Most people would call me a “conservative” Lutheran, although I would prefer to be called orthodox or traditional. Nevertheless, I will accept the label. Therefore, as a conservative Lutheran, it is incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from the conservative Christians who hold views that I reject. So let me say clearly that I reject Christian Zionism.

What is Christian Zionism?  Normally, that term describes a fundamentalist dispensationalist theology that believes the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was the fulfilment of prophecy.  Furthermore it holds that all the land currently in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza belong to the State of Israel by divine right. As a result, it holds that Israel has the right to annex territory and establish settlements wherever it wishes.  It does not recognize the Palestinians as a people, nor their right to have a state of their own.  Finally, it sees conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as a necessary and unavoidable precursor to the End Times.  Anyone who does not support Israel militarily is therefore considered an enemy of God. (Not everything called Christian Zionism falls under this definition.  See Israel Matters and The New Christian Zionism by Gerald R. McDermott)

I reject Christian Zionism as described above because it is a form of Millennialism, which the Augsburg Confession rejects in Article XVII.  I also reject Christian Zionism because I reject the notion that a person’s rights should be based on their religion or ethnicity.  In other words, I am a “classical liberal”.   I support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, in which Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and people of other religions have equal political and human rights.

Having said that, I would like to ask why some Lutherans of the left refuse to distance themselves from groups that deny the right of Israel to exist, that teach violent Antisemitism, and that use Marxist dualism to justify violence and terrorism? A very concrete example of the refusal to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism occurred at the 2024 Synod Assembly of the Florida-Bahamas Synod, ELCA.  In a resolution entitled Resolution 24-02 Palestinian Advocacy and Dismantling Christian Zionism in Our Churches, the assembly lamented the destruction caused by Israeli attacks in Gaza, saying

Be it Resolved, The Florida Bahamas Synod in Assembly laments both the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, housing, schools and universities, hospitals, and places of worship–and the millions of people who are experiencing displacement, facing malnutrition, and starvation, as a result primarily of Israel’s continuing air strikes and blocking entry of humanitarian aid trucks…

Among other things, it also recommends that congregations learn about the  SUMUD initiative and spend at least three hours of adult education time in the next three months in learning more about the conflict, occupation and Christian Zionism.  Missing is any condemnation of HAMAS for the killing of 1200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023, or of any attribution of responsibility to HAMAS for starting the war that is now devastating Gaza. 

Consider an earlier part of the resolution:

Whereas, The ELCA Presiding Bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, on October 13, 2023 denounced the attacks and hostage-taking on October 7, 2023, by HAMAS and has denounced the subsequent disproportionate death toll among Palestinian civilians; as reported by the United Nations, more than thirty-four thousand civilians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 ; https://elca.org/News-and-Events/8207…

Please notice two things.  First, while the resolution mentions that Bishop Eaton denounced the attacks and hostage taking, it never joins her in that denunciation.  Secondly, while it mentions the number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, it never mentions the number killed by HAMAS on October 7.

Is this an oversight?  Did the resolution simply assume that everyone denounces HAMAS and its ideology?  Sadly, the answer is no.  An amendment was proposed that clarified things by adding the following words:

and emphatically denounce the following Palestinian groups that have been involved in politically motivated violence to include the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of organizations[sic], Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas,

However, the Florida-Bahamas Synod declined. Why? The only answer that I can see is a convergence
of historic Christian Antisemitism and Christian Marxism. The Antisemitism of the Christian left follows
the Marxist practice of dividing all of humanity into oppressor and oppressed. This Marxist dualism sees the oppressor as always evil and the oppressed as always innocent. Furthermore, the oppressed are never really responsible for their actions. Whatever they might do, even if it involves the kind of
atrocities perpetrated on October 7, it is never their fault. The oppressor drove them to it. As Bishop
Eaton said in her letter on October 13, 2023, to which the resolution refers,

We must also call a thing a thing. The power exerted against all Palestinian people — through the occupation, the expansion of settlements and the escalating violence — must be called out as a root cause of what we are witnessing. 

Bp. Eaton

According Bishop Eaton, the root cause of the violent Antisemitism of HAMAS, is Israel. The Florida-
Bahamas Synod Assembly concurs. The refusal to denounce HAMAS and other militant groups is
intentional. So, one would guess, is the refusal to address the Antisemitic rhetoric, intimidation, and
violence at anti-Israel rallies in the U.S.

As a “conservative” Lutheran I am glad to renounce Christian Zionism. Are there any “liberal” or
“progressive” Lutherans who are willing to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism?

There is an old adage that says, “You show your values through what and whom you feature.”  That certainly is true of the ELCA.

Again this past June, in observance of Pride Month, “Living Lutheran,” the ELCA’s digital magazine, featured interviews with a number of LGBTQ+ persons.  According to “Living Lutheran,” they are “excited to affirm and embrace everyone in the church, and to amplify the voices of our ELCA siblings in the LGBTQIA+ community.”  Typical of the ELCA, they do nothing to “affirm and embrace” those with traditional views.

“Living Lutheran” featured interviews with several people during the month.  The typical interviewee told of being intimidated and deeply harmed growing up by the way they were treated by the traditional church because of their sexual preferences and gender identity.  But they thank God that God watched over them and guided them until they finally found an open and welcoming ELCA congregation that affirmed them as they are and taught them that God loves them and made them exactly as they are.  One person even shared the dubious Biblical interpretation that “Jesus washed feet; therefore, he must accept all sexual preferences and gender identities.”

Most of the interviews I would describe as typical and to-be-expected.  But one of them I consider to be dangerous – the interview with Elle Dowd published on June 3.  Here is a link to that interview.  At the bottom of the interview you will find the words – “Read more about – Voices of Faith.”  If you click on “Voices of Faith,” you will find pictures and links for more articles.  The ones entitled “A conversation with” are part of the series for Pride Month.

