Editor’s Note: Jacob Moorman is 22 years old and hails from Mt. Airy, MD. Jacob is finishing a business management degree and plans to attend seminary. He is a member of the NALC’s River’s Edge Ministries pastored by K. Craig Moorman. We are delighted that one of our future seminarians is thinking and writing so passionately. We are honored to publish his reflections, and look forward to his faithful leadership in the Church for many years to come.

Just after the protesting and rioting began after the death of George Floyd, my father asked me, “Jacob, if you were to preach tomorrow, what would you say?” This is how I answered:

I would preach the Gospel. I would preach that we, apart from Christ, are indeed dead in sin. I would say Christ’s scandalous, unfathomable, incredible love is most evident when shown in situations like this. With death, riots, looting, violence, anger, and vehement hate; the only response we should have is that which Christ had. For Christ says ‘… love thine enemies. Pray for them.’ On the cross, His love was magnified as He said, ‘Forgive them for they know not what they do.’ He died for us while we were yet sinners. He died for us while we were His enemies. There’s talk of race war. There’s talk of division. It is a lie, or it ought to be [revealed as such] in the Church. It is a demonic onslaught meant to divide and divert from the true Gospel. We, as the Church, are bound up in Christ. We are One in and by His Spirit. We should pray for our enemies. We should love our enemies. But, above all else, we should preach the Good News unashamedly, boldly, unwaveringly, and continuously. The only division from God is the division of Good and evil, Light and dark. His word pierces as a sword through sinew. It cuts deeply and definitively. It separates. For God alone brings division – the division is a choice to die with Him or to die apart from Him. The difference between the two is the one who dies apart dies for good. The one who dies with Him rises with him. Seek first the Kingdom

Jacob Moorman

Challenge

More recently I felt prompted to challenge the church in its response to this crisis, especially the leaders in the church: 

Our nation is in deep trouble. I fear we are ready to abandon Christ. We are a tattered flag only threads away from being loosed from our foundation, Jesus, the Living God. 

“Unity!” shout church leaders. “Stand together for the greater good.” What good is it to stand apart from Christ? We cannot shout for justice without holding the Word of God in its rightful place—Above all things.

Unity is only found in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We are living in the most dangerous time this country has ever seen, and potentially the world. The Lord is, and always will be, our only hope. Unity without Christ is folly. Justice without The Righteous Judge is futile. Peace without The Prince of Peace is chaos. Life without Christ is death. 

There is a ripe harvest. People are hurting. There is never a wrong time to preach the Gospel, and there is never a better time to preach the Gospel than now. (Matt. 9:35-38)

Political Stand

But I’ve seen more church leaders take a political stand than one that stands on the Word and proclaims the Gospel. A Gospel that calls out sin. One that calls for repentance. One that glorifies God.

We must not do what men desire us to do. (Gal. 1:10) Our reason, our motive matters. If we are seeking to be honored and applauded by men and women, we ought to fear the Living God and seek repentance. If we are seeking to honor our Heavenly Father, we have no need to fear. (1 Thess. 2:4) (Col. 3:23, 24)

No doubt racism is wicked. No doubt needless death is horrendous. At the same time, the burning of buildings is terrible. And killing more people is wrong. We cannot justify or condone or stand with these heinous acts. Evil cannot be answered by evil. (Romans 12:17) For that we cannot stand silent. We must address the sin behind these matters—any other response will be fruitless!

We are all sinners in desperate need of a Savior. Again, we cannot come together in unity without Jesus Christ at the center.

There is great evil shouting from the rooftops. Anger. Fear. Racism. Hate. Murder. Riots. Looting. There is a greater mind (Satan) behind this pandemic, this murder, this so-called race war, and the many responses thereafter. We must expose the darkness. Bring it to the Light … for everything brought to the Light is no longer darkness but light. (Eph. 5:11-14)

This push for “unity” is indeed demonic. It is one that pushes peace yet incites violence. One that says speak-up yet silences any alternative view. It is a move to push for unity without Christ. A destructive and dangerous plan by the enemy that I fear a lot of church leaders are falling in line with. They are deceived by the call for this false unity and fail to see or expose the evil behind it.

We must call out evil when we see it. We must count the cost of what it means to be a follower of Christ. We must be willing to take up our cross. We must be willing to die for Christ. We must be willing to speak the Gospel even if opposed and unpopular. We must give up all things to receive the one thing that matters … Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Jesus came so that we may have life. (John 10:10) We can be set free from sin! Lust, hate, sexual immorality, violence, anger, bitterness, licentiousness, debauchery, drunkenness—none of these have a place in the Kingdom. (Gal. 5:21) They were nailed to the cross and are dead in the grave for those alive in Christ. (Gal. 5:24)

When we die with Christ, we are dead to sin, wholly. No one who practices such as these will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Praise God He made a way. He is merciful and He is gracious. He is a loving Father. He died my death to give me life. He did the same for you. 

Time is growing short. Judgment will come when the Ancient of Days calls for the trumpets to sound. We will all answer to the one true Judge on that great and terrible and holy and marvelous day. But there is still time to proclaim the Gospel and heed the Good Shepherd’s call. The one who is marked by the blood of the Lamb will stand before him, guiltless. But the one who is marked by any other name, but that of Christ, will be cast out from His presence.

