes, I get that. But go reread 1 Cor. 12:

    There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. … All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

    So don’t try to tell me that we’re all equally gifted, with no one better at anything than anyone else. That’s obviously false. And, when it comes to knowledge about pastoring, DLit2C is obviously more, well, knowledgeable.

    Or would you claim that I’m just as knowledgeable about all things medical as you are. Since, you know, “We are all sinners saved by grace, no on [sic] trumps another.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@91), you asked, “where do you draw the line?”

    Well, if I were able to give you a simple answer to that, I’d be more of a Culture Warrior, wouldn’t I? Simple, black-and-white rules and all.

    No, it calls for wisdom. Is the role of the government to enforce God’s Law at all points on men? Or is it to maintain peace and order in society, in order that the Church may do its job of preaching the Gospel?

    If you lean towards the latter, I think the answer to these questions of yours is quite obvious:

    Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to steal? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to murder?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@91), you asked, “where do you draw the line?”

    Well, if I were able to give you a simple answer to that, I’d be more of a Culture Warrior, wouldn’t I? Simple, black-and-white rules and all.

    No, it calls for wisdom. Is the role of the government to enforce God’s Law at all points on men? Or is it to maintain peace and order in society, in order that the Church may do its job of preaching the Gospel?

    If you lean towards the latter, I think the answer to these questions of yours is quite obvious:

    Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to steal? Do we recognize the hardness of man’s heart and allow him to murder?

  • Grace

    tODD

    You appear to love the ‘engagement of arguments, no matter what they are, or how you can twist them around. It’s a waste of time, .. perhaps you have that time to waste in your life, I DO NOT.

    You’ve tried whining when I will no longer engage (answer your questions over and over, blah, blah, blah) you in a senseless argument, your posts are a prime example.

  • Grace

    tODD

    You appear to love the ‘engagement of arguments, no matter what they are, or how you can twist them around. It’s a waste of time, .. perhaps you have that time to waste in your life, I DO NOT.

    You’ve tried whining when I will no longer engage (answer your questions over and over, blah, blah, blah) you in a senseless argument, your posts are a prime example.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    tODD, you stumped her.

    @94 I am not sure the answers are as obvious as it seems. As you said it takes wisdom. When have people collectively really been wise?
    I do not mean this next question as an indictment but as theoretical.
    How much of our it takes wisdom is a product of our sinful nature and the result desire to rebel against the Law? Personally, I think our sinful nature has more to do with it than we are comfortable admitting.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    tODD, you stumped her.

    @94 I am not sure the answers are as obvious as it seems. As you said it takes wisdom. When have people collectively really been wise?
    I do not mean this next question as an indictment but as theoretical.
    How much of our it takes wisdom is a product of our sinful nature and the result desire to rebel against the Law? Personally, I think our sinful nature has more to do with it than we are comfortable admitting.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    And I officially cannot type this evening.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    And I officially cannot type this evening.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@95):

    It’s a waste of time, .. perhaps you have that time to waste in your life, I DO NOT.

    Oh, so now you’re back to your old “I don’t have time” routine, Grace?

    You know, that might be more believable if you’d written it on a thread where you hadn’t already typed up nineteen comments.

    You have the time, Grace. You just don’t have a reply.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@95):

    It’s a waste of time, .. perhaps you have that time to waste in your life, I DO NOT.

    Oh, so now you’re back to your old “I don’t have time” routine, Grace?

    You know, that might be more believable if you’d written it on a thread where you hadn’t already typed up nineteen comments.

    You have the time, Grace. You just don’t have a reply.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@96), not sure if you’re still reading this today, but…

    As you said it takes wisdom. When have people collectively really been wise?

    I’m not sure what your point is there. Who said the people were collectively wise? Isn’t the point to have leaders who are wiser than the people? I mean, sure, that’s a bit naive, but it’s certainly happened in the past — cf. the Founding Fathers.

    Anyhow, while I don’t have a pat answer for where to “draw the line”, I do think it’s obvious that, in general, making stealing and murder illegal and punishing such actions is well within the purview of government.

    I also think it’s clearly outside the purview of government to enforce attitudes, thoughts, or beliefs — idolatry, coveting, selfishness, arrogance, love of money, hatred.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DLit2C (@96), not sure if you’re still reading this today, but…

    As you said it takes wisdom. When have people collectively really been wise?

    I’m not sure what your point is there. Who said the people were collectively wise? Isn’t the point to have leaders who are wiser than the people? I mean, sure, that’s a bit naive, but it’s certainly happened in the past — cf. the Founding Fathers.

    Anyhow, while I don’t have a pat answer for where to “draw the line”, I do think it’s obvious that, in general, making stealing and murder illegal and punishing such actions is well within the purview of government.

    I also think it’s clearly outside the purview of government to enforce attitudes, thoughts, or beliefs — idolatry, coveting, selfishness, arrogance, love of money, hatred.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X