The first thing I noticed about the interview with Elle Dowd is the totally posed and artificial picture of her arrest.  She begins by saying that she grew up in the ELCA and is now an ordained pastor, but she is currently on academic leave from call to finish up her Ph. D. in queer theology, researching bisexual theology.  In other places she describes herself as “bi-furious.”  Sounds like a wonderful person to be teaching your congregation’s future pastors.  In 2021 the ELCA’s publishing ministry, Broadleaf Books, published her book entitled, “Baptized in Tear Gas: From White Moderate to Abolitionist.”  (Link)  She describes it as “my own conversion story through my experiences during the Ferguson Uprising.”  In the promotional material for the book Elle Dowd describes herself as an “Assata Shakur-reading, courthouse-occupying abolitionist with an arrest record, hungry for the revolution.”  That description naturally raises the question, Who is Assata Shakur?  Be prepared for the worst.  Assata Shakur is a convicted murderer and one of the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists.”  Assata was a member of the Black Liberation Army.  In 1977, she was convicted in the first-degree murder of a state trooper during a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973.  She escaped from prison in 1979 and is currently wanted by the FBI.  There is a $1 million FBI reward for information leading to her capture, and an additional $1 million reward offered by the Attorney General of New Jersey.  Such is the hero and role model of someone whom the ELCA lifts up and features.

At the end of the interview, in answer to the question, “What do you pray for?” Elle Dowd answers, “I pray for our collective liberation, for the dismantling of white supremacy, for an end to cis-hetero patriarchy, for the fall of capitalism and empire, for #landback, for abolition, for reparations. . . .”

A few years ago the interim bishop of the ELCA synod in which I was rostered before I retired, Southwest California, scheduled Elle Dowd to be the featured presenter for a spring, multi-conference assembly.  I wrote to the bishop, expressing the same concerns I mentioned in this article.  Typical of my experience when I try to communicate with ELCA leaders, I never received a response, not even the courtesy of a form letter acknowledging receipt of my letter. 

What does the ELCA value?  Look at whom it lifts up and features. 

I am very grateful for the recent invitation to have a zoom conversation with the director and associate director of the ELCA’s Reconsiderations process.  This is the task force that has been appointed by the ELCA Church Council to review the 2009 human sexuality social statement and reconsider the provision for “bound conscience.”  I am glad that I was able to share very openly and that they listened respectfully. 

I appreciate the fact that they had read quite a number of articles on our website.  One of their initial questions was what hopes I had for the process.  I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  My understanding is that the concept of bound conscience was first used to justify and defend revisionist views, but over time it came to be used in an effort to calm down and reassure those with traditional views in an attempt to minimize the number of pastors and congregations that would leave.  However, there have been many loud and prominent voices that have been intent all along on eliminating bound conscience.  They sensed at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that the time had come.  They had enough votes to begin the process that would eventually lead to the elimination of bound conscience.  And they were right. 

They then asked me what concerns I had for the process.  I told them that what is at stake is the question of whether the ELCA can be trusted.  If the ELCA cannot be trusted to keep its promise here – to continue to honor bound conscience – then it cannot be trusted to keep any promise anywhere.  I also said that we all should know that no matter what is stated, included, decided, and approved in a reconsidered social statement now, the ELCA is not going to stay there.

I then went through a history of specific times and ways in which ELCA leaders have ignored communication from traditional voices, not remained within the boundaries of what was actually voted on and approved in 2009, and favored revisionist views, such as in the makeup of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and ReconcilingWorks’ being given a non-voting position on the ELCA Church Council.

They asked me to communicate to our constituency (and I said I would) the fact that the vote on the social statement will actually occur in two phases.  The first vote, which they call Reconsideration # 1, will take place in 2025.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “editorial” – “small, clarifying word changes only” – brought about by the fact that “civil law governing same-sex marriages, public acceptance of such marriages, and diversity of family configurations have changed dramatically since 2009.”

The second vote, which they call Reconsideration # 2, will take place in 2028.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “substantive,” namely “examining the coexistence in the 2009 statement of four different but valid convictions that Lutherans can faithfully hold about same-gender relationships.” 

They are still saying that the resolution at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly set in motion a process – “a reconsideration of these ideas but does not determine the outcome.”  But we all know that the empowered and preferred voices will work relentlessly until they have achieved their goal of eliminating bound conscience.  We will keep you posted. 

We all remember with horror the ways in which traditional views on such matters as human sexuality were rejected and belittled at the 2018 ELCA Youth Gathering.  Here is a link to an article in the Summer 2018 issue of CORE Voice newsletter about that event, including the way in which ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber led 32,000 young people in a chant rejecting Biblically faithful views as a lie from Satan. I think it is very interesting that as of the time of my writing this article, the website for this summer’s ELCA youth gathering – taking place in July in New Orleans – does not yet include the names of the keynote speakers.  However, in the information for churches that will be sending their youth, there are more than enough reasons for congregations that take the Bible and the historic Christian faith seriously to stay far away.

Here is a link to the information that has been prepared to help youth and youth leaders get ready for the gathering. The theme for the event is “Created to Be.”  The preparatory materials are divided into five sections with two sessions each.  We have been Created to Be Brave, Authentic, Free, and Disruptive Disciples.  Each of the ten sessions starts out with a land acknowledgment, stating who were the original inhabitants of the land on which the gathering will be held, and from whom the land was stolen.  Not only is the ELCA conditioning its young people to think and feel negatively about the country in which they live, they are also displaying their blatant and pompous hypocrisy.  The ELCA is totally ignoring ways in which synods are abusing power and misusing a constitutional provision to take over the property of congregations.  Also I am not aware of any situation where a synod has returned the proceeds from the sale of the property of a closed congregation to the original inhabitants of the land.  Rather synods use this income to fund their radical-left agenda as their congregations, number of congregations, and the income from congregations continue to diminish.