Yet, He is still loving. He is still gracious. He is mighty to save. He is the soon-coming King who is already on the throne. There is still time to proclaim the Gospel and heed the Good Shepherd’s call. God, the Holy One of Israel, came in the flesh and died so that we may walk in purity; that we may walk in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control … that we may walk by the Spirit. (Gal. 5:16, 25)

Now I must ask, if we as His people walk in such things, how can we stand in unity with sin and movements that condone and encourage sin? The only true unity that can come is that of and in the body of Christ. We cannot walk in unity with Christ and sin. We, the Church, cannot walk in unity with the world. We are in the world but not of it. Unity is only found in Christ Jesus our Lord. We should not be hoping for tomorrow on earth, we should be hoping for eternity in heaven. Our hope is in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and His coming again. Praise be to the One. Praise be the great I Am. All honor and glory belong to God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth. He will ever be glorified. May His peace be upon you.

One in Christ

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:25-28)

The stuff of a thing must match its purpose. “What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?” (Luke 11:11-12) If I set out to bake your child a birthday cake, I wouldn’t use beet mash and kippers. I’d use flour, water, sugar, eggs—the things that make for a blessed moment of contentment in a room full of reveling toddlers. Sweetness for sweet moments, or something like that. So also the Father, in seeking to make the world righteous, did not send us a sinner, but an innocent, to make us what we were not.

Would we expect the church to operate differently?

Fewer people speak of church unity these days (or so it seems to me), but the subject nearly dominated my time at seminary. During my first year at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, 1996-1997, the campus was roiled by the ELCA’s impending full communion agreement with Reformed churches, the “Formula of Agreement.” Professors lectured on it, and students chewed on it over lunch. In time, Bishop William Lazareth of the Metropolitan New York Synod came to debate the subject with the seminary’s president, Dr. David Tiede. Tiede stood for the agreement, and Lazareth against it.  

Each man seemed to take on the flesh of his argument. Tiede, arguing for the careful, academic formulas of a decades-long process, stood straighter and with a more polished, fresh-faced poise than the energetic, nobby-nosed Lazareth, the latter all in clerical black, his eyebrows as thick as his confessional objections. They started with the issues at hand (the Holy Supper, predestination, the lifting of confessional condemnations), but they soon hit on the question of the Church and its unity.

Like any good ecumenist, Tiede invoked the words of Jesus in John 17:21: our Lord Himself prayed for his disciples “that they may all be one.” Why would we not be open to the fulfillment of that prayer among us?  Those words animated Lazareth like no other point in the debate, leading to what would become its most memorable moment for me. Leaping to his feet, his eyebrows arching sharply, Lazareth stuck both of his meaty index fingers in the air and declared, “That they may all be one—that the world may believe!”

Purpose

Belief in the truth of Jesus: here is the purpose of the Church’s unity. Therefore, the stuff of that unity must match its purpose. It must be a unity in and of the truth, even if it means ending fellowship with falsehood.  So Lazareth argued, convincingly for me. Lutherans could not and should not overlook their serious objections to the Reformed teaching of Communion and predestination, thinking that the mere form of unity (the human will to be one, with all of its social achievements) was itself instrumental to the faith God creates. Only the unity comprised of truth could lead others to truth. Only sweetness leads to sweetness; only the Son’s innocence makes us innocent; only a unity conceived by the truth can beget faith in the truth.

This view, formed so clearly by Articles VII and VIII of the Augsburg Confession, continues to have implications not only for those remaining in the ELCA but also for those who have left it. By rooting the unity of the Church in the truth of the Word, it locates the possibility and assurance of unity, not in constitutional arrangement, but in the teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. As the Church speaks its proper message and sets forth the Lord’s true Supper and Baptism, it is revealed to be the una sancta, the one, holy catholic and apostolic gathering of believers that midwifes new believers into the world.

And if the unity of the Church resides in its preaching and ministering, then so do its limits. Votes and constitutions have their place, as signposts and jingle bells for keeping every cow in its field. But they provide no lasting or certain refuge, nor do they fulfill the call of Jeremiah: “Go out from the midst of her, my people!” (51:45) In as much as the Church experiences its unity in the doing of the ministry, it is there, too, that it must experience its division from the world and from heresy.

As Lazareth saw in regards to the Formula of Agreement, closed pulpits and closed altars are part of church renewal. The degree to which “closed is closed,” I will not pose in this article. But suffice it to say, renewal seeks faith in the truth. Publicizing false confession in the pulpit or at the altar will not result in that faith, and thus, it will not result in that renewal. I understand that I may stand in the minority on this issue among my own ilk. But I also understand that the mere will to be one (or better, the mere will to be distinct), with all its social achievements will not herald the renewal of the Church.

Belief in the truth of Jesus: here is the purpose of the Church’s unity.

