I carry, and I’ve done so in church. My conscience has no issue with conceal carrying for the benefit of myself, my family, and my neighbor. Contemplating the matter is certainly worthwhile. I have no problem with the good professor modulating on this issue, but it certainly shouldn’t be forced upon the church nor put in a catechism. I have heard that conceal carrying would be an affront to Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek. But Jesus was never teaching that we should acquiesce to murder and mayhem. Turning the cheek, doesn’t mean letting your wife or children be raped or murdered. The Christian needs to be able to bear under some injustice as I have practiced as well - and literally turned the other cheek. Christian love demands the protection of others if one has the capability to neutralize an attacker, even if that means, regrettably, killing the attacker in a just, legal, and moral way.
> I have no problem with the good professor modulating on this issue
I do. This is very bad leadership for our church and our nation, not to mention repelling exactly the people we need in church --- young fathers.
About turning the cheek. In normal discourse, more of that happens when carrying, because our culture knows to avoid arguments. "An armed society is a polite society."
Anyone depended upon by others is automatically defending them when defending self against lawless murderous emergent attack.
It was foolish for prior SPs not to be clear about this. It's getting beyond foolish now.
"And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one..." This passage in Luke 22 was Jesus telling the disciples to protect themselves in His absence. At His arrest, Peter's intention was to start a physical war for the kingdom, and Jesus had come to wage war for us on the cross. The Gospel is not proliferated by the sword, but Jesus was pretty clear that we're allowed to protect ourselves and the church from those who mean us harm.
The Gospel does not cancel Law nor natural law. It is unfortunate that we even bother to proof-text such basic things. Pandering perversion is ascendant in the church. Protect yourself and your family, and shun crazy places.
While precise doctrinal definitions and argumentation is definitively within the realm of the pastorate it seems to me much like Pr. Biermann's argument is an exact repetition of the sin of Abraham, Lot, Isaac and the Levite. It's this exact sin that I believe Bonhoeffer is warning about, though unlike Bonhoeffer scripture locates the sin within personal fear rather than radical "pious" exhortation and in each example given in scripture the sins are excused by the sinner under a false guise of piety. Abraham and Isaac both give their wives to gentile rulers rather than deal honestly with the rulers and perhaps defend their lives. [Gen 12:11-13, Gen 20:9-13, 26:7-11] In each case here the rulers dealt with are just and pay a dowry for their errors commending the patriarchs to either farm the land or move on. In the two other examples, that of Lot and the unnamed Levite, both men live in unjust places. In the example of Lot, Lot attempts to hand over his daughters to the mob and as is the classical reading of the text-fails the test of his righteousness given to him by God, once the test is failed then God providentially acts(Lot's failure to act righteously is viewed both in the Medieval and the Jewish tradition as having a reprobative educational effect on his daughters leading to their sin, though this point is obviously contentious and debatable) to defend Lot's family because Lot refused to defend all involved parties. Likewise in Judges 20:5 the Unnamed Levite openly admits he gave his concubine up to the atrocities of Gibeah specifically out of his own fear of death. The kingdom of the Left Hand is explicitly mentioned in Judges 19 and 20, with 19 beginning the episode mentioning that there was no king in Israel and across Judges 20 and 21 it is mentioned that the entirety of the Tribe of Benjamin consented to defend this sin, meaning that the Patriarchal leadership(the political entity of Gibeah) was involved in refusing to defend righteousness and establish justice thus leading to the war between Israel and Benjamin. Thus, scripture makes it exceedingly clear that heads of house both in places of righteousness and unrighteousness are to defend the household and establish righteousness by any means necessary. To advocate otherwise seems on one part to be an error in understanding headship as the fundamental political establishment of God from which all else flows, whether that be Kings, Lords, Republics, or what have you. (quick reductio, if establishment of righteousness were purely handed over to left hand earthly-legal entities such as kings then Abraham and Isaac would not have been in error for hiding and handing their wives to the kings seeing as the primary political and legal establishment of righteousness would've been the kings. whereas in all reality the primary political and legal establishment of righteousness is located in the household, which are to be established by righteous kings who themselves are a household establishment. Or in other words, if the legal entity is the divinely recognized authority that can use force under all conditions, then Abraham and Isaac's fears even when unfounded would've still been justified due to the demands of the authority upon the women [in Abraham's second time and Isaac's example] meaning that the head of the house would have to capitulate to permit unrighteousness in their own house if demanded by the legal authority. At a congregational level this would look something like police demanding the disarmament of a congregation that has active threats that police are aiding seeking to harm it quite literally at its door, and the Pastor thus having an obligation to either shut down the congregation or leave it unsecured. this may sound like an unrealistic hypothetical to some but it is the main congregational example that satisfies all the conditional logic when applied to a non literary context. The fact that this hypothetical exists within the conditional logic of the text demands though that all concerned parties be capable of interacting with it. After all, this is not significantly different than various examples of Israelite kings demanding worship of idols under threat of force.)