The preparatory materials are filled with examples of ways in which the ELCA is indoctrinating its young people.  For example, the “Go Deeper” section of Session 2 of Unit 5 (Disciples) makes the statement, “Many of our young people have experienced Christians who do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt our neighbors.”  The youth are then asked, “What negative words come to mind when you think of Christians or disciples?  What harm have you seen people do in Jesus’ name?”  In contrast, in the “Go Deeper” section of Session 1 of Unit 5 the young people are asked, “Is your church a Reconciling in Christ congregation?  If so, how long did your church take to make that commitment and adopt a welcome statement?  If not, what would it mean for you if your congregation became a Reconciling in Christ congregation?”  Any pastor who does not want the congregation to become Reconciling in Christ – and/or does not want the issue to be raised within the congregation – needs to be forewarned.  Also, the implication is that people with traditional views do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt people, while congregations that are Reconciling in Christ are accepting, loving, and wonderful. 

And how does the ELCA indoctrinate the people who work with its young people?  Information regarding the general session speakers for the ELCA’s Youth Ministry Network Extravaganza being held this month also in New Orleans is available.  Here is a link to the website for this gathering for leaders in youth ministry.

Looking at the bios for the general session speakers, you will see that the overwhelming emphasis is on LGBTQ+ ideology as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Here is information regarding three of the five general session speakers.  If you want your ministry to and with your young people to be anything other than that, you need to look elsewhere.  

• Jamie Bruesehoff is listed as an “award-winning LGBTQ+” advocate.  Jamie and her at-the-time pre-adolescent transgender child spoke at the 2018 youth gathering.  She describes her experiences raising a transgender child as “rooted in her queer identity.”  She is the author of Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.
• The Rev. Carla Christopher (she/they) is co-chair of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and chaplain for Proclaim, which her bio describes as “an ELCA ministry that supports LGBTQIA2S+ seminarians and rostered leaders.”  She serves as Assistant to the Bishop for Justice Ministries in two ELCA synods and is a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Consultant for multiple synods and faith-based organizations.
• Deacon Ross Murray is director of the Naming Project.  The website for that organization describes their goal as to “provide a safe and sacred space where youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities are named and claimed by a loving God.”  They also work to “advocate for systemic change in church and society.” 

If that is what you want your congregation’s youth ministry to be all about, more power to you.  If that is not what you want, stay far away from both gatherings and from any potential youth worker who attends or who would promote either or both gatherings. 

In the September 2023 issue of CORE Voice I gave an analysis of the expected outcome from the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  After reading the biographical paragraphs for the thirty-five members, I described the certain end result of their work.  Here is a link to my analysis, which I entitled “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.” 

Based on who was chosen by the Church Council to be a part of the Commission, I listed four things that are certain to characterize the Renewed Lutheran Church – social justice activism as the main mission and purpose for the church, an ever-diminishing role for men, LGBTQ+ activism, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as the primary value system for the church.  At the end of that article I said that I would keep you informed as the Commission continues to do its work. 

The Commission met electronically September 21-22.  A link to a description of their meeting can be found here. The work of the Commission is as predicted.  After all, “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.”

The first thing to note in that report is a phrase in the resolution passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly which directed the Church Council to establish the Commission.  The phrase is “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Those words are the only place where the resolution gets specific in defining what is to be the central mission and top priority of the Renewed Lutheran Church – dismantling racism.

Now certainly racism is wrong.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  God does not love just one race or ethnic group of people.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28: 19, Jesus said that we are to make disciples of all nations, not that we are to dismantle racism.  In His final words to His disciples before ascending into heaven, Jesus told His followers that they are to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1: 8).  Jesus does not say that we are to make our number one priority dismantling racism.

The second item of interest to note is who are the three people who were invited to join the meeting as staff resource persons to inform the Commission concerning specific issues.   

• Judith Roberts, ELCA Program Director for Racial Justice, who told about the efforts of the task force on “Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.”
• Pastor Nicolette Peñaranda, Program Director of African Descent Ministries, who described the barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face in the ELCA.
• Vance Blackfox, ELCA Director for Indigenous Ministries and Tribal Relations, who spoke of the ongoing efforts to heal the broken relationship between the Indigenous community and the ELCA.

A couple years ago I sent an email to the recently appointed assistant to the bishop for authentic diversity for the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  I wrote, “As an older, white, cisgender male, I am a part of a marginalized group.   In the spirit of authentic diversity, what kind of ministry will you be offering people like me?”  As expected, I never received a response.

I find it interesting that the Commission is concerned about barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face.  They show no concern at all for the barriers that seminarians, pastors, and congregations with traditional views face.  

And I find it interesting that the ELCA is concerned to “heal the broken relationship” between itself and the Indigenous community.  But it has absolutely no concern or interest to heal the broken relationship between itself and pastors, congregations, and lay people with traditional views, even though we also are people who have experienced broken promises, congregational leaders being removed, and church properties being taken over under the guise of S13.24 in the model constitution for synods.

In the spirit of “Once you know the makeup, you know the outcome,” we will continue to keep you informed.

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? –Mark 4:30

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness* with our spirit that we are children of God. –Romans 8:15-16

The first time I read the phrase “kin-dom of God,” I rolled my eyes. It looked to be another attempt to make Christian terminology politically correct—something I have a personal aversion to. So, when I was asked to write a piece on this particular phrase and its usage, particularly amongst progressive Christian circles, I thought I now had an opportunity to academically hammer the phrase.

However, after research, I have become a little more sympathetic to the term. Although, as the title indicates, there is no “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God. Explanation is in order.

