Comments for Steadfast Lutherans » An international fraternity of confessional Lutheran laymen and pastors, supporting proclamation of Christian doctrine in the new media. Sat, 30 May 2015 11:55:20 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Kenya’s Oldest, Most Read Newspaper Reports on Bishop Obare’s Corruption Including Allegations Involving LCEF Loan, by Pr. Rossow by The Truth Corner Sat, 30 May 2015 11:55:20 +0000 Pastors in ELCK have become the laughing stocks of villages because they are extremely poor all because obare sits on the millions of shillings with his sons. Imagine Burundi president has refused to retire,Rwanda’s Paul kagame is pushing for unconstitutional 3rd term, Uganda’s Museveni is grooming his son.All these leaders are dictators. They usually look for how to justify clinging to power. If all dictators do not want to leave power, and obare does not want to retire,therefore obare is a dictator. Simple.

Comment on Kenya’s Oldest, Most Read Newspaper Reports on Bishop Obare’s Corruption Including Allegations Involving LCEF Loan, by Pr. Rossow by Justus Ochieng Amayo Sat, 30 May 2015 10:09:25 +0000 It turns out that the “beneficiaries” of a poor and dictatorial leadership are defending their own father. We have never had a platform to tell Obare and his slaves the wrongs he has been doing our church but Steadfast has given us what we needed. His divide and rule tactics has enabled him survive this far but it won’t forever. These are the last moments of a dying horse. The entire church is sick and tired of his leadership and unlike his son ‘concerned individual’ puts it, it is not just the kisiis who are tired, WE ARE ALL TIRED. ALL LUTHERANS IN KENYA AND WORLD OVER ARE TIRED. Even your allies are tired, they can’t just tell you because they are benefiting from the few dollars they get from being ‘loyalists’ who have to lie to get something. Moi retired, Kibaki retired, Bush retired, Obama will retire next year. Even Nyamwaro retired before you rose to power, until you found American money too sweet to retire for. There are even better leaders out there to take over from you…

Comment on What is Hate Speech? by Pastor Eric Andersen Sat, 30 May 2015 04:08:08 +0000 @Helen #9


Absolutely. That’s why we have moderators.

I’m personally not aware of what you’re referring to, but for my part, I’ve seen far too many comments that don’t reflect Christian virtue (including the jab in your previous post). You may want to review our comment policy:

Comment on LadyLike: A Book Every Man Should Read by Pastor Eric Andersen Sat, 30 May 2015 04:03:37 +0000 Bethany,

Thank you for your comments. I’d like to respond to a few of the points you’ve raised. You write:

“Obviously, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this gendered division of labor, but the authors make this the ideal with any other gendered division of labor falling short. What worries me about this is that the authors are making laws where God does not. In fact, this division of labor didn’t even really exist prior to around 1800. Luther’s three estates are church, home, and state. There’s no separate “economy” because in Luther’s day the economy was included in the “home” estate since he lived prior to the separation and gendering of the public and private spheres.”

And again, later you write:
“I regard the idea that women must spend all day doing non-paid house work while men must work outside the home to be setting up a law where we have no clear word.”

This is a recurring theme in your critique. I don’t recall them making any laws where God does not; they simply assume the gendered division of labor they present will be the norm. I think that’s a fair assumption. I’m sure they would wholeheartedly support keeping the economic and household estate together if possible, which would allow both parents to be more intimately involved in the day to day lives of their children. However, if these two estates must be separated, it remains that someone has to attend to the children. If you consider the God-given strengths and aptitudes of men and women, I think the assumption the authors make (that it will be mom) is a fair one.

If you listen to their interview with Katie Schuermann, they repeatedly make the point they are dealing with the norm, and there are always exceptions. I’m not sure if they included a preface explaining this (as I read a draft).

What alternative norm would you propose? The only other options are for men to stay at home while the women work, or for both parents to work, leaving someone else spend a significant amount of time raising their children during a very formative time of life. There may be circumstances where either of these options become necessary, but I would hardly consider them ideal. Best case scenario, both dad and mom work from home. If that’s not possible, dad goes off to work while mom attends to the children. This is in keeping with God’s order of creation; dad staying at home reverses it, and both working results in a situation where both parents are called away from their children for significant amounts of time.

Moving on, you write:
“The authors never define “feminism” except in a very broad way. It just exists
as a boogeyman to blame for all our social ills”

That’s a fair criticism. Next:

“I apologize if this is too personal, but the tone of the book strikes me as angry, bitter, and resentful. It comes across like the authors hate being women! At last, the specifics! Obviously, I”ll just give a few. Unfortunately, I only have the Kindle version, so I’ll just have to cite chapter titles. In the first chapter, they note that God’s order of creation is “God > man > woman > animals” (Out of Order, para. 2). They then cite 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23. I’m not convinced that those verses exactly back up what they claim, but, leaving that aside, I think there’s an ontological problem with the order laid out. Surely, the authors are not claiming that women are less than men in the same way that animals are less than women? And yet, that is clearly what the portion quoted above says.”