Another major concern of mine is Biermann's blatant disregard for OT commandments. God commanded the Levites to be armed both at the Tabernacle and in the Temple [Num. 3:10, 38, Num 1:51-53, 1 Chron. 9:22-24, 1 Chron. 26] Seeing as God only commands that which is good a blanket provision forbidding arms in Holy places would directly contest the commands of God. The New Testament interpretation of these passages would be that Christ now gives us access to the Holy of Holies, not that the guarding of the Holy of Holies is wrong or immoral especially given that it was a Levitical command of God. Further, it seems to me that Jehoiada and Nehemiah would risk falling under Biermann's condemnation seeing as one establishes a political order which restores the Levites including the command for their armaments(and also establishes a political system wherein the Levites should be armed) and Nehemiah for arming the builders of the wall after Israel's enemies attack the builders. If both were unjust why would God bless both in the very passages where their being armed is mentioned?
Anyways, resign my commentary but I do exhort that whoever reads this picks up these thoughts (Pr. Biermann if you are reading this I pray you engage the questions asked and use them to the benefit of the Church) and sincerely engage the subject scripturally with much prayer because where our church is actively debating using principles, classical liberalism and theological distinctions the scripture openly and plainly has answers without concern for our pampering.
You have written well and with some labor. Let me gently suggest not to work any harder on this. I am not sure engaging on this is going to help. Let me suggest plain ridicule of such a self-promoted candidate and willingness to walk away, let it all go, and do home church.
"Biermann has been honest enough to keep revising his position in public".
Biermann's position has been shown, as you recount and explain in detail here, to be grossly deficient. An honest response would be either to completely abandon or to admit that he should stop speaking on the topic until he has thought through the gaping holes in his logic.
At this point, it seems to either be desperation to cling to his position in some way or (more likely in my opinion) a mistaken sense of piety, which infects more than his position on self-defense as evidenced by his other positions in his overall debate with Ramirez.
There were many issues with the contemporary applications included with the Large Catechism (beginning with including any at all), but Biermann's grossly deficient positions on several matters combined with his role(s) within the synod raise broader concerns for me than just the inclusion of his essay with the Large Catechism.
In his essay in the CTCR/CPH/ChiCom-manufactured book, LLCACA, Prof. Joel Biermann concludes:
“Finally, the recognition of a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation is not a license for any Christian to use the sword for any reason unilaterally deemed legitimate and necessary. And it certainly does not provide a scriptural foundation for a right to bear arms. Lethal force, Luther consistently taught, is rightly used only by the one placed into the Amt (or office) of authority in the state. It is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor.”
Certainly one would agree when Prof. Biermann opposes such a blatantly unlimited example of "any Christian... for any reason" using deadly force. In fact no federal or state law grants such an unrestrained license to Christians or any other citizens, even within federal or state law enforcement agencies.
It's Biermann's remaining statements in the excerpt that raise questions about his misunderstanding of and confusion about the recognition of natural rights within the Lutheran Confessions, the "authority of the state", the distinction between government and form of government, and the Kingdom of the Left role of the individual (Christian or other) citizen in the United States.
