Editor’s Note: this article first appeared in the March 2019 edition of CORE Voice.

Click here to read the article.

March
14, 2019

Dear
Bishop Collins –

I
read with considerable confusion and concern your letter to the Rev. W. Stevens
Shipman informing him that action had been taken by the Upper Susquehanna Synod
Council to remove him from the Word and Sacrament roster of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America.

My
area of confusion was in your quotation from section 8.62.15.d of the ELCA’s
constitution which says that “ministers on the Word and Sacrament roster of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America must accept and adhere to this church’s
Confession of Faith, as well as abide by this church’s standards and policies
for ministers of Word and Sacrament.”

We
all know that there are pastors of the ELCA who do not adhere to the ELCA’s
Confession of Faith.  One needs to look
no further than Ebenezerher Church in San Francisco, which promotes goddess
worship; the various versions of the Lord’s Prayer which were options in the
service after 2009 which welcomed or welcomed back people to the ELCA Clergy
Roster; and any followers of Marcus Borg and his version of “Progressive
Christianity,” which denies the deity and physical, bodily resurrection of
Jesus.  There were pastors on the clergy
roster of the synod in which I served before I retired (Southwest California)
who did not believe in the basic tenants of the historic, orthodox Christian
faith as expressed in the ELCA’s Confession of Faith, but the bishop just
looked the other way.

One
needs to look no further than the signers of the “We Are Naked and Unashamed”
movement to find people who are objecting to – and one can safely assume are
not living up to – the ELCA’s standards and policies for ministers of Word and
Sacrament.  And yet not only are they
allowed to remain on the ELCA clergy roster, they are celebrated, endorsed, two
of them were chosen to be keynote speakers at last summer’s youth gathering,
and in many ways one of them, who openly advocates for “ethically sourced porn”
and sex outside of marriage, has been allowed to become the most prominent,
public spokesperson for the ELCA.

In
a letter to Bishop Eaton I expressed my concerns regarding last summer’s youth
gathering.  She wrote back, “Regarding
the ‘We Are Naked and Unashamed’ movement, it is not an official group or
policy of the ELCA.  I do not wish to
give more attention and credence to a movement that is outside this church’s
social teaching by speaking about it publicly.” 
Again, nothing is being done.  It
is not being addressed.  It is being
allowed to continue and even flourish even though it is in violation of “this
church’s standards and policies for ministers of Word and Sacrament.”

In
their “Pastoral Message”, which was released on March 6, 2019, the ELCA
Conference of Bishops said regarding “Visions and Expectations,” “We recognize
and acknowledge that its application has been uneven and inequitable.”  They ended by saying, “We aspire and pledge
in the future to apply the church’s standards for ministry with equity and
compassion.”  Is your removing Pastor
Shipman from the ELCA’s clergy roster while other people are being allowed to
remain on the roster another example of ELCA standards being applied unevenly
and inequitably?

My
area of concern has to do with the Synod Council’s motion, which you quoted at
the end of your letter, in which the Synod Council expressed its support for any
decision that you would make that would prohibit Pastor Shipman from even
attending a synod function and or event, “especially as a representative of
Lutheran CORE.” 

Is
the Synod Council saying that no representative of Lutheran CORE would be
welcome to attend one of your synod’s functions and or events?  Would I, as Executive Director of Lutheran
CORE and a retired pastor on the ELCA roster, or a pastor or member of a
congregation that is a part of the Upper Susquehanna Synod, also not be welcome
to attend a synod function and or event, such as to set up a display table at a
synod assembly?

Bishop
Eaton began the letter which I previously referred to with these words: “Grace
and peace to you and to our brothers and sisters in Christ who are part of the
Lutheran Coalition for Renewal.”  Pages 19-21
of the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” social statement, which was approved
by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, laid out four different positions on
same-gender relationships and behavior, which the document said are held to by
people “with conviction and integrity.”  The
social statement also said, “This church . . . encourages all people to live
out their faith . . . with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of
the neighbor.”  That same paragraph ended
by saying, “Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the
people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer,
discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.”