You’re right that the quoted portion could give that impression, but that’s only if you cherry-pick the quote out of context. If you read on, the authors make it absolutely clear that they are not suggesting an ontological subordination of woman to man. To even suggest this is a gross mischaracterization of the book. As they write:

“Genesis 1 and 2 details the order: God > man > woman > animals. This is described in the New Testament, too. 1 Corinthians 11:3 explains ―I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.‖ This fuller description of the order is: Father > Son > man > woman. Ephesians 5:23 speaks the same way: ―For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. This is the good arrangement designed by God. Even the Trinity has an ordering. It does not mean that the Son is somehow less God than the Father is, nor is woman less human than man, but there is order. God is a God of order, not of confusion. Order is good. Patriarchy is the earthly arrangement God ordained. Adam is created first and given charge. Eve is to help him. They are to subdue and rule the earth.”

Note especially: “It does not mean that the Son is somehow less God than the Father is, nor is woman less human than man, but there is order.” No ontological subordination here. Not even a hint.

Later, you write:

“Let me just point out that they seem to be saying (I welcome corrections) that God wants women in the house serving their families by doing housework, unless of course you are celibate. Your brains are for use in the home; not outside of it.”

It sounds to me like you’re wanting to impose an either/or where the authors do not. Granted, the authors say the stay-at-home mom’s brains will be used primarily in the home (see below for the quote), but nowhere do they say that’s the case exclusively. As the authors write:

“What about the married? Their calling to love their neighbors as themselves requires them to understand clearly who their neighbors are. The word itself contains the answer. Our neighbors are those who are nigh, which means near, to us. No one is nearer to us than the people in our own households. We are their servants before we are any other person’s.”

The key statement here is, “we are their servants before we are any other person’s”, which emphasizes priority of service, not exclusivity. As to the question of virginity, it’s true: if you don’t want the additional responsibilities that come with marriage and would prefer to make full use of your brains and talents, don’t marry. I think the authors lay that out well:

“Our first order of business in dealing with this question is to remember that there is an office in the church which allows both men and women to make full use of their publicly relevant talents: virginity. The person who never marries remains free of the constraints which come with marriage and family, which will likely mean a vastly diminished amount of toilet cleaning. Everything is a trade-off, and freedom is the counterbalance to companionship when the benefits of celibacy and marriage are contrasted. This paragraph is pretty short for the size of the decision it describes, but that’s kind of the point. Not getting married bypasses a world of complications and challenges to piety. Celibacy should be seriously considered by any woman who can’t see herself dealing with the contention that naturally arises when a male and a female try to get along for a lifetime. There, you’ve been warned.”

Ironically, your critique itself came off as bitter as anything I read in the book (your apology in comment #20 suggests you are aware of this). I agree, as I noted in my review, that the book could have used a bit more honey and less vinegar. However, you wrote at least four separate posts (comments #10, 15, 18, and 20), in which you raised the same basic complaint about the book’s tone or lack of charity. Personally, I think you exaggerate the degree to which the rhetoric is problematic and dwell on this while overlooking the book’s many excellent qualities. I know you said you weren’t going to address “the many good things about the book” because you weren’t asked about them, so I’m asking: what did you find helpful about the book? If you really think, as I do, that the book had many good points, I hope you put as much thought and effort into your response, lest you give an overwhelmingly negative impression of a book that doesn’t deserve it.

Comment on The Offense of the False Teaching causing Divisions in the LCMS – an Open Letter from a former LCMS Pastor. by Scott Diekmann Sat, 30 May 2015 03:26:38 +0000 @Pastor Prentice #13

Pastor Prentice, on paper, the ELCA is confessional and solid Lutheran. There’s more to it than paper. Here’s what the ELCA website says:

The ELCA’s official Confession of Faith identifies the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (commonly called the Bible); the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds; and the Lutheran confessional writings in the Book of Concord as the basis for our teaching. ELCA congregations make the same affirmation in their governing documents, and ELCA pastors promise to preach and teach in accordance with these teaching sources. This Confession of Faith is more than just words in an official document. Every Sunday in worship ELCA congregations hear God’s word from the Scriptures, pray as Jesus taught and come to the Lord’s Table expecting to receive the mercies that the Triune God promises. Throughout the week ELCA members continue to live by faith, serving others freely and generously in all that they do because they trust God’s promise in the Gospel. In small groups and at sick beds, in private devotions and in daily work, this faith saturates all of life.

Comment on What is Hate Speech? by Helen Sat, 30 May 2015 02:53:52 +0000 Its OK if moderators wipe out what they don’t want to hear.

*comment edited by moderator. Comments that fail to display Christian virtue may be edited or deleted.

Comment on Worship Styles: A Century Ago by Mrs. Hume Sat, 30 May 2015 02:49:18 +0000 @jim #3

Could you please cite and explain the exact points that you don’t agree with?


Comment on Worship Styles: A Century Ago by Mrs. Hume Sat, 30 May 2015 02:47:16 +0000 This is so interesting. Thanks for posting.

Comment on Are We Resolved? Or Not? by Heather Sat, 30 May 2015 02:45:56 +0000 @Helen #14
If you know of other resources, please list them. I would love to know about them. Thanks!

Comment on Are We Resolved? Or Not? by Helen Sat, 30 May 2015 02:39:18 +0000 @Heather #13

Augustana Ministerium might tell you names of men who have needed ed help. (with their permissions). They help, to the extent of their resources. Bout there are others….