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. 

“What’s all this ‘Father’ stuff about in the Lord’s Prayer?  Why should we call God ‘Father,’ anyway?” she intoned petulantly, fixing me with a stare that clearly thought no reasonable answer was possible.  It was my first year in ministry.  I had converted to Christ but a year before and now found myself teaching Luther’s Small Catechism as part of my youth minister duties at a largish program-style Lutheran church.  From my undergraduate background in the arts and my wife’s current graduate school studies, I was utterly familiar with the post-structuralism that informed her question, but despite the self-consciously progressive, university-dominated atmosphere of the town I served, I was still shocked to hear the sentiment from the mouth of a seventh grader.

I would not be shocked today… not anywhere in the United States, let alone a college town.  “How do we know God is ‘Father?’” challenged the former PASTOR of one of my parishioners in an adult Sunday School forum.  Such pugnacious personalities litter the Christian landscape of the modern West, pseudo-intellectuals who, because they came across the concept of apophatic theology in seminary, now feel they can use it to undermine Scriptural authority and thence refashion the Christian faith in a manner more congenial to their modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) presuppositions and biases. 

In my last article I made the case that a specific, seemingly innocuous use of inclusive language for human beings had unexpected but potentially devastating side effects in the realm of pastoral care and Christian self-understanding.  Tinkering with Christ’s chosen address of God may have similar side effects.  Progressives like Rosemary Radford Reuther and Sally McFague purport to give us reasons we need not address God as Father.  Conservatives like Dennis Prager give us reasons we must. Still, it may well be that the question “Why should we call God ‘Father?’” may be like Job addressing God on the question of suffering, to which God responds in a way that lets Job know that he has no possible idea of full import of what he is asking—that Job lacks the capacity for God to respond in a meaningful way to such a question.  “Stop clucking in such a self-important way. You cannot possibly understand what is at play here.  Consider yourself blessed to know Me at all,” might be an apt summary of God’s speech in Job 38-41.  To address God in any other way than that revealed by God may have ripples that redound to the harm or even damnation of others and should so be avoided.

Which is why I believe that the answer that I gave the young lady mentioned above in my theological naivete is still the correct one; we call God “Father” because we are disciples—followers—of Christ, not His instructors.  If we think of Jesus as someone who merely cracked open a door on God that we can now wedge open a little wider by our own enlightened efforts, we misunderstand Him utterly as “the Word become flesh” who “dwelt” (in the Greek, skenoō or “tabernacled”) among us, who in my favorite modern translation “is in the bosom of the Father” and hence alone has the capacity to “make Him known.”

As time went on, I discovered that this young woman had good reason for negative associations with the word “father;” her own dad was an addict who had been emotionally and often physically absent until two years before when he had cleaned up and was endeavoring to “make good” in his role in her life, an effort she perceived as “pushy” and presumptuous.  What a privilege it was to teach her—as I hope I have taught my own daughter—that she has a Father in heaven who we earthly fathers can only hope to palely imitate as providers, nurturers, and self-sacrificing protectors. (Ephesians 3:14)

Had I let her indubitably real pain colonize—exercise a controlling influence—over my theology, she could never have found what I would later hear theologian Marva Dawn refer to as “the true liberation of being a woman who can without reservation call God ‘Father.’”

Grappling with Scripture as the revealed Word of God and the Apostolic faith that has informed that encounter has preserved such liberation—true liberation—for us all.

THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE

The ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) 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.”  

As I wrote in my February 2024 Letter from the Director (LINK), the phrase “dismantle racism” is very significant. It reflects the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do. Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people). The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language. We must be anti-racist. We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else. As I also wrote in the February 2024 letter, the report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee during the Commission’s November 30-December 2 meeting took the concept even further. According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.” Those also are very significant words. According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.

Because of all that is involved with the concepts of dismantling racism and intersectionality, I was alarmed when I listened to a video on the Commission’s Facebook page from the two co-chairpersons, Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz. A link to that Facebook page can be found HERE.  In that video Pastor Christopher said, “The language of the memorial and the commitment from each of the members of the CRLC also named dismantling oppression and ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” 

Concerned enough about the full and actual meaning of “dismantling racism,” and then being even more concerned by her changing the language from “dismantling racism” to “dismantling oppression,” I wrote to her. Among my questions were the following –

·      What is the difference between dismantling racism and dismantling oppression?