The
March 6 “Pastoral Message” from the ELCA Conference of Bishops ends by saying,
“We aspire and pledge in the future . . . to listen and take seriously the concerns
of all our leaders – particularly those who historically have been
marginalized.”  Do the leaders of the
ELCA, including the leaders of the Upper Susquehanna Synod, wish to “listen and
take seriously the concerns of all our leaders” – not just those who are
described as “historically . . 
marginalized,” but also those who are currently the most marginalized –
those with a historic, traditional view?

Thank
you for your leadership in the Upper Susquehanna Synod and your attention to my
confusion and concern.  I will look
forward to receiving your response.

In
Christ,

Dennis
D. Nelson

Executive
Director of Lutheran CORE

Retired
ELCA Pastor

Editor’s Note. This article first appeared in our January 2019 newsletter; the author is Pastor Dennis D. Nelson.

As Lutheran CORE seeks to be a VOICE FOR BIBLICAL TRUTH and a NETWORK FOR CONFESSING LUTHERANS, we look back upon 2018 with thanksgiving and forward to 2019 with eager anticipation. We thank God for His many blessings, and we thank our friends for their faithful and generous prayer and financial support.

2018

• As a VOICE FOR BIBLICAL TRUTH during 2018 we challenged the ELCA to live within the boundaries of what was actually approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly and to live up to the commitments that were made at that gathering to give a place of honor and respect also to those who hold traditional views on human sexuality.

• We wrote to the presiding bishop of the ELCA as well as to all sixty-five synodical bishops to confront them with the fact that lifestyles that were never approved were promoted at the summer youth gathering and the traditional view was called a lie. (See article in the September #5 issue of CORE Voice.)

• We alerted faithful members of the ELCA to the amount of power and influence that have been given to the LGBTQIA+ community as we reported on the way in which that group was able to force the firing of a seminary president simply because she held traditional views twenty years ago. (See articles in the Lent #2 issue of CORE Voice and the June Letter from the Director.) We also alerted people to the kind of strange, even heretical, and radical leftwing agenda teachings that are being given to future pastors who are attending ELCA seminaries. (See articles in the August Letter from the Director and the November # 6 issue of CORE Voice.)

• As a NETWORK FOR CONFESSING LUTHERANS we worked with call committees of ELCA congregations to help them find an orthodox, Bible-believing, and outreach-oriented pastor to be their next pastor.

• We held our annual Latino ministries Encuentro (Encounter) at an ELCA church in northwest Chicago. This was a day of information, fellowship, encouragement, and renewal for pastors and congregations who are already involved in, as well as for those who are considering becoming involved in, Spanish language and bilingual (English-Spanish) ministry and outreach.

• We offered resources on our website such as daily devotions, prayers of the church, and hymn suggestions for each Sunday of the year.

2019

• We will be a VOICE FOR BIBLICAL TRUTH in 2019 as we continue to expose the ways in which the Women and Justice social statement, which will be voted on at the 2019 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, rejects the authority, reliability, and truthfulness of the Bible as it promotes its radical feminist agenda. (See article in this issue, as well as in the July # 4 issue of CORE Voice.)

• We will alert faithful members of the ELCA to the ways in which the leaders of that church body are refusing to stand up to movements within the church that are in direct violation of what the ELCA claims to believe. (See article in this issue of CORE Voice about the recent meeting of the ELCA Church Council.)

• As a NETWORK FOR CONFESSING LUTHERANS during 2019 we will hold an event for pastors on May 1 in northeast Virginia that will be a day of inspiration, encouragement, and renewal as we ask God to rekindle our first love for Christ, for the church as the body of Christ, and for mission and ministry as the work of Christ in the world. (See flier in this issue.)

• We will partner with NALC pastor Don Brandt to offer an at-cost coaching and consulting ministry called Congregations in Transition (CiT). In early April we will hold an event in the Phoenix area for (mostly retired) Lutheran pastors to train them to become coaches who will walk with congregations through the transition process between pastors. (See article in this issue of CORE Voice.)