The Origins of Kin-dom

Multiple sources trace the origin of “kin-dom” to Georgene Wilson, a Franciscan nun, who spoke it to her friend, mujerista theologian, Ada María Isasi-Díaz.¹ Isasi-Díaz then incorporated it into her theological framework and wrote about it in her work “Kin-dom of God: A Mujerista Proposal.”² Unfortunately, I was unable to find this primary work online, so I am dependent upon a lengthy article by Bridgett Green, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Austin Presbyterian Seminary for insight into Isasi-Díaz’s thoughts.³

For Isasi-Diaz, “kindom” better reflects Jesus’s familial understandings of the community of disciples. Jesus envisioned an extended family with God as father. He announces that all who hear the word of God and do it are his family (Luke 8:21; cf. Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50). Further, Jesus links discipleship to membership in the family of God, saying that any who have left their blood relatives for the sake of the good news will receive back hundredfold in relationships and resources now and in the coming age (Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30, and Matthew 19:29). Jesus creates and grounds his community of disciples in the principles of kinship—and kinship with God comes not through blood relations but through participation in the duties and responsibilities proclaimed in the Torah and by the Prophets. “Kindom” evokes these values in horizontal relationships among all God’s beloved children, calling disciple communities to live into familial ideals of inclusion, mutual support, and sharing of resources.⁴

---

Professor Bridgett Green

I am quite sympathetic to this understanding of how disciples of Jesus interact with each other. St. Paul is emphatic that when we trust in Christ, we are adopted sons and daughters of God. Paul incorporates familial language throughout his letters, in the same vein Isasi-Díaz highlights. If highlighting this aspect of Christian thought was all that was going on, I don’t think there would be much of an issue with using the terminology of “kin-dom” as it would simply be an emphasis of the language of family used throughout the New Testament. However, there are proponents of this terminology who want to get rid of kingdom language totally and replace it with kin-dom. I find this problematic.

Why Erase Kingdom?

According to proponents of “kin-dom,” the language of kingdom presents multiple problems. It has been used by the church to make itself an earthly kingdom with earthly power and might.⁵ It tends towards exclusivity and can foster competition between kingdoms sometimes leading to violence.⁶ It is patriarchal in nature.⁷ And it “includes the specter of humiliation, subordination, punishment, exile, colonialization, sickness, poverty, as well as social, political, economic, and spiritual death.”⁸

In their view, “kin-dom” represents a much better understanding of what Jesus taught about God’s overall rule and what Jesus’ parables lead us toward.

Let’s work through a few of these things and offer some critique. First, I think we must separate the intent of Jesus’ teachings on God’s Kingdom (and the vision of how it works when God rules) from how sinful human beings have appropriated it. Many of the critiques of kingdom language resonate with the experience of human history, and one needs only pick up a history book to see the truth of what is being said. However, does human failing nullify biblical intent and understanding? Hardly.

Several years ago, I attended a mandatory boundary training in my synod. We were cautioned and steered away from using familial language to describe the church. The reason? Because families are places where abuse takes place; where neglect happens; where harm and pain are caused. It was not until a day or two afterwards that it hit me: not a single good thing was shared about what happens in families. No one spoke about parents who lovingly raise and sacrifice for their kids. No one said a word about how spouses care for each other and build one another up. No one spoke about the emotional support and foundations that are laid to help us cope with things that happen in life. No one said a thing about how the vast majority of parents feed, clothe, shelter, and spend hours upon hours of time with their children raising them to be productive citizens of society. All of the focus was on the bad, and not a single thing was said about the good. Do we abandon the metaphor because there are times of failure? Absolutely not!! Especially when the biblical witness emphasizes the metaphor so much.

I believe the same application is warranted here. Yes, there are, but the vision set forth in the Gospels, epistles, the book of Revelation, and even in the Old Testament lead us to use kingdom language. Why? To emphasize the goodness of God’s rule, and to show that there is a future hope which is a corrective to the failings of humankind.

Second, the kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, and I do not think this is something we as Christians should feel shame about. Paul is explicit in his writings that a person is either “in Christ” or “in Adam.” There is a strong line of demarcation, and the only way to go from one side to the other is through the cross. Essentially, a person either trusts in Christ’s work for salvation (in Christ), or they trust in themselves (in Adam). Either one trusts in grace for one’s righteousness, or one trusts in one’s works. There is no middle ground.

When you trust in Christ and His works, you shift your allegiance. No longer do you live for self: for self-indulgence; for self-affirmation; for self-preservation. Instead, you live for Christ. You live for God. No longer do you lay claim to the throne, but the rightful, righteous ruler is now seated upon the throne of your heart. You now serve a new master. (Romans 6) This is at the heart of the Christian creed, “Jesus is Lord.” You are announcing that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. You no longer rule over your life. Jesus does. And when He is king of your life, you enter into the Kingdom of God.

If you do not trust in Christ’s work, then you are not in the Kingdom of God. You are consumed by other hungers. You are on the outside looking in. In this fashion, the Kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, but, this does not lead to violence and conflict. It is self-righteousness which leads to such things, and a person who knows God’s grace is not self-righteous. They know they have no righteousness of their own. They know their sin. They know their dependence upon God and Christ’s grace. They also know they are commissioned to make disciples of all nations. They know the great command to love their neighbors as themselves. They do not seek to impose the faith or the Kingdom by imposition, but rather by invitation. The doorway to the Kingdom of God is always open, and the desire is to welcome all. Even though it is exclusive, it seeks the inclusion of all. This is not something to be ashamed of in the least.

A final word about patriarchy. Please know that I am using the following definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. The Kingdom of God is a patriarchy since God is our Father. As such, this is a rather neutral understanding.

However, there is another definition of patriarchy which oftentimes gets applied. “A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” The Kingdom of God was never meant to be such a thing. One would garner that self-evidently from Jesus’ own teachings on the Kingdom as well as St. Paul’s baptismal theology. However, living this ideal out on earth has proven to be quite difficult, and the Church has fallen very short of the ideal.

But again, the question must be asked: do we abandon the language because the ideal has not been met? No. There is no justification for that. You cannot change reality just by changing language.

Embracing Kingdom

And the reality of the Christian faith is this: you cannot have the “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God.