That renewal takes place in local ministry. Denominational constitutions are the highways that plow across states and regions to move people along in mad efficiency. We need them, but they flatten the landscape in brute fashion. Local ministry is the footpath worn in response to the particular contours of a place, with care for the critters found in every burrow and den. It is there, as the congregation of believers both looses and binds, both admits and restrains, that the Church rises up from the ashes, its wings on fire—yes, it is there that faith is born.

Gateway

Those confessors remaining in the ELCA may therefore wish to pause and question to what extent their denomination’s manifold constitutions remain the gateway to their pulpit and altar—they may wish to review how open is open, and how closed is closed, in their local ministry. To start there, rather than in the baseline acceptance of a brokered political settlement, may prove illuminating and even reforming, if also excruciating. Similar illumination and crosses may await those who have left the ELCA, as they ponder the spiritual demand that faces them daily in Jeremiah’s call, quoted above.  

The Church is a creature of the Spirit of truth. “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11:13) He knows how sweetness leads to sweetness, and innocence to innocence, and truth to truth. With this Father, if you ask for an egg, you get an egg. As we ask for the Church’s renewal, we ask also for its unity, and to that end, we pray fervently for truth.

About the author: Rev. Dr. Cathi Braasch STS serves as Chaplain to the LMVFM Board of Directors. She is a retired pastor in the NALC and LCMC. She lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  

“We never close.” These three words demonstrate how Lutheran Military Veterans and Families Ministries (LMVFM) fulfills its mission: In ‘normal’ times and times when pandemic illness, economic downturn, and social unrest increase Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) reactions in veterans, military contractors, and their families. These reactions range from heightened anxiety and severe depression to uncontrollable anger and even suicide.

“For LMVFM and the military community, the ongoing epidemic is military suicide brought on by untreated moral and spiritual injury, or PTS,” according to the Rev. Leslie Haines, executive director, and lead chaplain. For several years now, more than 20 US veterans have been committing suicide every day. It’s an epidemic in itself.

Founded in 2007, LMVFM works with individuals and congregations from coast to coast, border to border, by:

• Providing free Christ-centred clinical and pastoral counselling for veterans, military contractors, and their families, along with Bible studies and other small-group opportunities.
• Educating frontline providers with best practices for addressing military service-related PTS, through seminars for pastors, health and human services professionals, congregations, and family members.
• Deploying ‘Paws and Effects’ emotional therapy dogs to apply their unique, unconditional care in the counselling sessions as well as educational and outreach settings.

As Chaplain Haines explains, the need is great for older veterans as well as for younger ones who’ve been serving continually in the Middle East since 1991.

“The current pandemic has only made matters worse,” Haines notes. “Isolation, uncertainty and social upheaval only aggravate the severe depression, heightened anxiety, and uncontrolled anger that are symptoms of PTS. At LMVFM, we’ve seen a steady increase in clients for individual and family counselling since COVID-19 hit our nation.” 

More than 20 US Veterans commit suicide every day.

   A few recent examples from the LMVFM mission files (names changed to protect confidentiality):

• James, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, was doing well until a workplace incident nearly led him to suicide. Counselling is helping James recognize what triggers his PTS and control his responses.
• When COVID-19 precautions caused Veterans Administration facilities to lock down, Rob, a 92-year-old Korean veteran, wasn’t allowed to pick up his hearing aids. We reached out to an LMVFM supporter who serves as a nurse at that VA hospital, and much to the relief of the veteran (and his wife) he had his hearing aids two days later!
• Active duty families like Lieutenant Murphy, Celia and their two young sons, who are based away from an active military base, don’t have the supportive community and services that come with living on base. Murphy’s duty location is more than an hour and a half away from his home, and his duties have increased during the pandemic, leaving Celia and the boys to shelter, alone, too often. Couples’ counselling and support for the family has helped ease the strain and isolation.
• When the pandemic hit, Pete, a Viet Nam combat veteran, and his wife suddenly found themselves with 12 persons under their roof: Their adult children and spouses, and grandchildren including three infants under the age of three months, two of them with special needs. The home’s plumbing broke down, and repair bills went well beyond the household’s budget. With LMVFM’s assistance and our connections to other military support services, Pete’s plumbing issue was resolved, and the bill covered.
• “Meanwhile, we’ve had steady traffic of new and returning counselees – including a 20 percent increase in client caseload during April alone,” Haines recalls. “In addition, we did lots of well-being calls with current and prior counselees, offering support before pandemic-induced stress became too much to bear.”

LMVFM office volunteers, themselves vulnerable due to age and medical status, worked from home during the shutdown. Now that social distancing guidelines have eased, they’re happily back in the office every Tuesday.   

LMVFM treats PTS as a spiritual and moral injury rather than a mental health disorder.

Chaplain Haines brings first-hand experience to her work with the military community. Haines, a Military Police Officer, retired with the rank of Major after serving 33 years in the US Army. Her deployment to a Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, followed a month later by a combat tour in Iraq, gave her first-hand experience of the spiritual and moral wounds of war. The physical injuries she sustained in Iraq, which required her to be medically evacuated, paled in comparison to the spiritual wounds she sustained.