• We will work to provide a network of encouragement and prayer support for students with traditional views at ELCA seminaries as well as for recent graduates with traditional views.

• As we begin a new year we will continue to ask God to direct, guide, bless, and use our efforts for His Kingdom as we thank our friends for their faithful and generous prayer and financial support.

Lutheran CORE has sent a letter to ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton as well as Bishops McCoid and Macholz asking them for a public response to the recent abortion decisions made in New York. Click here to read it.

Editor’s Note: this article first appeared in the January 2019 edition of CORE Voice.

Click here to read the article.

The official report from the November 8-11 meeting of the ELCA Church Council, dated November 19, 2018 said that “the council engaged in discussions around a ‘well-governed, connected and sustainable church.’” I do not see how the Church Council could call the ELCA well-governed, connected, and/or sustainable.

The
Math Doesn’t Add Up

First, sustainable. The predecessor church bodies that merged in 1988 to
form the ELCA achieved their statistical peak in 1968 when they reported a
combined total of 5.9 million members. Fifty years later, in 2018, the ELCA
reports having only about 3.5 million members. That represents a 41% loss in
fifty years. How long can a decline like that be sustainable? The synod in
which I was rostered before I retired balances the budget by spending money
obtained by selling the buildings of closed congregations. These buildings were
built and paid for by faithful followers of Jesus whose view of the Bible,
orthodox theology, priority of evangelism, and views on such things as human
sexuality that synod rejects. How long can a synod continue to exist and how
can it be sustainable if it balances the budget by closing congregations?

Actions
Speak Louder

Second, connected. The 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly said that a wide
variety of views on human sexuality, including the traditional view, would be
treated with respect. And yet a keynote speaker at last summer’s youth
gathering (who could very well be the prime spokesperson for the ELCA) led
31,000 young people in rejecting the traditional view as a lie. My letters to
synodical bishops were totally ignored when I wrote to them about the free
reign and amount of power that are being given to the LGBTQIA+ community and
about how the ELCA’s doing so is a blatant betrayal and violation of trust
because of the way in which the LGBTQIA+ agenda goes way beyond what was
approved at the 2009 assembly. How could a church that advocates for justice
but then acts so unjustly, and that claims to be inclusive and yet consistently
excludes, diminishes, and dismisses a significant part of its constituency call
itself connected?

Restore
Sanity

Third, well-governed. In a recent letter to Presiding Bishop Elizabeth
Eaton I challenged her to exercise the authority of her office and hold the
organizers of the youth gathering accountable for their choice of speakers. I
also called upon her to restore sanity to the ELCA’s teachings on human
sexuality by working with the administration and faculty of the Lutheran School
of Theology in Chicago to renounce the “We Are Naked and Unashamed” movement.
That movement rejects marriage by any definition as normative for sexual
activity. It was well-represented among the keynote speakers at last summer’s
ELCA youth gathering. Bishop Eaton gave a very limp reply when she said that
she will be “speaking to the leadership team of the Youth Gathering.” She also
said that she did not want to “give more attention and credence to a movement
that is outside this church’s social teaching by speaking about it publicly.”
As Bishop Eaton refuses to speak publicly about movements within the ELCA that
are out of control, Nadia Bolz-Weber is gaining visibility and notoriety as she
is promoting her new book, Shameless: A Sexual Reformation, and as she
is calling upon women to send in their purity rings so that she can melt them
down and make a statue of a golden vagina. How could a church that refuses
to address actions and behaviors that are in direct violation of what it claims
to be its beliefs and standards call itself well-governed?

Too
Late for Damage Control

Either the leaders of the ELCA are in agreement with Nadia Bolz-Weber or
they are not. If they are in agreement, we have a problem because they are
joining with her in calling the traditional view of human sexuality a lie. If
they are not in agreement, they have a problem because they have allowed her to
become so prominent. They did nothing about her at a time when it would have
been easier to do something about her. How would they be able to stop her now? When
a church body has allowed a situation that is doing great damage to become so
large and out of control, how could it call itself well-governed? The
situation created by Nadia Bolz-Weber is doing great damage because of the
message she is communicating to young people and the turmoil she is creating in
some congregations. 