As I hinted at previously, our Christian faith begins with God’s great grace poured out through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This grace captures and changes our hearts so that our allegiance shifts from ourselves and the desires of the flesh to allegiance to God and the desires of the Spirit. This is a vertical relationship, and it is primary. It must take place first. For through it, we actually fulfill the first and greatest commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Everything starts with this vertical relationship.

Then, it moves to the horizontal. Then, it moves into our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Then, it moves to the second great command to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is where “kin-dom” language can come into play, but again, we must be careful.

Our neighbors may not share the same allegiance that we do. Our neighbors may not have Jesus as their King. They may still be “in Adam.” They still may belong to the kingdom of the world.

I was struck by a paragraph in Professor Green’s article:

This is the expansive sense of family to which Bishop Oscar Romero appealed when he exhorted the soldiers in El Salvador in 1980 before his assassination. He reminded them of Jesus’s vision of kinship, reminded them that we are all children of God, that we are connected through an honor code that values all, that provides security and a foundation for each person to be able to extend themselves into the community without losing their identity and sense of self.⁹

---

Bishop Romero appealed to the idea of “kin-dom” with the soldiers of El Salvador, but they still assassinated him. Why? Because they were serving a different master. They were serving a different king. They were not serving the King of kings and Lord of lords. Their hearts had not experienced the grace of God which would lead them away from committing such a heinous crime. The vertical relationship must always come first, and the Church’s primary job in the world is the proclamation of the Gospel which makes disciples of all nations–which calls our neighbors to have the same allegiance as we do.

To erase kingdom and replace with “kin-dom” means to place the second commandment above the first. It seeks to establish the kingdom without the King. That is not an option within the Christian faith, and it ultimately leads to failure. You simply cannot have the “kin-dom” without the Kingdom.

---

1. Florer-Bixler, Melissa. “The Kin-dom of Christ.” Sojourners. Nov. 20, 2018. https://sojo.net/articles/kin-dom-christ,

Green, Bridget. “On Kingdom and Kindom: The Promise and the Peril.” Issuu. Fall 2021. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

Butler Bass, Diana. “The Kin-dom of God.” Red Letter Christians. Dec.15, 2021 https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

2.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid.

5.Butler Bass. https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

6.PCUSA. “Bible study at GA223 will Explore ‘kin-dom’ versus ‘kingdom.’” Feb.12, 2018

https://www.pcusa.org/news/2018/2/12/bible-study-ga223-will-explore-kin-dom-versus-king/?fbclid=IwAR2fVkwtu41Zps66Wvxa_QdQfqVUiMrPeb96vhyHxKSNYAwPCFDQLv4dJuc

7.Montgomery, Herb. “A Kingless Kingdom.” Renewed Heart Ministries: eSights and Articles. May 31, 2019. https://renewedheartministries.com/Esights/05-31-2019/

8.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

9.Ibid.

---

Director’s Note: Spencer Wentland is uniquely qualified to write this article analyzing the ELCA’s concept of global mission as accompaniment rather than evangelism – as responding to requests for help from indigenous churches rather than being concerned to share the message of Jesus with unreached peoples.  Spencer is a member of our young adult group, which meets via zoom about once a month for fellowship and support.  He is passionate about reaching people who do not know Jesus.  He has much international experience, including studying and serving in a discipleship community in Denmark.  He has served as an ELCA lay missionary in Japan and has written on the theology of global mission of different Christian groups. 

The ELCA defines accompaniment as “…walking together in a solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality[*]” (Global Mission, emphasis in original). Although often portrayed as a biblical theology coming out of the disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, it is strongly influenced by and rooted in liberation theology[†]. My immediate concern with it, as a heuristic to the what and where of mission, is that it is antithetical to the Pauline priority on unreached places.

The Apostle Paul emphasized not building on another’s foundation but to establish the Church where it does not exist. Combined with Jesus’ teaching that the Gospel must be preached in all nations (Gk. ethnos, often understood as ethno-linguistic people groups by many missiologists) and then the end will come, there has been a strong emphasis on sending missionaries to work amongst unreached and unengaged people groups[‡].

While working as an ELCA missionary, I heard about experienced mission personnel being sent home while the Japanese Evangelical Lutheran Church was told how they were going to become less dependent on the ELCA. In the name of being post-colonial, it was an ironically patronizing execution of implementing an accompaniment model.

Accompaniment is actually very good in shaping how we do mission. We should not ignore the presence and work of indigenous Lutherans. If consistent with the values of accompaniment, it’s a good way to think about working together in the larger context of God’s mission. It reminds us that the task of mission must be informed by the catholicity of the Church as well as its apostolic nature. It also informs us to do mission in the pattern and practice of Christ himself who is Immanuel.

The problems with accompaniment are when it determines what the content of mission is and where it is done. When applied to the what of mission, it frames the whole task into a ministry of presence. This collapses into the problem that when everything is mission, nothing is mission. The primary task of establishing the Church in unreached places, making disciples and evangelical mission is diminished into almost oblivion by tasks being determined by the partner denomination. True accompaniment would involve both churches determining the content of mission work in the light of both Scripture and context. Working together is key, not completely abrogating task criteria to the partner church.

The ELCA’s requirement that pre-existing Lutheran churches request the ELCA to send missionaries (an effort in being post-colonial) assures that no missionaries will ever be sent to unengaged people groups. The Japanese are the second largest unreached people group, so there is an odd and good anomaly that work is going on there. During my missionary orientation, I asked if someone had a vision like Paul of a man from Macedonia, saying come here, would that qualify a call (Acts 16)? Is the Holy Spirit leading with the Word, or are we reducing the idea of being spirit-led to a democratized principle of the external call coming through partner churches?