“In the military, we leave no buddy behind,” Haines recalls. “I was that soldier, close to spiritual death. Had a Chaplain not been there and recognized my condition and worked with me, I wouldn’t be here today. Recognizing that only Christ could heal those bruises on my soul or my buddies’ souls led to the creation of LMVFM and our approach to treating PTS as a spiritual and moral injury rather than a mental health disorder.”

LMVFM is a 501(c)(3) faith-based not-for-profit organization.

“Christ’s Church has a mission to serve, with His love, those who have served us and are suffering for it,” Haines says. “As a matter of principle, LMVFM neither solicits nor accepts any form of government support,” Haines emphasized. “The Lord has continued to provide for LMVFM through the generosity of individual donors, congregations, and groups that love God, country, and veterans.”

                To donate or learn more about how you and your congregation can minister to veterans, military contractors and families, contact Chaplain Haines at 260-755-2239 or e-mail her at lmvfm.org@gmail.com. LMVFM is headquartered at 3480 Stellhorn Rd., Fort Wayne IN 46815.

The pandemic is not only still with us, it is currently surging in areas of the country which, until recently, were not seriously impacted. And while churches in many states are just now resuming in-person, indoors worship, the future of our congregational ministries can still seem precarious and uncertain.

While we never want to minimize the importance of believers’ being able to experience Christian worship and fellowship in each other’s physical presence, we do need, now more than ever, to pay attention to the online presence of our ministries.

I recently came across an article by Chuck Lawless, from the Billy Graham School of World Missions, on the “Signs of a Bad Church Website.” This is a summary of his article in my own words.

1. The church does not even have a website!  This is just not an option anymore—especially with online ministries becoming essential due to the pandemic. Remember: This health crisis could last a while. Yet I am still finding LCMC and NALC churches which have no website!

2. The website is inadequate.  These are websites I bring up on my laptop and think, “Why did they even bother?” A totally inadequate and poorly designed website gives a poor initial impression to any potential visitor who is “checking you out” online.

3. Your website has no contact information.  It should include the pastor’s name, church email address, and phone number. 

4. The website has no information about your worship services.

5. The information on your website is not updated and even includes event dates that have already taken place! This is the most common issue I have found while checking on hundreds of Lutheran church websites. Lenten worship service information is not helpful when it is still on your site in July!

6. Spelling or grammatical errors are common. Find a volunteer who will proofread, beforehand, any information the pastor or administrator/secretary is about to post on your website.

7. No driving directions are provided.  Not everyone uses Google Maps. Brief, written directions to your location will be helpful.

8. No recorded or streamed sermons are available. As long as there is public anxiety about gathering indoors for worship, this is extremely important.

9. Childcare information is not provided. If you provide childcare during worship, mention that fact. Nesting stage, potential first-time visitors want to know.

10. A brief summary of your congregation’s core beliefs.  Be sure to avoid terms that might be meaningless or confusing to the unchurched. LCMC and NALC congregations have the option of using a summary of the core beliefs from their national church websites. But don’t hesitate to add your own, more personal “mission statement” as an introduction to any list of your national church’s core beliefs.

Lutheran CORE’s editor, Kim Smith, designed and maintains Lutheran CORE’s website. She can be reached at lcorewebmail@gmail.com.

A RESPONSE TO AND EVALUATION OF RECONCILING SCRIPTURE FOR LUTHERANS

Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans: Sexuality and Gender Identity is a booklet distributed by ReconcilingWorks to give a Biblical basis for affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and for fully welcoming LGBTQ+ people into the life of the church, including as rostered leaders of the church. The booklet is divided into three parts. A short introduction discusses what the authors present as a Lutheran way of interpreting Scripture. The booklet then covers eight Bible passages, which it describes as the “clobber passages” that have been “used to exclude LGBTQ+ people from the body of Christ,” and eight passages which it claims “offer inclusive and expansive understandings of the nature of God’s welcome” (page 7).

In this article I will cover two things –

First, the way in which the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture is set aside in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective.

Second, the way in which the booklet never adequately addresses the fact that whenever the Bible speaks of same-sex sexual behavior, it always speaks against it.

First, the setting aside of the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective.

The authors begin by praising Martin Luther for rejecting allegorical and metaphorical methods of interpretation, and instead insisting “that Scripture should not be interpreted to say more than what it meant to its original hearers, writers, and readers.” Our duty is to explore “what Scripture would have meant to its original hearers in its historical context” (page 10). And yet there are multiple times when the authors twist and/or stretch the plain and obvious meaning and message of the Bible in order to get the Bible to support their agenda.

The First of the Passages Used to Exclude is from Genesis 1, which clearly states that God created humanity male and female and then said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1: 28). The traditional view of human sexuality is based upon the Biblical account of the creation of humanity as male and female. This view is supported by no less an authority than Jesus himself, who quoted this passage in Matthew 19: 4. Because God made humanity male and female, they were able to multiply and fill the earth.