Repent
and Re-Examine

That same report said that the ELCA Church
Council formed a working group which would develop a document which would
contain “a confession of this church’s bondage to the sins of slavery, racism,
discrimination, white supremacy and quietism, and a commitment to begin the
work of repentance, which this church confesses to be ‘the chief topic of
Christian teaching.’” The ELCA has far more that it needs to confess
besides racism, discrimination, white supremacy, and quietism. It also needs to
repent of its own acts of betrayal of trust, violation of agreements,
and marginalization and even bullying and intimidation of pastors and
congregations who hold to traditional views. It also needs to seriously
re-examine its own theology. How could it call itself confessionally
Lutheran when it says that our need to confess rather than God’s work of
salvation through Jesus Christ is “the chief topic of Christian teaching”?

The annual March for Life is Friday, January 18. We encourage all
Lutherans to meet and march together. More ELCA pro-life people could increase
pressure on that denomination to live up to its social statement on the topic
(imperfect, but better than most realize).

NALC
LIFE Conference

All Lutherans are very welcome at the NALC LIFE Conference the day before
the March, Thursday, January 17, starting at noon with lunch at Trinity
Lutheran Church, 276 Cleveland St., Warrenton VA. And you can’t beat the
registration cost: Free! It would be nice to call them and let them know
you will be there so they can prepare for lunch. The event concludes by 5:00.
It is a great place to connect and have your questions answered before heading
into the city the next day.

Where
to Begin?

The best way to begin the day of the March is by attending the National
Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers. Christian believers and
clergy from numerous denominations, including Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for
Life, will gather for this event at historic Constitution Hall in Washington,
DC, 1776 D St., NW (18th and D St) on the morning of Friday, January 18, 2019.
The interdenominational service will take place from 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Fr.
Pavone will deliver the sermon. Admission is free, no tickets are
required, and large groups are welcome. Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Sandra Merritt will
be our special guest speakers and we will welcome Joyce Im Bartholomew as our
musical guest. See NationalPrayerService.com.
Clergy are invited to vest and sit on the stage (arrive by 8 if you want to
participate).

Text Me

The city will be crowded. You are welcome to text me at 570-916-7780. But be patient; I often can’t hear calls or don’t respond to text messages immediately. Lutherans tend to gather at 12th St. and Constitution Ave to set up their banners and prepare to march the 1.3 miles to the Supreme Court building.

Three
Scenarios

Perhaps one of these three scenarios applies to you or your congregation.

1. You are a Boomer pastor approaching retirement.  Like literally hundreds—if not thousands—of
Lutheran pastors, retirement is looking pretty enticing. You’ve faithfully
served as a pastor for thirty or forty years, and it’s time. And when you begin
to waver about this your spouse confirms what you know, in your heart, to be
true, and says, “Honey it is time.” But you’re concerned about what the
future might hold for your congregation. Even in normal times a transition like
this can present significant challenges for churches; especially when their
solo pastor departs. But these are not normal times. There is a developing
clergy shortage among Protestant denominations, and this shortage might soon
become a true crisis. Boomers (like you) are retiring in increasing numbers,
and seminary enrollment is rapidly declining. It’s beginning to look like the
“perfect storm.” So you’re worried about how long it would take for your
congregation to find the “right” pastor.

2. Second scenario: You are a lay leader in a
congregation where your solo pastor has already left. Maybe you are on
the church council, or the recently organized call committee. You are just
beginning to see how difficult this search process will be.  Perhaps you’ve discovered that the minimum
financial package needed for a new pastor could be 25 to 40% more than what
your previous pastor received. (You keep hearing that college student debt has
become a common issue.) Or maybe you sense that available pastors are unlikely
to be interested in living in your local small-town or rural community.  They are more interested in suburban
congregations. In some cases there is the issue of the pastor’s spouse needing
to live where she/he can pursue his/her chosen career.

