Interesting Links From January 2026

 Trust Dictators: Garry Kasparov’s New Year’s Resolution

 

The hope of a new year | WORLD

 

Russia invents Ukraine's assassination attempt on Putin

 

Opinion | The 20 best things Donald Trump did in 2025 - The Washington Post

 

Opinion | The 10 worst things Donald Trump did in 2025 - The Washington Post

 

Award-winning singer who 'changed the face' of gospel music dies | Entertainment

 

"But I speak of Christ and the Church" - by Philip Hahn

 

As religion's political influence grows, these faith voices are likely to draw attention in 2026

 

A most predictable death | WORLD (Alexei Navalny’s death in 2024)

 

Xi Jinping: ‘The Reunification of Our Motherland Is Unstoppable’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics (danger for Taiwan – but how many people care?)

Introduction - Part 3 of 3

 LCMS/EFCA ON LOYALDEFENDER.INFO

 

Some readers have sometimes have asked where I am at in terms of theological standards and beliefs.  I’ve intentionally not been publicly specific about this, for a variety of reasons.  I’ve been a member and attender of a variety of different Christian denomination affiliated churches through my years, as has my wife.  We are a part of the universal Christian church through faith in Christ.

 

I will note, however, that in 2020 I did put on loyaldefender.info a comparison of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Free Church of America.  A link to that is below, along with the content of the link.

 

Loyal Defender: The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Free Church of America

 

I recently asked Dr. Martin Noland, a pastor, historian, author and theologian, for his opinion on the similarities and differences between the LCMS and the EFCA.  Below is his response.

* * *

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) have some similarities, but are quite different doctrinally.

 

SIMILARITIES:

1. Both churches came out of the conservative reaction to the liberalization of European churches, universities, divinity schools, and mission agencies in the 19^th century.  LCMS was a German conservative response; EFCA was a Scandinavian conservative response (Swedish and Danish-Norwegian).
2. Both churches were founded in the USA by emigrants from their respective countries, and remained essentially an ethnic enclave until the 20^th century.
3. Both churches remained in touch, in several ways, with their conservative counterparts in the state churches of Europe, many of whom founded independent, i.e., free church, synods or associations, in Europe.
4. Both churches were distrustful of church hierarchies, and laid great stress on the autonomy of the local congregation.
5. Both churches were, at their founding, organized at the synodical level in order to train pastors and train and support missionaries.  Overseas mission work became a defining focus of their work, energy, and budget.
6. Both churches were European-Protestant, which meant that they had little love for the Roman Catholic church and were suspicious of its agencies, were even more suspicious of Liberal Protestants and their agencies, and were often ambivalent with regard to conservative American church-bodies and fundamentalism—because they were, well, American. 😊  That attitude began to change in the later 20^th century, at least in the LCMS.
7. Doctrinally, it appears that they agree on the doctrines of:
1. The inspiration of Scripture
2. The Trinity
3. Jesus’ deity
4. Jesus’ incarnation by the virgin Mary
5. The vicarious atonement as the basis of justification
6. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
7. The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God after his ascension
8. The creation of man in God’s image and the loss of that image
9. Man’s need for rebirth through faith in the work of Christ, through which faith they are born of the Holy Spirit (LCMS emphasizes baptism at this point) and become God’s children.
10. The bodily resurrection of believers to everlasting life and bliss, and of unbelievers to judgement and everlasting conscious punishment.

 

DIFFERENCES:

1. LCMS has a full-bodied and strict confessional subscription for all its rostered church-workers and member congregations.  EFCA has a 12 point doctrinal statement, and I don’t know how members of that church confess it or subscribe to it, if they do.
2. LCMS subscribes to the 1580/1584 Book of Concord, which includes the three ecumenical creeds, which confessions determine all of its binding doctrines.  EFCA has only the 12 point doctrinal statement, which contains the points noted in #7a-j above, plus a few others, otherwise it has an aversion to creedal commitments.
3. LCMS confesses that the work of the Holy Spirit is only through the means of the Word and Sacraments.  EFCA apparently does not confess that, but does affirm the work of the Holy Spirit.
4. LCMS confesses that baptism is a means of grace by which faith and the Holy Spirit are given.  EFCA says that baptism is a necessary ordinance, but is not a means of grace or of the Holy Spirit.
5. LCMS confesses that the Lord’s supper is a means of grace, by which our Lord’s body and blood are received orally to all who eat the bread and drink the wine, to the spiritual benefit of those who discern Christ’s body and blood, and to the spiritual judgment of those who do not discern it.  EFCA says that the Lord’s supper is a necessary ordinance, but is not a means of grace, nor is there any “real presence” of His body and blood but it is only a memorial, thus following the Zwinglian view.
6. LCMS confesses with Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession that hypocrites and unbelievers may be present in a local congregation or the church-at-large, and that if this is discovered and confirmed, they should be removed from membership.  EFCA restricts membership in the local congregation to only members of the true church, and I am not sure how that works out in practice.
7. LCMS rejects both the Calvinist and Arminian doctrinal positions, confessing a third position detailed in the Book of Concord.  EFCA tolerates doctrinal positions of both Calvinists and Arminians.
8. LCMS follows the positions on divorce and remarriage found in Luther’s writings of 1522 (Luther’s Works 45:11-50) and 1530 (Luther’s Works 46:259-320) and developed over the years in the German-Lutheran church orders and Pastoral Theologies, although since the advent of no-fault divorce in the USA, most congregations are reluctant to enforce those positions.  EFCA takes no official stand on divorce and remarriage.
9. LCMS has always permitted its members to drink alcoholic beverages of all types and to use tobacco.  Some EFCA congregations prohibit, and all strongly discourage, the use of alcohol and tobacco.
10. LCMS has always rejected all forms of millennialism, on the basis of Augsburg Confession Article XVII.  EFCA has found millennialism, especially dispensationalism, to be agreeable to its theology.
11. LCMS has not formed unions or formal associations with American conservative Protestants, Fundamentalists, or Evangelicals, though our theologians and synod presidents may participate in some of their conferences and alliances for specific purposes, like opposition to abortion.  EFCA intentionally strives to bring together these sorts of conservative Protestants.
12. LCMS listens to the history of Christian theology, specifically the orthodox tradition of Lutheranism, starting with Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemitz, going through the end of the 17^th century, with a revival of the same in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  Our theologians learn German and/or Latin in order to have access to these older theologians.  We also listen to the orthodox tradition of the early church, as late as Augustine, but read the medieval theologians much more critically.  EFCA seems to only have interest in its own roots from the 19^th century, but that could be just an impression.
13. LCMS has trained its preachers and pastors to be especially mindful of the distinction between the Law and Gospel, so that the Gospel always predominates in preaching and pastoral care.  I don’t know if that is true in the EFCA, so cannot say on that point.

 

I think these are the major points of agreement and disagreement.  You can share this message with your friend or others.

 

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

 

May 22, 2020

 

David Becker comments:

 

Among Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor-scholar-author-theologians, John Warwick Montgomery and David Scaer have written books referencing the Evangelical Free Church of America. In his autobiography, Fighting the Good Fight (Fighting the Good Fight, 3rd and Enlarged Edition- Wipf and Stock Publishers), Dr. Montgomery references the fact that he was a professor at an EFCA seminary (at the same time he also taught classes at an LCMS seminary—apparently, it was not an issue at either end in the early 1970s). The Southern California law school that Montgomery founded, then known as the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, is now Trinity Law School and has been associated with the EFCA for many years now. Montgomery is often favorable to the EFCA in his book, noting among other things that the EFCA library had conservative AND liberal books in their library, while liberal seminaries often had only liberal books in their library. Scaer is less favorable to the EFCA and Montgomery by extension in his own autobiography, Surviving the Storms (Surviving the Storms: Memoirs of David P. Scaer - Kindle edition by Scaer, David P.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.). Both men have been very outspoken and prominent and are still living today (January 3, 2021).