And yet look at what the authors have done. They argue that just as there is not only land and sea, but also things in between such as swamps, estuaries, and reefs, and not just day and night, but also times in between such as dusk and dawn, so the Biblical account of creation could be interpreted as endorsing not just two sexes – male and female – but also a wide variety of gender identities (page 16). They also say, “We may read the description of human beings as male or female in this verse in the same way we read the description of God as Alpha and Omega – as a summary of every point along spectrum, rather than as two distinct boxes” (page 16).

But what does the Bible say? What is the clear meaning and message of Scripture? In Genesis 1: 27 it says, “Male and female he created them.” And then in the next verse, in verse 28, it says, “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’” It is because humans are male and female that they are able to multiply. In Matthew 19: 4-5 Jesus said, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” The words “for this reason” at the beginning of verse 5 mean that there is a connection between verse 4 and verse 5. It is because God made humans male and female that two people—one male and one female—are able to become one flesh. Any other interpretation—such as that the Bible is advocating for a wide variety and broad spectrum of sexual and gender identities—is reading in rather than listening to the plain, clear, and obvious message of Scripture.

The Second of the Passages Used to Exclude is from the second creation story found in Genesis 2. The authors state, “This coming together of Adam and Eve as man and woman has been used as a proof text in the argument against same-gender relationships.” The authors are correct when they say that Christians who hold to a traditional view believe that “true unity in relationships can only be achieved by male-female pairs whose differences complement each other, essentially making one whole out of two halves” (page 19).

What is odd is what the authors say in the next several sentences. They argue that the use of the language “one flesh” in both Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 recognizes a desired “sameness.” “If Adam was searching for a partner who had significant differences, or even complimentary (sic) differences, he might have chosen one of the animals whom God brought to him earlier in the chapter . . . . But rather than choosing something entirely different from himself, Adam speaks reverently about the similarities he and Eve share . . . . The characteristics that Adam was looking for in a mate had more to do with similarity and the ability to share life with someone like himself than it had to do with making up for some kind of lack in either partner” (page 19).

It is because of their bias to find support for same-sex relationships that the authors allow for only two options—the sameness of Adam and Eve, and the great differences between Adam and one of the animals. They do not allow for a third possibility—the similarities and differences, or what could be called the complementary differences, of male and female, which are able to become one flesh, and which are then able to multiply and fill the earth.

The authors also ignore the clear and obvious way in which the Biblical text connects verse 23 of Genesis 2, which speaks of the creation of two sexes, male and female, with verse 24, which speaks of two becoming one flesh. Verse 24 begins with the words “therefore” or “for this reason.” It is because male and female are two separate sexes (verse 23) that they are able to become one flesh (verse 24).

The Third of the Passages Used to Exclude is Genesis 19. I believe that the authors have made a clear and compelling case that homosexual behavior is not the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rather the Scriptures are very clear that many other sinful behaviors also are the issue, including pride, greed, and uncharity (page 23). Those who wish to build a case that the Bible consistently rejects same-sex sexual behavior need to refer also to other passages of Scripture and not just the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Leviticus 18 and 20 – I will deal with these in the second part of this article.

The Fifth of the Passages Used to Exclude is Deuteronomy 22: 5, “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” The authors give two reasons why this verse should not be used as an argument against cross dressing. First, they say that some scholars believe that wearing the clothing of another gender was a common part of the cultic rituals for many of the civilizations surrounding Israel. Therefore, this prohibition essentially added another layer of protection against any kind of worship of other gods (page 27). I do not know enough about the worship life of the nations surrounding Israel at that time to be able to comment on this first argument. However, there is a major flaw in their second argument. The authors refer to the writings of a Jewish rabbi who suggested that the words used for “a man’s apparel” actually refer to armor and weapons. In an effort to minimize the loss of women who would be capable of childbearing, women were not to dress as men and go into battle (pages 27-28). The problem with that interpretation is that the verse not only forbids women to dress as men, it also tells men not to dress as women.

The Sixth of the Passages Used to Exclude is Deuteronomy 23: 1 – “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” Along with the authors I feel compassion for a man who has been forcibly castrated—either as a form of punishment (page 29) or in order to make him into a eunuch so that he would be able to care for the king’s wives or to watch over the royal treasury (page 30). I can understand the point of the authors that maybe this verse was included in order to keep “the Hebrew people from using castration as a punishment because it would essentially disconnect the offender from society as a whole, which, in that time and place, would have been almost as effective as a death sentence” (pages 29-30). I give thanks for the later inclusion of those who had been forcibly castrated in exile (see my consideration of the Third of the Passages Used to Welcome – Isaiah 56), and I give thanks that Philip reached out to and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (see my consideration of the Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome – Acts 8). But, as I will say in my consideration of those two passages, they do not give Biblical support for transgenderism as a sex change process which is intentionally and voluntarily chosen.

The Seventh and Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 – I will deal with these in the second part of this article.  

It should be clear and obvious that in their consideration of the Passages Used to Exclude the authors are not taking seriously the clear and obvious meaning of a text, but instead are using a text for their own pre-determined purposes in order to find Biblical support for the LGBTQ+ agenda. The same is also true of the Passages Used to Welcome.