·      Is the focus of the Commission going to be on “dismantling racism” (which I would interpret as more narrowly defined) or “dismantling oppression” (which I would interpret as more broadly defined)? 

·      If the focus is on “dismantling oppression,” how did that change come about and what will it mean? 

·      How will it be determined who is experiencing oppression? 

·      Will the working assumption be that if anyone feels oppressed, claims to be oppressed, and/or identifies as someone who is oppressed, that person is oppressed?

I then concluded by asking – since all the members of the ELCA with traditional views who speak up will probably be among the oppressed (even though they represent the majority of the people in the pews) – what will the Commission be doing to address that anticipated oppression?

I also responded to her saying that each of the members of the Commission is committed to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” As glaring examples of inequity within the ELCA I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and Reconciling Works’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while no organization with traditional views is in the same favored, privileged position.

Within less than two hours I received a response which I considered to be very dismissive and sloppy. In her email she backpedaled from dismantling oppression to dismantling racism. She also mentioned the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission, insisted that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified,” mentioned the “diversity of views” among the members of the Commission “regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church,” and stated the desire of the Commission not to “duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality.

In my response to her response, I did not bring up her mentioning the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission. But I would say that twenty-two months have passed since the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which directed the ELCA Church Council to form the Commission, while only fourteen months remain until the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, to whom the Commission is to “present its findings and recommendations . . . in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” Unless the Commission does far more in the next fourteen months than it has done in the past twenty-two months, I do not see it as having a report that will satisfy those who were instrumental in the passing of the resolution to form the Commission.    

However, I did respond – in order – to several other things she said in her email.

First, in regard to her backpedaling from “dismantling oppression” to “dismantling racism,” I reminded her of the significance of the “intersectionality” language from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee (which I discussed in the second paragraph of this letter). I told her that I interpreted her mentioning “dismantling oppression” in light of that statement from that committee.

Second, the major part of my email was in response to her stating that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified.” I shared with her how that statement reminded me of the comments made by the two members of the Commission who held a Listening Session for members of the Grand Canyon Synod, the Synod in which I am rostered. They said that the work of the Commission is focused on structure and governance and that there is no pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission.

I wrote to Pastor Christopher, “Personally I find that very hard to believe. Everything from the makeup of the Commission – whom the ELCA Church Council chose to serve on the Commission – to the reports of the work of the Commission points to a pre-determined outcome.”

In regards to the makeup of the Commission, I pointed out that 20% – 7 out of 35 – are DEIA officers and/or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence and that the three members of the Commission who serve as assistants to a synodical bishop all work in the area of social justice activism. 

I then gave her a link to the article I wrote for the September 2023 issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, where I discussed the makeup of the Commission – Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

Regarding the work of the Commission, I also gave her a link to my February 2024 Letter from the Director, where I did an analysis of their November 30-December 2 meeting. LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – FEBRUARY 2024 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

I continued by saying, “I do not see any way in which someone could claim that the Commission is merely concerned with governance and structure and its work does not have a pre-determined outcome. Rather the Commission was formed and is working hard to create a whole new church whose values and priorities will be based not upon Scripture, but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.”

Third, I responded to her saying that the Commission was formed so that it would have “a diversity of views regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church.” I wrote, “The members of the Commission may have a diversity of views on those issues. There is certainly nothing in the reports from the meetings of the Commission that would tell me one way or the other. But the reports of your meetings certainly suggest no diversity of views in regard to the values and priorities that should shape the new Lutheran church.” 

Fourth, in response to her saying that the Commission will “stay within our scope and not duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality, I said, “I certainly understand and would agree with that approach.” I explained that I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and ReconcilingWorks’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council but no organization with traditional views being in the same favored, privileged position not because I believe that these are matters that the Commission should concern itself with. Instead they are examples of how – even though each of the members of the Commission has made a commitment to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church” – it is abundantly clear that in regard to the various positions on human sexuality, equity does not exist in the ELCA. 