Looking at Dr. Noland’s comments on the EFCA and the LCMS, I offer the following remarks:

The similarities are basically correct, including the 7.h. observation about baptism (EFCA could perhaps emphasize baptism more than it does)

 

The differences
1. I think EFCA is strict on the doctrines it does affirm. Deviations in doctrine and practice may be dealt with at least as well as the LCMS does.
2. Basically accurate observation by Dr. Noland
3. EFCA affirms the Bible as authority – not sure that there is an issue there
4. The EFCA statement on Baptism and Lord’s Supper should be looked at carefully. In my opinion, it could possibly be understood as compatible with Lutheran view, though many would disagree. There is a discussion in the EFCA published book, Evangelical Convictions (Evangelical Convictions - Kindle edition by EFCA, Strand, Greg, Kynes, Bill, Hamel, William. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.)
5. Probably true that EFCA is sympathetic to Zwingli but EFCA statement perhaps offers wiggle room
6. EFCA modified its view about hypocrites in the church. Basically EFCA wants doctrinal/practice discipline in the church. I’m not sure that the EFCA and LCMS differ on this issue
7. EFCA is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Is this the same as LCMS? This issue should be explored further.
8. EFCA doesn’t like divorce, not sure there is a real difference between EFCA and LCMS on this. Issue should be explored further
9. Probably fair to say EFCA discourages, not sure it’s fair to say EFCA prohibits alcohol and tobacco. Some in EFCA drink alcohol in moderation.
10. EFCA no longer formally upholds millennialism (EFCA Now Considers Premillennialism a Non-Essential...... | News & Reporting | Christianity Today). LCMS is out of date on recognizing this 2019 EFCA development – note the discussion in this denominational listing: (Denominations - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (lcms.org). LCMS is lazy in not noticing the latest development on this.
11. Basically correct view on the ecumenical aspect of EFCA. LCMS attitudes toward ecumenism are kind of incoherent
12. I would say it’s opposite of what Dr. Noland asserts here. LCMS (often though by no means always) looks only to its own roots and traditions. EFCA has a far more broad approach.
13. There can be good preaching in both LCMS and EFCA. These days, many sermons are available online.
I would also add the difference that officially, LCMS upholds six day creation and worldwide flood, while EFCA holds the line on Adam and Eve. This is not to say that many in EFCA don’t unofficially hold to six day creation and young earth. Also, there are some in LCMS who don’t. Practically speaking, there might not be a huge difference between the two denominations, but the official doctrinal statements are not the same.

Introduction - Part 2 of 3

 Christian News summaries at loyaldefender.info

 

Yesterday, I referenced the independent Missouri-based Lutheran newspaper, Christian News (CN), which has a website at christiannewsmo.com.  I have had many contributions published there through the years, especially when the long-time founding editor of CN was alive.

 

After the founding editor died in 2019, I along with others was invited provide continued input to CN, with a direct invitation to continue contributing material, and several items from me were printed in CN 2019-2025.  Even through one reader suggested that I do so, I did not apply to be the editor of CN, because I didn’t belong to a church was totally aligned doctrinally with CN (although I fully agree on what I would say are fundamental Biblical teachings).  Please recognize that I have no formal association with CN, nor CN with me.  I have just been published there, as some reading this may already know.

 

Since 2020, though, I have put on the Internet a brief summary of the weekly editions of CN, week by week.  The link to that is below.  This is more than what CN itself does.  The reader is invited to check out the below link for your consideration.

 

Loyal Defender: Christian News

Introduction - Part 1 of 3

 Introduction to loyaldefender.info (part 1 of 3)

 

I intentionally make this blog as low maintenance and bare bones as I can so as to not draw attention to myself.  It’s intended to glorify God and provide relevant information and not to focus on myself.  Having said that, it might be appropriate and indeed long overdue to say SOMETHING about what I’m trying to do with loyaldefender.info, and so I am starting out 2026 doing this.  My wonderful wife, Sandy, who is a great support in putting this blog out, wisely suggested that I do so.

 

I was born October 31, 1958, and I’ve been involved in Christian journalism since 1979, when I first got published in the independent Missouri-based conservative Lutheran newspaper, Christian News.  Starting in 1994 I did a web site and email list that was then called “Religion and Politics Digest.”  In 2012 I started loyaldefender.info but did not do much with it.