The First of the Passages Used to Welcome is the book of Ruth. The authors are absolutely correct when they say that “Ruth shows great loyalty to Naomi, both in word and in action, and for it she is rewarded with a husband and a place among the chosen people of Israel” (page 42). The authors say it so well in their claim that “Ruth’s story gives us some of the most beautiful commitment poetry in the Bible” (page 42). The fact that Ruth, a foreigner, became a “part of the chosen people of Israel and a member of the lineage of Christ” (page 42) does show that “God works through outsiders to continue to bring the whole world to restoration and reconciliation” (pages 42-43). But there is no way that one can legitimately argue that the book of Ruth is intended to support the LGBTQ+ agenda and the concept of same-sex sexual behavior. The only sexual relationships mentioned in the book of Ruth are opposite-sex sexual relationships—between Elimelech and Naomi, their two sons Mahlon and Chilion and their Moabite wives Orpah and Ruth, and Ruth and Boaz. In trying to get this story to support the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior the authors have violated the method of interpretation which they have praised Martin Luther for—not trying to get Scripture to say “more than what it meant to its original hearers, writers, and readers” (page 10).

As part of their discussion of this First of the Passages Used to Welcome, the authors also mention Jesus’ actively reaching out to people on the edges of society, including Samaritans and tax collectors (page 42). But again, there is no way that one could argue that in taking these actions Jesus was advocating for the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior. In the same way, I do not believe that Jesus was advocating for same-sex sexual behavior in Luke 4 when he spoke of how Elijah was sent to the widow at Zarephath in Sidon and how during the time of the prophet Elisha, only Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of his leprosy. The authors are violating the integrity of Scripture by trying to get Scripture to say something far different from what it meant to the original hearers, writers, and readers.

The Second of the Passages Used to Welcome is Psalm 139. The authors quote verses 13 and 14: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” These verses remind me of Jeremiah 1: 5, where God said to the prophet, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

The authors are absolutely right when they say that the verses from Psalm 139 show that “God already knows us completely, and loves us unconditionally” (page 44). They are also correct when they say that we “learn and grow and continue to change throughout our entire lives” (page 45). They are accurate in their statement that “sometimes we require or choose to do things that help make us more whole and more healthy, like getting fitted for glasses, or taking medication for depression, or having our appendix out” (page 45). So far I would agree with them. But then they go on to say that “for transgender people, these changes may include things like name and pronoun changes, hormone therapy, or gender-confirmation surgery” (page 45). They are speaking as if gender-confirmation or gender-reassignment surgery was no more than getting fitted for glasses or having your appendix taken out.

What the trans-affirming community is saying is that the “real” self is the self with the new name and the new gender identity. According to the trans-affirming community, as God was forming my inward parts and knitting me together in my mother’s womb, God knew that the name I would be given at my birth would not be my real name and the gender with which I would be born would not be my real gender. There is a total lack of Biblical support for the idea that my “real” self (which is also known to God) is something other than what God formed me in my mother’s womb to be. Psalm 139 does not support what the trans-affirming community is trying to get it to support.

I will consider together the Third and Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome. The Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome is the story in Acts 8 of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Along with the authors I grieve over the thought that this person who was seeking to be in relationship with God might not have been allowed into the temple in Jerusalem. Along with the authors I rejoice that a follower of Jesus (Philip) realized “the real-life implications of a Gospel that is meant for all people” (page 54). The Ethiopian eunuch was asking, “Can my being a eunuch and an ethnic and racial outsider keep me from being baptized?” Along with the authors I am glad that Philip answered with a resounding, “Of course not.” But the baptism and inclusion of someone who was probably forcibly castrated does not provide Biblical support for voluntarily choosing gender-confirmation or gender-reassignment surgery.  

The same thing is true of the Third of the Passages Used to Welcome – Isaiah 56, which embraces those who had been forcibly castrated in exile. This passage also does not provide Biblical support for a sex change process which is intentionally and voluntarily chosen.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Welcome is from Matthew 22. Jesus is asked, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He replies, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew 22: 37-39, Mark 12: 30-31). The authors ask whether the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 against sex with animals, sex with “a man as with a woman,” and sex during a woman’s menstrual cycle show love (verse 51). Their answer is that the ancient Israelites were like other ancient cultures in believing that the amount of semen was limited. Sex with animals, same-gender sexual activity between men, and sex during a woman’s menstrual cycle would have “wasted” an opportunity to have a child. “Depriving a wife of children . . . would not have been an act of love” (page 51). However, the Bible does not base its prohibition against sex with animals and same-sex sexual behavior between men upon a limited amount of semen. Rather it is based upon creation. The one whom Adam was to become one flesh with was the one concerning whom Adam said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2: 23). The one whom Adam was to become one flesh with was not one of the animals, from which he was very different, but a human, with whom he shared both similarities and differences—a human of the opposite sex.  