And this is not the first time that Biermann's writings appear to have fallen off the saddle of Christian orthodoxy regarding the concept of natural rights.
“Voting is not an option or a mere privilege that a Christian may choose to exercise--it is a holy obligation. Voting with wisdom about candidates and issues is a further aspect of that obligation. Not only can a Christian sin against the Creator's will by failing to vote, she can also violate that will by how she votes. There is nothing theologically or morally neutral about a voting booth."
Thus, Biermann declares a Christian voter's decision to not vote for any listed or write-in candidate for some political office to be a sin. But where in God’s Word does He proscribe not voting in a political election as being a sin? Where is such a Scriptural doctrine exposited in the Book of Concord of 1580?
Also note the feminist-inspired use of the pronoun, “she” instead of the generic “he” when referring to an unknown person in a group of people. Whether done by Prof. Biermann or Fortress Press, at least Ze/Sie/Zir weren’t used.
As for the LLCACA, in which the Foreword declares: "You have before you one of the greatest resources for Christian faith and living ever produced by The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod," general editors John T. Pless and Larry M. Vogel (and the CTCR) have issued subsequent backpedaling statements:
• "This, however, should be seen as a resource produced under the auspices of the CTCR, not as an official document of the CTCR."
• "Moreover, Concordia Publishing House was not responsible for the editorial content of this volume but provided publishing services to the CTCR in fulfilling this convention mandate."
• "Second, this volume is not intended as an official synodical addendum to, or commentary on, the confessional text of Luther’s Large Catechism.
• "[The essays] represent individual perspectives and judgments that other faithful Christians may not share."
• "That is not to say every reader will agree with each essay’s perspective on specific historical, ethical, or political matters, where Scripture, the Confessions, or Synod may not have spoken."
RIP Paul McCain. I am told he would have had no formal authority over that ill-advised waste of paper, but I am also sure he would have spoken out. Oh also he carried. A lot.
Kudos "Carl Vehse" who was one of very few of us willing to be Lutheran and speak out for natural law including 2A (and even the Gospel) on Free Republic (and LQ) alongside dear Charles Henrickson (RIP). Not sure of many others there.
[K and S WORDS REMOVED. Law abiding people use force all the time as regular civilians, completely legitimately, but anyway.]
It is so strange that this becomes an issue in a synod presidential election. I could write so much about my engagements on this topic over about the last ten years, but I will just say one thing to all of our pastors now and as long as I live.
If I show up in your church, know that I am trained, practiced and armed. You won't see it, but it's there. I am ready, God help me, to legally defend and d-- if the church is attacked. I'll be addressing the bad guys, but I will be their prime target, giving you more time to hide under a bench. You're welcome.
When a cop does show up after ten or twenty of you have been addressed by the bad guys, the cop is as likely to address me as the attackers because your church deliberately had no effective defense plan and no way identify the good guys to the police.
B. has no understanding of our American system of government. In our system, the people are the sovereign; they are the police and the military. They may _delegate_ if such decision is made without deception, manipulation and corrupt elections, but they retain their rights and duties. Nearly every state defined the "informal" militia in its constitution. All men between certain ages were and are constitutionally enrolled and responsible for personally providing their own armament.
Pacifism is disavowed in our confessions. Pacifists should repent, or find another church.
So, if you want your gathering undefended, make sure you eject me right away. I won't fight _you_ and I'll be glad to shake the dust off my feet and leave you to your foolishness (and bad doctrine). I'm sorry for your flock.
I carry, and I’ve done so in church. My conscience has no issue with conceal carrying for the benefit of myself, my family, and my neighbor. Contemplating the matter is certainly worthwhile. I have no problem with the good professor modulating on this issue, but it certainly shouldn’t be forced upon the church nor put in a catechism. I have heard that conceal carrying would be an affront to Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek. But Jesus was never teaching that we should acquiesce to murder and mayhem. Turning the cheek, doesn’t mean letting your wife or children be raped or murdered. The Christian needs to be able to bear under some injustice as I have practiced as well - and literally turned the other cheek. Christian love demands the protection of others if one has the capability to neutralize an attacker, even if that means, regrettably, killing the attacker in a just, legal, and moral way.