 

I contributed to Christian News in the 2010s both with my own items and providing the CN staff with links of online articles that I thought would be interesting and significant.  In 2020, I started posting essentially the same type of links on the Internet, through loyaldefender.info.  The reader will note that they cover a wide variety of subjects, literary styles, and in some cases viewpoints.  Some of the items referenced are devotional in character.  I rely on the reader to use his or her own discretion as to what is the most worthy to read and consider.

 

The linked articles are listed month by month and the reader can search loyaldefender.info for words that are of interest.

 

Since 2021, I have been posting many book reviews.  These are available privately on social media.  If you want to read them on X, send me a follow request at @davidmarkbecker.  My current goal for 2026 is to get all of them on the book platform Goodreads and to phase out X (formerly Twitter).

 

Although few people have been doing so, comments from readers are open at loyaldefender.info.  Readers are always welcome to react and provide feedback and constructive criticism, whether on X or at loyaldefender.info  Of course, please encourage others to read the blog and regularly read it yourself if you find it helpful.

 

The name of the blog was inspired by the sainted pastor, Rev. Julius Kimpel (1912-1994), who I knew and who at one time put out a newsletter that he called “The Loyal Defender.” My direction has been somewhat different than his but certainly not totally.

 

Below are the theme Bible verses and a hymn that I posted in 2012.  They still guide my mindset undergirding loyaldefender.info

 

Loyal Defender: Theme Bible Passages

 

At my first defense, no one stood by me, but everyone deserted me.  May it not be counted against them.  But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the proclamation might be fully made through me and all the Gentiles might hear. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil work and will bring me safely into His heavenly kingdom.  To Him be the glory forever and ever! Amen. (2 Timothy 4:16-18) (HCSB)

 

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.  (2 Peter 3:15-17) (NASB)

 

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2) (NIV 1984)

 

Loyal Defender: Jesus Christ, My Sure Defense

 

"Jesus Christ, My Sure Defense"
by unknown author, 1653
Translated based on Catherine Winkworth, 1829-1878
Text From:
THE HANDBOOK TO THE LUTHERAN HYMNAL
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1942)p.155

1. Jesus Christ, my sure Defense
And my Savior, ever Iiveth;
Knowing this, my confidence
Rests upon the hope it giveth
Though the night of death be fraught
Still with many an anxious thought.

2. Jesus, my Redeemer, lives;
I, too, unto life shall waken.
Endless joy my Savior gives;
Shall my courage, then, be shaken?
Shall I fear, or could the Head
Rise and leave His members dead?

3. Nay, too closely am I bound
Unto Him by hope forever;
Faith's strong hand the Rock hath found,
Grasped it, and will leave it never;
Even death now cannot part
From its Lord the trusting heart.

4. I am flesh and must return
Unto dust, whence I am taken;
But by faith I now discern
That from death I shall awaken
With my Savior to abide
In His glory, at His side.

5. Glorified, I shall anew
With this flesh then be enshrouded;
In this body I shall view
God, my Lord, with eyes unclouded;
In this flesh I then shall see
Jesus Christ eternally.

6. Then these eyes my Lord shall know,
My Redeemer and my Brother;
In His love my soul shall glow,--
I myself, and not another!
Then the weakness I feel here
Shall forever disappear.

7. They who sorrow here and moan
There in gladness shall be reigning;
Earthly here the seed is sown,
There immortal life attaining.
Here our sinful bodies die,
Glorified to dwell on high.

8. Then take comfort and rejoice,
For His members Christ will cherish.
Fear not, they will hear His voice;
Dying, they shall never perish;
For the very grave is stirred
When the trumpet's blast is heard.

9. Laugh to scorn the gloomy grave
And at death no longer tremble;
He, the Lord, who came to save
Will at last His own assemble.
They will go their Lord to meet,
Treading death beneath their feet.

10. Oh, then, draw away your hearts
Now from pleasures base and hollow.
There to share what He imparts,
Here His footsteps ye must follow.
Fix your hearts beyond the skies,
Whether ye yourselves would rise.