I concluded by saying, “Thank you again for hearing and considering my concerns. Blessings in Christ.” I signed the letter – 

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

So far I have not received a response.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“A SHORT COURSE ON PRAYER”

by CATHY AMMLUNG AND TIM HUBERT

Many thanks to NALC pastors Cathy Ammlung and Tim Hubert for giving us a review of Tim’s book, “A Short Course on Prayer.” A link to their video review and be found HERE. A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of around three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE. 

This review is unusual in that it is more of an interview. Tim and Cathy have been friends for over forty years, and he was her ordination sponsor almost thirty-five years ago. Cathy has used various iterations of his manual on prayer throughout her ministry.

In this video review/interview, Cathy briefly describes the layout of the book. But mostly, she and Tim talk about his inspiration for writing it. They discuss the stumbling blocks to prayer experienced by many people. They examine some of the sixteen “prayer forms” in the first half of the book. And they reflect on some of the weightier issues about prayer: the joys and warnings, the hostility of the devil, and the spiritual warfare we are thrust into. Front and center is the insistence that prayer is a conversation, not a monologue. God himself provides words, topics, and insights for that conversation, and his Word grounds and centers every prayer form, directly or indirectly.

The interview is informal and casual, reflecting their long friendship and years of conversation on prayer as well as many other topics.

Folks interested in Tim’s book, for themselves or as a manual for an adult study group, may contact Cathy at [email protected]. She will put you in touch with Tim!

Almost 30 years ago, I had my first introduction to the tactics of postmodern argumentation.  A professor at Texas Lutheran made the statement that he could not be racist because as a Latino, he had no power.  Racism was prejudice plus power.  I scratched my head.  I had been taught that racism was prejudice towards another person on the basis of skin color or a sense of moral superiority towards one’s own race.  Where did this other definition come from?

Since then, I discovered the origin of the professor’s definition, and I have also discovered that such shifting of definitions are a strategy to shift an argument to heavily favor one particular side by causing confusion, obfuscation, and, in the case of racism, an avenue where one does not need to examine one’s own prejudice towards those of a different color. 

There are times to call such obfuscation out and refuse to play the game.  There are times to say, “I simply refuse to engage your definition of that word because it is not the culturally agreed upon definition of that word.”  However, there are also times to do what apologists call “defeating an argument on the opponent’s terms.”

When you can show that an opponent’s definitions or stances will fail to accomplish what they set out to do, you can cut through the confusion and bring the argument around to your favor.

Such is the case with the definition of racism embraced by those of a more left-leaning bent.  Prejudice plus power is their definition of the word, so logically, if you get rid of either of those things, racism is dismantled.  Get rid of power or get rid of prejudice, and racism comes to a halt. 

So, here is the question to ask in regards to power: has there ever been a system of thought or practice that gets rid of power?  You really shouldn’t have to wait long for an answer.  The self-evident answer is no.  Even that professor from Texas Lutheran was a bit misguided when he said he had no power.  He handed out grades, after all.  One simply cannot get rid of power structures.  They emerge no matter what, and as power shifts and prejudice remains, you simply shift who is racist and never eradicate racism.

Therefore, you must look at the prejudice part of that equation.  How does one get rid of prejudice?  Can one pass any sort of legislation which will eradicate it?  Again, the answer is no as prejudice pertains to the state of a heart and mind.  In order to change prejudice, a heart and mind must be changed.  What is the most effective way to change a heart?

From a Christian standpoint, it is the power of the Gospel which brings to fruition the baptismal promise: “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

As far as I can tell, and please tell me otherwise if not, this particular approach completely dismantles those who would like to excuse racism by changing the definitions, and it brings the discussion to a place where Christianity offers the best answer to truly tackle the problem of racism.

In my office hangs my ordination certificate.  Across it is emblazoned the name of the ordaining body, the body whose confessional commitments I pledged to uphold on the day I knelt and made my vows.  An adult convert to the Christian faith who settled in Lutheranism as the place where I would live out my “mere Christianity” after reading a church library copy of the Augsburg Confession, in the spring of 2016 I had served that denomination in various roles for twenty years.