In conclusion, accompaniment is a mixed bag. It’s great for the how of mission, and it is a true gift. However, it needs to be understood in the larger context of the ELCA’s constitution and statement of faith, including its responsibility to work for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. To do this, the primary tasks need to be strategic partnership for the purposes of mission development/evangelical mission and a willingness to send people to places where no Christians, let alone Lutherans, exist.

Photograph courtesy of Spencer Wentland; it is of a protestant church in Okinawa.

---

[*] “Global Mission.” Elca.Org. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Accessed November 5, 2023. https://www.elca.org/Our-Work/Global-Mission.

[†] ORDÓÑEZ, CLAUDIA. “Public Health Needs Liberation Theology.” Aquinas Emory Thinks. Aquinas Center at Candler School of Theology, February 15, 2021. https://aquinasemorythinks.com/public-health-needs-liberation-theology/.

[‡] Unreached: relative to the population living near a gospel witness. Imagine an American city of about 250,000 people and if there is only about three or four churches of twenty people and no youth groups. Unengaged: has any effort been made by Christians to bring the Gospel and make disciples among this particular people group?

If there ever will be a time when that old adage will be proven true, it will be with the ELCA’s thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.

This commission was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  The assembly directed the Church Council “to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”  

Later communication from the ELCA Church Council stated that the commission should be made up of at least 25% people of color or whose primary language was other than English and 20% youth and young adults.  Keeping in mind that the membership of the typical ELCA congregation is older and white, this means that the commission will not represent the ELCA as it is but the ELCA as those who are leading and driving the process want the ELCA to be. 

The thirty-five members of the commission have been chosen and have met once (in mid-July).  Their biographical paragraphs can be found on the ELCA website under www.elca.org/future. 

As I read the bios there is no doubt in my mind that the commission is made up of people of great experience and expertise.  I have no question about their ability.  My concern is with their passions and priorities.  Reading their bios and remembering that these are the people who have been chosen to reshape the ELCA, one realizes that in a very short time the ELCA is going to be radically different from the church body that was formed in 1988. 

This is a very capable group.  It includes –

• Two synodical bishops
• One seminary president
• Three ELCA college and seminary professors

Members of the commission have held such positions as –

• President of the ELCA Latino Ministries Association
• Assistant general secretary for international affairs and human rights for Lutheran World Federation
• Top leaders of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
• Chair of the Lutheran Campus Ministry Network
• A person who has been chair, vice chair, and secretary of the board of trustees for Portico Benefit Services
• Executive Director of South Carolina Lutheran Retreat Centers 
• Member of the board of trustees and treasurer for Lutheran Outdoor Ministries
• President and chief executive officer of Mosaic (a social ministry agency which serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and other diverse needs)   

Thirteen of these people have held positions within their synods or have served on the ELCA Church Council. 

I was glad when I read comments from two of them.

• One said that “he hopes the perspectives he brings from his law practice and his work on synod and churchwide constitution committees will help him spot obstacles and identify solutions in our governing documents.”   
• Another one (one of the co-chairs) described himself as having “a penchant for good governance and organizational structure.”

But beyond that, reading the bios I became more and more deeply concerned.  I see this group as creating a new church body whose primary focus will be not on fulfilling the Great Commission but on social justice, LGBTQ+ and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activism, and where men will continue to play a diminishing role. 

For all of the talk about the equal participation of women in the church, the ELCA Church Council and this commission are obviously not concerned about the equal participation of men in the church.  The commission is made up of twenty-one women and only fourteen men.  Women outnumber men by 50%.  And there are nearly three times as many women of color on the commission as men of color.  Of the eleven people of color (eleven out of thirty-five or nearly one-third of the commission), eight are women and only three are men.

Three of the members of the commission are assistants to synodical bishops.  But in each case their focus is on social justice issues and anti-racism, not on any of the other functions and ministries of a congregation.  As an example, one of the members is assistant to a bishop for communications and development, but in his bio paragraph he celebrates the fact that he “has successfully centered social justice and advocacy in all aspects of communication and community engagement.”

Seven out of thirty-five (20% of the commission) hold positions of leadership within LGBTQ+ activist organizations and/or mention that they are in a same-sex married relationship.  Please note:  This is not saying that only 20% of them are in favor of LGBTQ+ issues.  Rather it is saying that 20% of them see their being an LGBTQ+ activist as among their most prominent qualifications for being on the commission.  These people include –

• A Proclaim chaplain with Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries 
• Someone who has consulted with numerous synods supporting LGBTQIA+ cultural competency
• An ordained deacon at a Reconciled in Christ congregation
• The convenor of a synodical Reconciled in Christ ministry 
• The director for Pride in her company’s LGBTQIA+ Business Resource Group 
• Someone who has served as director of community relations for a non-profit corporation that serves the support and advocacy needs of transgender service members
• A board member and former co-chair of ReconcilingWorks 
• Someone who since the age of six has “stubbornly refused to conform to society’s expectations” and whose self-description is a “genderqueer lesbian” who “seeks to bridge binaries and transgress borders”

Equally alarming is the fact that seven out of thirty-five (again 20% of the commission) hold positions of diversity, equity, and inclusion activism in their place of employment and/or leadership.  Again this is not saying that only 20% of them make decisions and take actions based upon the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Rather it is saying that a full 20% of them see their holding positions of diversity, equity, and inclusion activism in their places of employment and/or leadership as among their most prominent qualifications for being on the commission.  These people include –

• A senior diversity, equity, and inclusion consultant in local government
• The chief diversity officer for a religious health organization who has received two certificates in diversity, equity, and inclusion
• A former diversity/cultural competency consultant in the non-profit sector 
• The convenor for a synodical resolution on authentic diversity and inclusion 
• Someone with over thirty years’ experience facilitating and training for intercultural equity leadership and organizational change 
• Someone who conducted discussions about race and diversity at the 2015 and 2018 ELCA youth gatherings 
• A person who is vice president of diversity and inclusion at one college after being director of diversity and inclusion at another college  

This final person shows the great extent of her passion for and experience in diversity, equity, and inclusion as she writes that she has “facilitated several workshops on privilege and identity, creating inclusive learning environments, and the basics of diversity and inclusion.”  In addition she has “served as a keynote speaker on topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and has “completed a year-long fellowship with the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.”