3. Or the third scenario: You are on a call committee
that has already been meeting and working for many months. You and your
committee are beginning to get discouraged, if not pessimistic. And making
matters worse is an increasing sense of urgency. This prolonged interim is
beginning to impact worship attendance and congregational giving. Some of your
once active members are drifting into inactivity. Perhaps your congregation was
not able to secure the services of an interim pastor; at least not a full-time
one. And this has had a profoundly negative effect on your congregation’s
ministries and morale.

Lutheran
CORE Can Help

Do any of these scenarios apply to your situation?  If so, Lutheran CORE can help, and help in
meaningful, practical ways. We are training a group of recently-retired,
confessional Lutheran pastors to consult with congregations like yours. And
these pastors, by the way, are volunteering their time, so the only cost
to your congregation is the actual travel expenses for one initial visit to
your community, and a nominal sign-up fee ($150) to cover CORE’s administrative
costs. But know this: That initial on-site visit to your community will only be
the beginning of a six to nine-month (or longer) phone and online relationship
with key congregational leaders chosen by your church council. The primary
purpose of all this? To help you address the immediate ministry challenges of
your transition.

Loss
of Momentum

Here is the tragic irony for many congregations in transition: Their
search process can be so prolonged that they lose essential ministry momentum.
This lost momentum then, in turn, jeopardizes their financial ability to find
and call a competent pastor. Just one hypothetical example: After a twelve to
eighteen month search process a congregation’s financial giving suffers and
they find they can no longer afford a full-time pastor’s salary and benefits
package.

This new CORE ministry is called Congregations in Transition (CiT),
and we’d like to help you navigate a transition process often characterized by
challenges that could put your church’s health and future stability at risk.
However, it is not just about minimizing risks, it’s about capitalizing on
ministry opportunities. That’s right, opportunities. Opportunities to
mobilize your lay leaders, renew your church’s spiritual life, and embrace the
full potential of what God has in mind for your congregation and its mission.

Contact
Us

So if any of the above scenarios resonate with what your faith community
is facing, contact Pastor Don Brandt, or CORE Executive Director, Pastor Dennis
Nelson. Coach training is scheduled in early April, but CORE is already signing
up a limited number of congregations. Any and all of our thirty-two written CiT
resources are available to you; at no cost and with no obligation. (Or if
that’s too many, we can email you some samples.) Also, Dennis and Don are
available to answer any questions.

We hope to hear from you. Never underestimate what God can accomplish in
and through your congregation; even in this time of transition.

Please contact either Don Brandt at
pastordonbrandt@gmail.com or Dennis Nelson at dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com.

I was tasked by the Board of Lutheran CORE to formulate a response to the
ELCA draft social statement, “Women and Justice.” These are my own impressions and thoughts,
however, and ought not to be construed as The Official Stance of Lutheran CORE
on this statement.

Observations

I begin with two editorial observations. First: For a statement that is
centered on justice, and which mentions the word justice several hundred times,
it’d have been helpful to put the definition right up front at the beginning,
not simply hyperlinked to the glossary entry. After the first few dozen
repetitions, “justice” becomes a blur-word.

Second: The brief section on immigration touches on timely concerns but
is almost perfunctory.

Next, I have a few observations that don’t fit neatly in the categories
I’ll use shortly.

Interchangeable
or Not?

The document rightly complains that female bodies and physiology were
often ignored in medical studies. But transgenderism, which it supports as a related
“justice category,” posits an almost ontological change, as if male and female
bodies are interchangeable. The document wants to have it both ways. If
women are assumed to be “just like men” but that doesn’t fit a narrative, it is
a sign of sin and injustice. If women are discerned to be “not just like men”
but that doesn’t fit a narrative, it’s also a sign of sin and injustice.