The Sixth of the Passages Used to Welcome is the story of Peter and Cornelius, as found in Acts 10 and 11. Along with the authors, I am struck with how difficult it must have been for Peter to go to Cornelius’ house. I am glad that Peter paid attention to what the Spirit was doing, even when the Spirit was doing some “scary and life-changing things” (page 56). But there is a basic problem in claiming that the Gentile outreach of the early church supports the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior. Outreach beyond the Jewish community was fully in line with the words of Jesus to the disciples in Acts 1: 8 – “You will be my witnesses in . . . Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” And in the New Testament there is a clear change in attitude towards the Old Testament dietary laws. “The law was our disciplinarian until Christ came.” (Galatians 3: 24) But there is no way that there is a similar change in attitude in the New Testament towards same-sex sexual behavior. Rather, as we will see in the second main section of this paper, every time the Bible speaks about same-sex sexual behavior, it speaks against it.

One wonders why—with their prime method of interpretation being a hermeneutic of inclusion rather than what the passage meant to its original readers, writers, and hearers—the authors did not include the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 as one of the passages used to welcome. If some of the other passages which they use are supposed to support same-sex sexual behavior, then why could we not say that the decision to include Gentiles within the church without their first having to become Jews also supports same-sex sexual behavior?

The Seventh of the Passages Used to Welcome is 1 Corinthians 12, where the apostle Paul describes the church as being like a body. I agree with the authors that Paul is saying that every part of the body is important, and that when one part of the body is hurting, the whole body is hurting. The problem is that the authors then use these statements to build their case in favor of the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior.

Certainly, every part of the body is important. Certainly, the pain felt by anyone needs to affect everyone. As people who have experienced the love of Christ, we need to feel compassion for all people, regardless of their sexuality and gender identity. We need to speak the truth in love, but we need to speak the truth. How can we use this part of one of Paul’s letters to argue in favor of something that Paul so clearly writes against in other parts of his letters? Again, the authors are violating their own principle of interpretation by trying to get a passage of Scripture to say something very different from what it was meant to say by its original writer to its original hearers and readers.

Having covered several examples of the amazing way in which the authors set aside the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective, I will now turn to the second main section of this article –

The way in which the booklet never adequately addresses the fact that whenever the Bible speaks about same-sex sexual behavior, it always speaks against it.

Here I will address the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude. All of these passages are very clear in their rejection of same-sex sexual behavior. The authors of Reconciling Scripture are never able to develop a convincing argument to dismiss, discredit, reinterpret, or explain away this rejection. One of the things that for me is amazing about their treatment of the Fourth Passage is that they do not even really try.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Exclude is from Leviticus 18 and 20. Leviticus 18: 22 clearly says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” This prohibition is then repeated in Leviticus 20: 13. (Please note that I have corrected the typo in the booklet, which has “like” rather than “lie” in its quotation of both verses.)

What could be clearer than that? And yet the authors never really deal with that very clear prohibition. Nor do they come up with a convincing argument to explain it away. Instead they state that “Jesus’ relationship with the Mosaic law is complex” (page 25).

They are correct when they say that Jesus made some of the commandments even more demanding (as in the Sermon on the Mount), on several occasions did not observe the sabbath commandment, and saved a woman who had been caught in adultery from being stoned. But Jesus never arbitrarily violated the letter of the moral law merely by stating that that prohibition was not valid anymore. When he acted contrary to the sabbath commandment, he always had a specific, life preserving purpose for doing so. Also, as in the time when he defended the disciples, who were being criticized for plucking some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them on the sabbath, Jesus cited Biblical precedent. He told of how David and his companions ate the Bread of the Presence, “which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat” (Luke 6: 4). Unlike Jesus, the authors are not able to and do not provide any Biblical precedent for their rejecting the prohibitions against same-sex behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.

In the same way there is no way that you could say that Jesus’ challenging the crowd, refusing to condemn the woman, and sending her on her way (page 26) is an adequate argument for rejecting the very clear prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. In Jesus’ saying, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11), he was saying that the woman—as well as the man with whom she had been committing adultery—had both been sinning.

I would certainly agree with the authors that the Bible does not support modern-day violence against men who have sex with other men (page 26). It certainly also does not support modern-day violence against women who have sex with other women, men and women with gender dysphoria, and so on. But I would also want to say that the authors have done nothing to counter the clear prohibitions against same-sex sexual behavior in Leviticus.

Nor have they done an adequate job at explaining away the clear statements from Paul against same-sex sexual behavior in the Seventh of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Romans 1. In Romans 1: 26-27 Paul says, “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.”

Unlike the way in which the authors really did not deal with the Fourth Passage (from Leviticus), at least they try to find a way to explain away the clear meaning of the Seventh Passage. First, they try to discredit the Seventh Passage by saying that “Paul, like every other writer of his time, did not have a concept of ‘sexual orientation’ as we have today” (page 32). Therefore, they would argue, Paul did not understand that for some people it feels “natural” to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. But here Paul is not talking about what feels natural to me. Rather, starting with verse 20, he is talking about creation. He is talking about the natural orders of creation—the fact that God created humanity male and female. And besides, just because certain desires and attractions feel natural to me, that does not mean that they are right. It would be a very scary approach to ethics to say that if it feels natural or desirable to me, then it must be acceptable. One would never want to say that, if it feels natural or desirable to engage in pedophilia, rape, or adultery, then it must be OK.