Following the principle that “once you know the makeup, you know the outcome,” it should be painfully obvious and clear what this group is going to come up with for the shape and mission of a fully reconstituted Lutheran church.  We will keep you posted.

Note from our Executive Director: Many thanks to Kevin Haug, ELCA pastor in Texas, for his article about the Sparkle creed.  This so-called “creed” has received a lot of attention and stimulated a lot of discussion since its recent use during a worship service in an ELCA congregation in Minnesota.  We should all be alarmed over the way in which this statement rejects Biblical teaching and orthodox theology in its promoting the LGBTQ agenda and transgender ideology.  We are saddened but not surprised as we read of many ELCA pastors who are praising it as a way to connect the Christian faith with life today.  We are also saddened but not surprised by the total silence of ELCA leaders about it. 

“Pastor, what are we going to do about this?”

Those words were spoken by one of my octogenarians after she heard two news stories about the “Sparkle creed,” a statement that received national attention because of its use at an ELCA Lutheran Church in Minnesota.  The congregation recited it at worship, posted the video online, and it went viral.

The “Sparkle creed” has actually been around for a year or two, but it was not until conservative news sites and blogs discovered it that it caused a bit of an uproar, and that uproar is not without merit.  However, care needs to be taken when addressing this issue. I will attempt to show why.

First, let me define creed as a statement of belief.

In a very real way, everyone has a creed of some sort.  Individuals have creeds. Organizations have creeds. Individual congregations have creeds.  In fact, many biblical scholars say that the first creed was quite simple: Jesus is Lord. Those three words actually led to the death of Christians who would not say the Roman creed: Caesar is Lord.  

Because everyone has a creed, one could argue that having a creed is actually a neutral concept.  People believe all sorts of things. That they believe them is undisputed and neutral, but what they believe can be problematic and either good or bad. For instance, if I believe that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights, then that is a creedal statement.  And I would happily argue that it is a good creedal statement for various reasons.  Someone could hold a different position: that human beings are not endowed with rights from a Creator, but that governments decide what rights a person should or should not have. I would argue that this isn’t a very good position to take, but that doesn’t prevent some nations and people from holding it.  

To change positions literally requires a conversion process as many, if not most, creedal beliefs are actually statements of faith not statements of science.  For instance, science is practiced by using the scientific method: state a hypothesis; test and measure to see if the hypothesis holds water; formulate a theory; test the theory repeatedly.  Is the scientific method a true way of getting knowledge? Well, you have to assume that it is.  You have to trust that it is.  You cannot test the scientific method by using the scientific method.  Philosophers call this circular reasoning. Trusting that the scientific method is an accurate way of obtaining knowledge is a creedal belief. It is a deep, foundational belief, but it is a belief none-the-less, and one does not change those sorts of beliefs easily.

Which brings us to the Creeds of the Church, and I am intentionally capitalizing the letter C on both of those words. There is a reason for this as I shall get into shortly.

Within the Christian Church, there are three, recognized, orthodox Creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and what you need to realize about these statements of faith is this: these Creeds were recognized by the whole Church as true affirmations of the Christian faith.  They were based in Scripture. They were developed over time or argued over or carefully thought through. They were not put together in a pastor’s office to make a particular group or segment of society feel welcomed or accepted.

In general, they were written to stomp out heresy. They were written to unify a divided Church. They were written to solidify and codify what the Church believed about God the Father, Christ the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  And as such, they are not to be trifled with.

Imagine for a minute if you will, gathering with a group of Christians circa 250 A.D. You are in hiding because Christianity is still not a recognized religion of the Roman Empire. It is the Easter Vigil, the time that it has become traditional for converts to be baptized into the faith. As the baptismal liturgy begins, the presider looks into the eyes of the converts. He begins addressing them and asks them three questions: Do you believe in God the Father? Do you believe in God the Son? Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit? And the converts begin reciting what they have been taught about who God is; who Jesus is; and who the Holy Spirit is. These statements have come together over decades of persecution and trial. Speaking them would immediately set these converts apart from the dominant culture and could lead to arrest and persecution.  Such is the nature of the Apostles’ Creed.

Or consider a church divided by various sects all claiming to represent the one true faith. Yet, those beliefs are contradictory at times. Some are not grounded in scripture. Some are off the charts. What does it mean to be a Christian? What are the foundational beliefs? Is this world truly, totally evil? Does only the spiritual count? Was Jesus indeed fully human and fully divine or a really good human being only adopted by God and infused with the divine Spirit?  What do you Christians truly believe? And bishops from far and wide gather to hammer such things out.  They consult deeply with the scriptures; argue their points vehemently and passionately; and put together a statement of faith which declares: this is it.  These are the non-negotiables. It is accepted by the church council and has stood the test of time for centuries. Such is the nature of the Nicene Creed.

The “Sparkle creed” shares none of this history. It was written for entirely different reasons and has not even come close to being vetted by the whole Christian Church on earth.  In fact, the majority of the Christian Church on earth would outright reject it. 

Therefore, it follows, that it has no standing to replace the Creeds in worship.

I mean: if someone wants to say that they adhere to the “Sparkle creed,” then they can personally say that they believe exactly what is in that statement. If a congregation wants to go so far as to use this creed in worship, then they are free to do so, but I strongly believe it should be introduced as a statement of that individual congregation, not of the Christian Church–it is not “the faith of the Church, the faith in which we baptize.” 

For to use it in such a manner is to actually separate one’s self and congregation from the global Church.  It is to become myopic and rather self-centered. Arguably, it is creating one’s own personal faith and religion—dare I say one’s own god.