Next: Although “justice” becomes a blur-word, there are a few
exceptions.  In lines 999-1025, the
discussion of “gender justice” speaks of living out our faith in God by love
for neighbor, with God’s grace healing and covering all our brokenness.
Similarly, in lines 522-530 there’s a reasonable description of “neighbor
justice.”  (Although how this differs
from the Golden Rule, aside from trendier language, is unclear). It’s hard,
though, to see in this draft how God’s revealed Word is greater than the sum of
feminist, intersectional, and “gender/sexual justice” language. It’s as if the
ELCA is trying to improve on what God SHOULD have said and commanded, if he’d
just been as “woke” as the This Church.

Explicit
Silence?

In the list of sins and injustices committed primarily against women, sex
trafficking and sexual abuse are rightly condemned. Oddly, neither prostitution
nor pornography are explicitly mentioned. Granted, they are specific examples
of the objectification, abuse, and commodification of women’s bodies, but they
are also the most lucrative, widespread, and pernicious examples thereof.
Perhaps the drafters wrestled with how they might have to treat a pronouncement
of This Church’s “public theologian,” Nadia Bolz-Weber, who recently opined
that there is such a thing as “ethically sourced porn” which can be enjoyed and
commended.

Scriptural
Imposition

The draft statement names real evils that injure real people. Lines
1013-1014 properly state, “Being freed in Christ involves being freed from all
that tries to replace Jesus Christ as Lord in our lives….” The document then
names “systems of patriarchy,” apparently all of them, as examples of sinful
bondage. It lifts up, as an example of the justifying freedom in Christ, being
“freed to recognize God’s work in creation through… human expression through
gender. We are enabled to see that humans are not simply gender-based opposites
and that we are not created in a hierarchy.” Elsewhere (Section 3) the document
states: “We believe God creates humanity in diversity, encompassing a wide
variety of experiences, identities, and expressions, including sex and
gender” (emphasis added). “Contemporary science” and “neurological
research” are trotted out to debunk “idolatrous” distortions of Scripture,
especially a binary interpretation of “male and female He created them.” There
is no citation from Scripture explaining how “God’s diversity in creation”
includes multiple sexual orientations or gender identities. This notion is
being imposed on Scripture for ideological purposes.

Stand
Under Scripture

This leads to the final section of this essay: more “thematic”
critiques. A fine theologian and churchman (can I still say that?), the late
Lou Smith, warned of the perils of simply trying to understand Scripture,
rather than to “stand under” it. The former puts us in control, using
our own criteria for dissecting, analyzing and judging Scripture. We treat it
as a “dead letter,” or as a merely human document, subject to our standards for
approval, critique, and judgment. The latter reminds us that Scripture
is God’s Word, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing heart and soul, mind
and flesh, revealing our sinfulness and God’s remedy. It’s therefore something
that has authority over us, whether we approve of it or not.

“Women and Justice” belongs firmly in the former camp.

Problems
within the Scriptures?

Section 16 states: “While God’s Word of Law and Gospel speaks through the
Scriptures, there are words and images, social patterns, and moral beliefs in
them that reflect the patriarchal values of the cultures and societies in which
they arose. Their continued misuse contributes to maintaining hierarchies and
patterns of inequity and harm.… Our tradition’s complicity in patriarchy and
sexism is connected to such biblical interpretation and to the nature and focus
of some of the Lutheran theological tradition. We confess that there are
problems within the Scriptures themselves and that our theological
tradition has led to a theological understanding of humankind that is overly
male-identified. These problems even become idolatrous as deeply rooted but
false beliefs” (emphasis added).

The statement comes perilously close to declaring much of Scripture to be
sinful, or at least to aiding and abetting the sins of idolatry and
patriarchalism. It doesn’t quite cross the line, as it identifies sinful
material as the product (and hobby-horse) of misogynistic males, intent on
preserving their privilege and thereby contaminating, obscuring, or defying
God’s intent.

Scriptural
Authority

This does considerable violence, though, to any notion of Scriptural
authority. Section 16 continues: “The Word of God is first and foremost Jesus
Christ, God incarnate. Secondarily, we encounter the Word as Law and Gospel in
preaching and teaching. The Canonical Scriptures are the written Word of God,
which proclaims God’s grace and sustains faith in Jesus Christ…. The Word of
God is living and active, and we take the written form of the Word of God as
the authoritative source and norm for faith. In its use as Law, it provides
guidance and reveals human brokenness. In its use as Gospel, it reveals God’s
love and promise.”