> I have no problem with the good professor modulating on this issue
I do. This is very bad leadership for our church and our nation, not to mention repelling exactly the people we need in church --- young fathers.
About turning the cheek. In normal discourse, more of that happens when carrying, because our culture knows to avoid arguments. "An armed society is a polite society."
Anyone depended upon by others is automatically defending them when defending self against lawless murderous emergent attack.
It was foolish for prior SPs not to be clear about this. It's getting beyond foolish now.
"And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one..." This passage in Luke 22 was Jesus telling the disciples to protect themselves in His absence. At His arrest, Peter's intention was to start a physical war for the kingdom, and Jesus had come to wage war for us on the cross. The Gospel is not proliferated by the sword, but Jesus was pretty clear that we're allowed to protect ourselves and the church from those who mean us harm.
The Gospel does not cancel Law nor natural law. It is unfortunate that we even bother to proof-text such basic things. Pandering perversion is ascendant in the church. Protect yourself and your family, and shun crazy places.
While precise doctrinal definitions and argumentation is definitively within the realm of the pastorate it seems to me much like Pr. Biermann's argument is an exact repetition of the sin of Abraham, Lot, Isaac and the Levite. It's this exact sin that I believe Bonhoeffer is warning about, though unlike Bonhoeffer scripture locates the sin within personal fear rather than radical "pious" exhortation and in each example given in scripture the sins are excused by the sinner under a false guise of piety. Abraham and Isaac both give their wives to gentile rulers rather than deal honestly with the rulers and perhaps defend their lives. [Gen 12:11-13, Gen 20:9-13, 26:7-11] In each case here the rulers dealt with are just and pay a dowry for their errors commending the patriarchs to either farm the land or move on. In the two other examples, that of Lot and the unnamed Levite, both men live in unjust places. In the example of Lot, Lot attempts to hand over his daughters to the mob and as is the classical reading of the text-fails the test of his righteousness given to him by God, once the test is failed then God providentially acts(Lot's failure to act righteously is viewed both in the Medieval and the Jewish tradition as having a reprobative educational effect on his daughters leading to their sin, though this point is obviously contentious and debatable) to defend Lot's family because Lot refused to defend all involved parties. Likewise in Judges 20:5 the Unnamed Levite openly admits he gave his concubine up to the atrocities of Gibeah specifically out of his own fear of death. The kingdom of the Left Hand is explicitly mentioned in Judges 19 and 20, with 19 beginning the episode mentioning that there was no king in Israel and across Judges 20 and 21 it is mentioned that the entirety of the Tribe of Benjamin consented to defend this sin, meaning that the Patriarchal leadership(the political entity of Gibeah) was involved in refusing to defend righteousness and establish justice thus leading to the war between Israel and Benjamin. Thus, scripture makes it exceedingly clear that heads of house both in places of righteousness and unrighteousness are to defend the household and establish righteousness by any means necessary. To advocate otherwise seems on one part to be an error in understanding headship as the fundamental political establishment of God from which all else flows, whether that be Kings, Lords, Republics, or what have you. (quick reductio, if establishment of righteousness were purely handed over to left hand earthly-legal entities such as kings then Abraham and Isaac would not have been in error for hiding and handing their wives to the kings seeing as the primary political and legal establishment of righteousness would've been the kings. whereas in all reality the primary political and legal establishment of righteousness is located in the household, which are to be established by righteous kings who themselves are a household establishment. Or in other words, if the legal entity is the divinely recognized authority that can use force under all conditions, then Abraham and Isaac's fears even when unfounded would've still been justified due to the demands of the authority upon the women [in Abraham's second time and Isaac's example] meaning that the head of the house would have to capitulate to permit unrighteousness in their own house if demanded by the legal authority. At a congregational level this would look something like police demanding the disarmament of a congregation that has active threats that police are aiding seeking to harm it quite literally at its door, and the Pastor thus having an obligation to either shut down the congregation or leave it unsecured. this may sound like an unrealistic hypothetical to some but it is the main congregational example that satisfies all the conditional logic when applied to a non literary context. The fact that this hypothetical exists within the conditional logic of the text demands though that all concerned parties be capable of interacting with it. After all, this is not significantly different than various examples of Israelite kings demanding worship of idols under threat of force.)