And yes, I am quite aware that I belong to a denomination whose founder separated himself and then many congregations from the larger Church body of the time. The irony is not lost on me; however, Luther didn’t mess with the Creeds.  He affirmed them and what they stood for repeatedly. He didn’t tinker with the Creeds or try to change them for he never wanted to split with the Church of Rome.  These statements of belief were not up for negotiation or reformation. They were good “as is.”

They still are. They are meant to hold us together despite our disagreements on secondary issues. Trying to put “sparkle” in them only causes more division.

Leave the Creeds alone.

In my letter from the director for December 2022 I wrote about several concerns that arose in my mind as I read a November 16 news release from the ELCA about the November 10-13 meeting of the ELCA Church Council.  A link to that letter can be found here.  In that letter I said that I would be writing to Imran Siddiqui, vice president of the ELCA, who also serves as chair of the church council.  I would be asking him how it was decided that a representative from ReconcilingWorks would become an advisory member of the church council and whether any consideration would or had been given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as an advisory member of the church council.  Here is the letter which I sent him the morning of December 13.  Please note that I also expressed my concern that the ELCA would be committing a massive breach of trust if in the revised human sexuality social statement traditional views on same sex relationships were no longer seen as valid and legitimate and having a place of respect within the ELCA.  

Dear Mr. Siddiqui –

Congratulations on your election and thank you for your ministry of leadership within the ELCA. I believe that Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was absolutely correct – as was described in the November 16 ELCA news release – when she drew attention to the “substantial work charged to the (ELCA Church Council) by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly” and when she said that the work done by the Council now will “have a significant effect on this church.”

I am writing because of my deep concern over two of the bullet points under the section entitled “In other actions” in the November 16 news release regarding the recent meeting of the Church Council.

Under the second bullet point it says that the Church Council has “scheduled for 2024 the initiation of a task force for reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

I know that this process, as directed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, will include a reconsideration of the whole concept of bound conscience.  I realize that those who all along have been driving for the elimination of bound conscience were correct in determining that the time had come when they would have more than enough support to pass this kind of a motion, but still, if this action is taken and the provision for bound conscience is eliminated, it will be nothing less than a massive breach of trust on the part of the ELCA against those within its community who hold traditional views.  It will call into question whether the ELCA can be trusted on anything if it cannot be trusted to keep this promise to honor traditional views and those who hold them.  This is a promise the ELCA made in order to gather enough support to get the social statement approved.  Eliminating bound conscience will call into question the ELCA’s claim to have the moral integrity and authority to criticize other organizational entities for not keeping their promises – such as the way the ELCA criticizes the U. S. government for not keeping its promises to Indigenous persons – if the ELCA does not keep its promises. 

And then under the sixth bullet point it says that the Council “adopted a continuing resolution establishing council advisory members to include . . . a representative of Reconciling Works.”

As I understand it, until and unless it is revised and/or replaced, the 2009 Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust social statement still represents the ELCA’s official position and policy on same sex relationships.  This document describes four positions, which people within the ELCA hold “with conviction and integrity” (p. 20).  It states, “This church, on the basis of ‘the bound conscience,’ will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world” (p. 19).

At this time traditional views on same sex relationships are still recognized as legitimate and valid and having a place within the ELCA.  Therefore, why is there not also consideration being given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as one of the advisory members of the Church Council?

If the Church Council were to say that there are just too few people remaining within the ELCA who hold traditional views to have an advisory member with traditional views, then I would see the Council as doing two things.  First, it is totally discounting a significant percentage of the actual membership of ELCA congregations.  Second, it is ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing those whom it sees as too small and/or too weak and insignificant a minority, and it is doing so even as the ELCA is constantly and sharply criticizing those whom it accuses of ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing vulnerable, oppressed minorities.   

I also wonder how it was decided that the Church Council would have advisory members, what will be the role and limitations of the role of advisory members, and how it was decided that a representative of Reconciling Works would be one of the advisory members. 

I deeply appreciated the response you gave in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when someone claimed that you had said that Robert’s Rules are oppressive and racist.  Because of your response in that situation, I have great hope that you will be a voice for fairness, reason, good sense, and balance.

I look forward to your response.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Retired ELCA Pastor – rostered in the Grand Canyon Synod

That evening I received his response.

Pastor Nelson,

Thank you for your email and expressing your views and concerns. Please allow me to respond to each of your two concerns in order. Regarding the reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. The vote of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly was overwhelmingly in support of reconsideration of the social statement. The Church Council is the interim legislative body of the Church between Churchwide Assemblies and is mandated to carry out the wishes of the Churchwide Assembly. The task force would be charged with bringing recommendations on the basis of the approved assembly actions to a future Churchwide Assembly. At that time, that Churchwide Assembly may approve or reject those recommendations. At the November 2022 meeting, the Church Council received the proposal for an editorial reconsideration to be considered first for the human sexuality social statement and then the task force would consider the bound conscience question.

Regarding Church Council Advisory Members, the advisory members were intended to give voice to those who have been historically marginalized within the Church. This allows those groups to have voice, but not vote, in Church Council decisions. This is especially necessary in actions that affect those who have been historically marginalized in our Church. For that reason representatives from ELCA Ethnic Specific Associations and a representative from Reconciling Works were named as Advisory Members to Church Council. 

Thank you again for sharing your concerns,

Imran Siddiqui

Vice President

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  

* * * * * * * *    

I can think of four things to say in response to his response.

First, I did receive a response, and in a very timely way – within just few hours.

Second, the ELCA feels totally empowered to do what it is doing. 

Third, the ELCA sees itself as having no reason to do anything other than what it is doing and no reason to consider any other views.

Fourth, the ELCA is only concerned for those whom it describes as “historically marginalized.”  It has absolutely no concern for those who are currently being marginalized.  And that total lack of concern is in spite of all that the “currently marginalized” have done in the life of the ELCA and its predecessor church bodies.