Jiggering
the Parameters

Once again, the statement tries to have it both ways. Yes, Scripture is
held “within the ELCA” as authoritative. But apparently the only way to discern
“authoritative Scripture” is to jigger the parameters. God’s Word speaks
through Scripture. Law is contrasted with Gospel love. “Guidance” softens
“God’s will.” Sin is recast as “brokenness.” In this diminished and muted
framework, the Gospel is reduced from “forgiveness of sin, and life from
death” to “God’s love and promise.” The upshot is that the social
statement jettisons anything that a feminist/intersectional arbiter might
declare to be offensive, misogynistic chaff from the “real” Word of God. This
is Marcionism for the Woke Generation.

Shockingly
Incurious

There is another problem with the philosophical and theological
underpinnings of this social statement. The drafters are shockingly incurious.
They show no interest in asking, “If patriarchy is universally evil, why did
God routinely work within it? God explicitly condemned many evil
practices. Why not this one?” They do not wonder if at times, patriarchy might
be “the best of a bad lot” of options for sinful and broken human beings to
live as a community of men, women, and children.

They insist the scandal of Jesus’ particularity as a male has no bearing
on his work. They do not ponder why Jesus routinely used “Father” language.
There is no engagement with any rationale for “male images” for God the Father,
except to warn of abuse and misuse by those who are so inbondage to the sins of
patriarchy and sexism that they clearly think of God the Father as literally
male: genitalia, patriarchal privilege, and all: “When Christians rely almost
exclusively on male images and language for God, the images and language become
literal understandings of God. This is poor theology because God always exceeds
human understanding. Taking male images of God literally can also lead to
idolatry, meaning we idolize or hold onto only the male ima-ges” (lines
966-973).

God
is Opposed to Idolatry

There is no discussion of how God’s self-revelation in Scripture
repudiates the blatantly sexual, copulating deities of surrounding cultures, or
of how the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” stands adamantly opposed to the idolatry,
fertility cults, and sacred prostitution that were rampant in the Middle East
and entirely too seductive to the people of Israel.

No one examines how relationships within the Trinity help us learn right
relationships with others, male or female. There is no discussion of the
nuptial imagery used for the relationship between God and Israel, or Christ and
the Church, except to tie it to oppression, sexism, and patriarchy. The
possibility that this divine/human intimate relationship could challenge,
purify, and be a model for marriage and family life is not on This Church’s
radar.

Victimhood
Instead of Justice?

There is no exploration of how Father language for God might transform
the sinful ways human fatherhood and masculinity are sometimes expressed. No
thought is spared for how matriarchies might foster other, equally harmful
pathologies, or how intersectional feminism might be a form of idolatry,
detrimental to women and men. No one seems to wonder whether intersectionality perpetuates victimhood instead of promoting justice.

Still
Idolatry

There is no interest in exploring why sexual sins in Scripture are
deemed real, even deadly sins. In the Bible, rape, incest, fornication,
adultery, homosexual activity, and prostitution are flatly condemned. They are
linked to idolatry. Why? Surely this is not simply another instance of male
hegemony!

In lines 570-575, we read, “We must continue the task of embracing our
unity and diversity so we welcome and uplift people of every sex and
gender—indeed, every body—in our work together as the Body of Christ in the
world. God’s love feeds the Body of Christ so that it might live in love.” No
one questions whether gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction should ever be
considered anything other than God’s intention and good gifts, to be celebrated
and incorporated into the Body of Christ without comment except “it’s all good.”
No one wrestles with the possibility that “God’s love” be more than sheer
affirmation and welcome, with no dying to self, repentance, forgiveness, or
transformation involved (except for the sins of male privilege and the failure
to rejoice in the marvelous diversity of sexes and genders in God’s wondrous
creation). I ask what, apparently, none of the drafters or leadership in the
ELCA has asked: what if This Church has gotten this all wrong?