Second, the authors argue that Paul is not speaking against same-sex sexual behavior per se, but same-sex sexual behavior within the context of idol worship. Again, that kind of interpretation has to be read in. It is not what the passage says. It is not the conclusion that a person would come to through what the authors call “the Plain Reading of Scripture.”

And then there is another line of argument that has been used by others against a traditional interpretation of this passage, which the authors of this booklet do not use. Some say that Paul is not talking here about loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior between two adults, but instead is speaking against abusive, same-sex sexual behavior, such as between an adult and a child. The problem with that interpretation is the clear consensual language that Paul is using. “The men . . . were consumed with passion for one another” (verse 27).

The Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. These two verses make use of two words in Greek which are the issue here – malakoi, which literally means “soft ones” (page 35), and arsenokoitai, which is a combination of the words “male” and “bed” (page 36) – men who take other men to bed. The Greek word malakoi has been interpreted to refer to men who take the passive role in a same sex sexual relationship, i.e., who allow themselves to be penetrated.

The authors are among those who try to build a case in favor of same-sex sexual behavior by arguing that what the Bible is speaking against is abusive, same-sex sexual behavior—same-sex sexual behavior where there is an imbalance of power—not against loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior. Therefore, they make such statements as the following. In the culture in which Paul was writing, “same-gender sexual activity existed, but long-term, monogamous, same-gender romantic relationships did not . . . . Paul wanted to reaffirm the boundaries of marriage. Although there was same-gender love in Greek and Roman cultures, it was not understood as a long-term relationship or one that could lead to marital fidelity and family” (pages 36-37).

But again, that is not the clear meaning of what is being said. Paul is not saying that it is OKto be among the malakoi and arsenokoitai as long as you are involved in loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior, but it is not OK if you are involved in abusive, imbalance-of-power, same-sex sexual behavior. Rather he is speaking against all same-sex, sexual behavior. And the fact that in these passages Paul speaks against a number of other kinds of behavior does not eliminate the fact that he speaks against the malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The Eighth of the Passages Used to Welcome is Galatians 3. The authors begin that section by saying that Paul’s letter to the Galatians “was meant to help a community of diverse people understand how they might worship God together” (verse 59). Therefore, “in an attempt to bring the diverse Galatians together, Paul points them toward the one thing they all share—an identity in Christ” (page 59).

I was relieved that the authors did not try to argue for the elimination of sexual differences based upon Paul’s statement in Galatians 3: 28 that “there is no longer male and female.” I have known people who have made that kind of argument. Rather Paul’s point is that in terms of salvation there is no one group that has a special “in” over other groups. Paul’s main purpose in writing to the Galatians was not “to help a community of diverse people understand how they might worship God together.” Rather it was to counter false teachers and to bring the people back to an understanding that “a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2: 16).

The authors are right that there is an “inclusive arc that runs throughout scripture . . . beginning in the earliest history of the Hebrew people—set apart from all others with a Law to govern that separation—to the calling in of one outsider after another from Ruth, to the foreigners and the eunuchs of Isaiah, to the tax collectors and Samaritans of the Gospel, to Cornelius the Gentile centurion” (page 60). But the prohibition against same-sex sexual behavior remains throughout Scripture. It is not just part of the Law that governed Israel’s separation in the early days of their existence as a people. Rather it is based upon the creation of humanity as male and female, and it stands throughout the Bible.

The authors end the booklet by advocating for “an acceptance of differences in sexuality and gender identity” (page 60). It should be clear from a reading of this article that the authors are advocating for something that the Bible consistently does not approve.

The authors end by advocating for “a welcome for all” (page 60). The issue is not “a welcome for all.” Jesus told Nicodemus in what has been called the Gospel in a nutshell—the most famous verse in the Bible—“God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3: 16). Jesus’ use of the word “everyone” is a “welcome for all” to believe in him and have eternal life.

The issue is not whether there is “a welcome for all.” Rather the issue is what kind of behavior does the Bible accept and what kind does it not accept. It is absolutely essential that those who hold to traditional views of human sexuality address the matter of LGBTQ+ concerns with compassion. We need to stand firm on what the Bible says, but, as the apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians, we need to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4: 15).

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.  But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

For those who are in the Lord, there is freedom.  Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father that those who come in Spirit and truth, and come as worshipers, live in the fullness of the grace and mercy of the Lord.  Be guided not by your own desires, but by the truth of the Lord which has been revealed through the salvation He has prepared in the sight of all people.  Be transformed into His glory now and forever.

Lord, You have revealed the light and the light is the light of every nation.  Guide me, O Lord, in the way of truth that I may now and always walk in the light that Your Spirit shines before the footsteps of the faithful.  Help me to not so much seek to understand as to follow.  Teach me to trust You above all things and walk this life of faith that You have given me.

Come, Holy Spirit, and illumine my heart.  Teach me to abide in You as You abide in me.  Guide me according to Your purposes that I may forever walk in Your counsel.  Lead me in the goodness of Your presence and teach me to listen as You direct, walk as you direct, and live in accordance with all that brings the Father glory.  Teach me to trust You in all of my ways and walk as one for whom the veil has been lifted.  Amen.