Another major concern of mine is Biermann's blatant disregard for OT commandments. God commanded the Levites to be armed both at the Tabernacle and in the Temple [Num. 3:10, 38, Num 1:51-53, 1 Chron. 9:22-24, 1 Chron. 26] Seeing as God only commands that which is good a blanket provision forbidding arms in Holy places would directly contest the commands of God. The New Testament interpretation of these passages would be that Christ now gives us access to the Holy of Holies, not that the guarding of the Holy of Holies is wrong or immoral especially given that it was a Levitical command of God. Further, it seems to me that Jehoiada and Nehemiah would risk falling under Biermann's condemnation seeing as one establishes a political order which restores the Levites including the command for their armaments(and also establishes a political system wherein the Levites should be armed) and Nehemiah for arming the builders of the wall after Israel's enemies attack the builders. If both were unjust why would God bless both in the very passages where their being armed is mentioned?
Anyways, resign my commentary but I do exhort that whoever reads this picks up these thoughts (Pr. Biermann if you are reading this I pray you engage the questions asked and use them to the benefit of the Church) and sincerely engage the subject scripturally with much prayer because where our church is actively debating using principles, classical liberalism and theological distinctions the scripture openly and plainly has answers without concern for our pampering.
You have written well and with some labor. Let me gently suggest not to work any harder on this. I am not sure engaging on this is going to help. Let me suggest plain ridicule of such a self-promoted candidate and willingness to walk away, let it all go, and do home church.
Ctcr strikes again! As long as one appears virtuous when they are being murdered at church, that's the way to win.
Right! vomit.
That Pr. Biermann puts so much stock on the “watching world” should be just as concerning.
"Biermann has been honest enough to keep revising his position in public".
Biermann's position has been shown, as you recount and explain in detail here, to be grossly deficient. An honest response would be either to completely abandon or to admit that he should stop speaking on the topic until he has thought through the gaping holes in his logic.
At this point, it seems to either be desperation to cling to his position in some way or (more likely in my opinion) a mistaken sense of piety, which infects more than his position on self-defense as evidenced by his other positions in his overall debate with Ramirez.
There were many issues with the contemporary applications included with the Large Catechism (beginning with including any at all), but Biermann's grossly deficient positions on several matters combined with his role(s) within the synod raise broader concerns for me than just the inclusion of his essay with the Large Catechism.
"Biermann has been honest enough to keep revising his position in public".
Corr: dishonest enough
In his essay in the CTCR/CPH/ChiCom-manufactured book, LLCACA, Prof. Joel Biermann concludes:
“Finally, the recognition of a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation is not a license for any Christian to use the sword for any reason unilaterally deemed legitimate and necessary. And it certainly does not provide a scriptural foundation for a right to bear arms. Lethal force, Luther consistently taught, is rightly used only by the one placed into the Amt (or office) of authority in the state. It is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor.”
Certainly one would agree when Prof. Biermann opposes such a blatantly unlimited example of "any Christian... for any reason" using deadly force. In fact no federal or state law grants such an unrestrained license to Christians or any other citizens, even within federal or state law enforcement agencies.
It's Biermann's remaining statements in the excerpt that raise questions about his misunderstanding of and confusion about the recognition of natural rights within the Lutheran Confessions, the "authority of the state", the distinction between government and form of government, and the Kingdom of the Left role of the individual (Christian or other) citizen in the United States.