This spring marks the eighth year since I called my bishop and informed him that I would be serving in a new church body.  Even as an adult convert, I know how painful the process is of leaving a church body you have called home; to cause further fracture to the Body of Christ, to disappoint My Lord by ensuring that His prayer that all His disciples might be one as I will become yet one more piece of living evidence of how little the truth of the gospel seems to change the lives of those who believe it, to serve at least in part as another stumbling block for people who—as did I at one point—hold the Christian faith in contempt, was an exquisite pain… I can only imagine how hard it is for a cradle member of a communion to make a similar choice.

In his classic study of what causes massive shifts in a mindset, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn details how it takes a superabundance of contrary evidence to get people to rethink their fundamental commitments, coining the terms paradigm and paradigm shift.  A paradigm shift, when it occurs, is more than a reordering of the furniture in one’s mental office or even changing offices due to corporate restructuring; it amounts to moving out of the building, watching that edifice be razed, and having a new foundation poured upon which you must tentatively build a new place from which to conduct your business.

It is for this reason that I am uncertain whether my decision to leave the ELCA represents a true paradigm shift or not.  In the words of a Roman Catholic mentor whose specialty was ecumenical theology, with whom I shared the pain of my process, “You aren’t leaving your church; your church is leaving you.”  Though hopefully my thinking has become more refined and nuanced, my fundamental commitments in some ways have not changed since I first knew myself to be a Christian in 1995 and a conscientious son of the Lutheran reformation by early 1996.

Yet once such a choice is made—the choice to leave the home that has nurtured you during your most formative years—once the evidence piles up so high that you cannot ignore it, you begin to rethink many things.  Aspects of your identity you thought unassailable become things you question.  Commitments you thought unshakable bedrock you begin to recognize as issues of secondary and sometimes tertiary importance… sometimes you come to know them as even detrimental to keeping the most fundamental commitments of all.

Such for me has been the issue of inclusive language in ministry, whether for God or people.  The sine qua non of both my undergraduate and graduate education, I have come to question not just its utility, but its very ability to communicate the Word of God, which in turn means its very ability to foster human flourishing… especially for women.

By the time I was being formed in seminary, the use of inclusive language for human beings was a matter of basic politeness and the use of such language for God became mandated as a “justice issue” while I was away from campus on internship.  My early training conditioned me to be okay with the former; indeed I had chosen to pursue ordination in the ELCA over the LCMS because of a precommitment to women’s ordination, a commitment I still hold but should not have then, before I could possibly know the Biblical or theological issues at stake.

My conviction in Christianity as a revealed religion prevented me from embracing inclusive language for God.  Because of an encounter with a cult in my early twenties, I have a sensitivity to when I am only being told one side of an argument, so the aggressive insistence on the agenda second-cum-third wave feminism and the lack of critical presentation of any other perspective set off a voice in my head: “Danger, Will Robinson… Danger!”  The special prominence of this in my liturgics class, where we failed to learn the rudiments of using The Minister’s Desk Edition, made me begin researching the best arguments on the other side.

I was surprised to often find these arguments to be robust rather than reactionary.  An honest reader could disagree with these arguments, but not accuse the writer of bad faith or barely disguised animus against women.  Particularly compelling was an article by Jesuit Paul Mankowski (who often wrote under the pen name Diogenes) entitled Jesus, Son of Humankind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations, which I found in a now out-of-print journal.  (It is still available on the Touchstone magazine website for subscribers.[1])

There is one issue central to our salvation that inclusive language translations of the Bible obscure—even those translations that only use inclusive language for human beings, like the NRSV—that I have never seen referenced in any scholarly work, so I would like to address it briefly here.

“No one comes to the Father but by me,” says Jesus in one of our most beloved funeral readings (John 14:6), but how exactly does Jesus get us to the Father?  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” joyously declares St. Paul. (Galatians 3:27)  Elsewhere he adds, “For if we have been united with [Christ] in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:5)  We have been united with Jesus.

A robust Sacramental theology teaches us that as regards our eternal inheritance, this means that when the Father regards us, He sees Christ, with whom we have been united, and whom we have donned like a mantle.  In other words, He sees not Joe or Sally, merely created in the image of God however pious or penitent, but Jesus, His Son, God Himself, for Whom the entire realm of created reality and uncreated glory is the rightful inheritance.