“De-privileged”
Scripture

It may be a lack of curiosity. Or it may be the determined resolve to
brand such questions as dangerous manifestations of patriarchal privilege.
There’s certainly no attempt to wrestle with difficult passages of Scripture,
much less to consider whether any of them might reflect the will of God.
They’re merely “de-privileged.”

Egregious
Examples

Additionally, only egregious examples of sexism are cited as entirely
representative of most of the early church fathers. Church history, liturgy,
and ministry are seemingly unrelieved by non-misogynistic practices and
pronouncements. “The Christian Church as an institution, including the Lutheran
tradition, has been complicit in these sins” (lines 440-441). Even the
classically Lutheran notion of the “theology of the cross” is deemed
problematic because it might be perceived as abusive, demanding subservience
and suffering – especially by women.

Blanket
Condemnation

As far as I can tell, there is not one “positive” citation from the early
church fathers, the history of the Western church, the theological “Great
Tradition” that encompasses orthodox Christian thought, or much of Lutheranism
(except for the somewhat convoluted parsing of Law and Gospel, and of
justification by grace through faith, mentioned earlier). Even with qualifying
phrases (“continued misuse;” “can also lead to”), it’s not hard to read the
statement as a thoroughgoing condemnation of Scripture and Tradition from the
earliest stories of the Old Testament until the #metoo moment.

Contradictions

This leads to some genuinely contradictory statements. For example, in
lines 367-372, a perfectly fine observation is made: “The differentiation of
humankind into male and female, expressed in Genesis 2, communicates the joy
found in humans having true partners, true peers: “This at last is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23a). God creates community and family,
not a hierarchy…”

 Dishonesty

But then it goes awry: … “not a hierarchy based on race and ethnicity,
ability, social or economic status, or sex (what our bodies look like biologically)
or gender (how people express themselves)” (emphasis added). The document
rightly states that the very possibility of family is grounded in God-given
sexual differentiation between peers. But didn’t the writers remember that
they’d identified science as the proper arbiter of sexual and gender identity
and insisted that both are fluid human constructs? God’s Word, or science:
which is given precedence? And is it not simplistic and misleading – to the
point of intellectual and scientific dishonesty – to state that sex is defined
as “what our bodies look like” and gender as “how people express
themselves?”

Additionally, there are two sidebar graphics (see lines 727-747 and
1048-1060), illustrating how societal attitudes, religious beliefs, and laws,
policies and practices lead either to gender injustice or justice. It’s
presupposed that societal attitudes precede and shape religious beliefs.
Together, they shape unjust or just laws and polities which create communities
of injustice or justice for women and sexual minorities. Referring to lines
1048-1060, on forming a just society: “Working together, we can begin to
transform the circle of injustice…. Individuals and groups can challenge
harmful social attitudes and practices, reject sexist religious beliefs, and
work to change laws and policies that justify and reinforce patriarchy.”

The
Obvious Question

Nobody seems interested in what to me was an obvious question: If we
believe that God’s Word truly is “lively and active,” the “source and norm of
faith and life,” as this document states, then why is the revelation of
God’s word never considered the starting point for transformation of society? Why
is “religious belief” always secondary?How does all This Church’s
earnest language about Scripture as foundational allow the Word of God to COME
FIRST to challenge, forgive, and transform sinful human attitudes, and then to
change unjust laws and create a just community?

Let me conclude with this: If the Draft Social Statement on Women and
Justice is approved by the ELCA, then This Church neither understands, nor
stands under Scripture. And the tragedy is, it seems incurious and unconcerned
about what that means for the very real women and men it purports to care
about, and for.

Editor’s Note: This 4 page article by Pastor Cathy Ammlung originally appeared in Lutheran CORE’s January 2019 newsletter. It is a must-read for anyone trying to digest the 76 page statement that the ELCA will vote on at its Churchwide Assembly in Milwaukee in August 2019.

Click here to read the article.