And this is not the first time that Biermann's writings appear to have fallen off the saddle of Christian orthodoxy regarding the concept of natural rights.
In his book, _Wholly Citizens: God's Two Realms and Christian Engagement with the World_ (Fortress Press, May 1, 2017, 228 pages). Prof. Biermann states (p. 166; https://books.google.com/books?id=32qwDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false):
“Voting is not an option or a mere privilege that a Christian may choose to exercise--it is a holy obligation. Voting with wisdom about candidates and issues is a further aspect of that obligation. Not only can a Christian sin against the Creator's will by failing to vote, she can also violate that will by how she votes. There is nothing theologically or morally neutral about a voting booth."
Thus, Biermann declares a Christian voter's decision to not vote for any listed or write-in candidate for some political office to be a sin. But where in God’s Word does He proscribe not voting in a political election as being a sin? Where is such a Scriptural doctrine exposited in the Book of Concord of 1580?
Also note the feminist-inspired use of the pronoun, “she” instead of the generic “he” when referring to an unknown person in a group of people. Whether done by Prof. Biermann or Fortress Press, at least Ze/Sie/Zir weren’t used.
As for the LLCACA, in which the Foreword declares: "You have before you one of the greatest resources for Christian faith and living ever produced by The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod," general editors John T. Pless and Larry M. Vogel (and the CTCR) have issued subsequent backpedaling statements:
• "This, however, should be seen as a resource produced under the auspices of the CTCR, not as an official document of the CTCR."
• "Moreover, Concordia Publishing House was not responsible for the editorial content of this volume but provided publishing services to the CTCR in fulfilling this convention mandate."
• "Second, this volume is not intended as an official synodical addendum to, or commentary on, the confessional text of Luther’s Large Catechism.
• "[The essays] represent individual perspectives and judgments that other faithful Christians may not share."
• "That is not to say every reader will agree with each essay’s perspective on specific historical, ethical, or political matters, where Scripture, the Confessions, or Synod may not have spoken."
RIP Paul McCain. I am told he would have had no formal authority over that ill-advised waste of paper, but I am also sure he would have spoken out. Oh also he carried. A lot.
Kudos "Carl Vehse" who was one of very few of us willing to be Lutheran and speak out for natural law including 2A (and even the Gospel) on Free Republic (and LQ) alongside dear Charles Henrickson (RIP). Not sure of many others there.
You mention the Chi-coms. What was there involvement in the Large Catachism fiasco?
Look at the LLCACA sample text on the second page at the bottom (https://s3.amazonaws.com/cph-org-assets/media/pdf/223225.pdf).
I pray he is kept far away from the presidency of Synod.
[K and S WORDS REMOVED. Law abiding people use force all the time as regular civilians, completely legitimately, but anyway.]
It is so strange that this becomes an issue in a synod presidential election. I could write so much about my engagements on this topic over about the last ten years, but I will just say one thing to all of our pastors now and as long as I live.
If I show up in your church, know that I am trained, practiced and armed. You won't see it, but it's there. I am ready, God help me, to legally defend and d-- if the church is attacked. I'll be addressing the bad guys, but I will be their prime target, giving you more time to hide under a bench. You're welcome.
When a cop does show up after ten or twenty of you have been addressed by the bad guys, the cop is as likely to address me as the attackers because your church deliberately had no effective defense plan and no way identify the good guys to the police.
B. has no understanding of our American system of government. In our system, the people are the sovereign; they are the police and the military. They may _delegate_ if such decision is made without deception, manipulation and corrupt elections, but they retain their rights and duties. Nearly every state defined the "informal" militia in its constitution. All men between certain ages were and are constitutionally enrolled and responsible for personally providing their own armament.
Pacifism is disavowed in our confessions. Pacifists should repent, or find another church.
So, if you want your gathering undefended, make sure you eject me right away. I won't fight _you_ and I'll be glad to shake the dust off my feet and leave you to your foolishness (and bad doctrine). I'm sorry for your flock.
May God keep Him from the Synod presidency.