What this means in contradiction to the polite niceties of post-Christian American cultural religion, each of us is, properly speaking, a child of God only when we share in the sonship of Jesus Christ through Baptism.  It is for this reason—not the misogynistic cultural baggage assumed by feminists of whatever wave—that St. Paul in his letters addresses both the male and female objects of his correspondence as “brothers.”  We are all brothers because we all through Holy Baptism share in the sonship of Jesus Christ.

Inclusive language translations that render St. Paul’s address as “brothers and sisters” obscure this important salvific truth, esteeming the demands of feminist-defined justice as greater than the actual Biblically depicted mechanism of salvation.  Further, it propagates its own fundamentally irreconcilable war between the sexes into the very “beloved community” that is to be the home of “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), fomenting disunity in the Body of Christ. Under such conditions, the uniqueness of Christ as the way to God is necessarily veiled and universalism will proliferate to the loss of the evangelistic impulse.

I count this as a very serious way that the very inclusive language that is purported to be a justice issue for women actually does worse than underserve them; it may fail to call them to Christ and so be positively opposed to their ultimate interests.

[1] https://touchstonemag.com/archives//article.php?id=14-08-033-f

Recently, the ELCA posted the results of a DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) Audit¹ which was authorized by the Churchwide Assembly.  The audit laid out its findings and made numerous recommendations for the church to implement practically and constitutionally.

It would seem as though a move towards DEIA would be uncontroversial.  If you take the traditional meaning of each of those words, arguably every congregation would seek to be: diverse as the Gospel is for all people; equitable as God is just and fair; inclusive as, again, the Gospel is for all people; and accessible as we are called to be hospitable and welcoming.  However, one of the great tricks of the postmodern world is to take common words and redefine them to mean something different.  DEIA in the current secular fashion is less about including everyone and more about pushing out those who are labeled oppressors—usually heterosexual, white men.  And while the audit does go to great pains to try and urge a DEIA policy which is rooted in biblical thought², I cannot help but see a Trojan horse which seeks to formalize secular DEIA within the church.

I believe this to be the case as I see these recommendations centering the church’s focus on DEIA and moving it completely away from its God-given mission to spread the gospel.  I hope to show this in four points.

#1. The approach is top down.  Don’t take my word for it.  I quote the DEIA report itself, “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”³  Right off the bat, we see that this implementation is not a grass roots movement which most lay people embrace and are calling for.  This is an imposition of thought and practice that begins at the top and is forced upon the whole church, including recommendations for punitive measures for those who do not comply.⁴  Such practice does not exactly have a good track record of success historically and actually ends up being divisive and counter-productive. 

#2. It shifts the primary focus of the church inward instead of outward.  Not that many churches have escaped the problem of naval gazing, but this movement reinforces the tendency to focus on “us.”  What do we look like?  Are we making sure we have proper representation across all groups within our church?  One might argue that this will force the church to look outward in order to check the appropriate boxes.  It is a legitimate argument, but its practical application has been an abject failure within the ELCA for decades already.  What makes us think it will change this time?

#3. It’s the wrong metric to measure congregation viability and engagement.  Here is a suggestion from the audit: “Those incentives might include granting congregations with stellar DEIA achievements greater voting power at the Assemblies, as a form of enhanced membership, or conditioning any grants or other financial assistance to congregations on compliance with the Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards.⁵”  Grant incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores, but not to congregations who are actively feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and visiting the prisoners?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores instead of congregations who are growing in number?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who are actively engaged in their communities and truly making an impact in those communities through their ministries?  This is a bit more worldly, but…granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who give big benevolence dollars to the synod?  Need I go on?

#4 And probably the most damning.  When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel, a very interesting scenario plays out.  As Samuel approaches the sons, he gazes upon their appearance and makes judgments.  Time and again, Samuel is met with this response or a similar one, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”  This is not simply a truism of the Old Testament.  It particularly is emphasized in the New Testament as the result of encountering the overwhelming grace and love of God.  The human heart changes from looking inward (classical definition of sin) to looking outward towards God and neighbor–in that order.  DEIA does not look upon the human heart, but upon outward characteristics.  It completely reverses the stance God takes throughout the Scriptures.  It must be rejected on this basis alone.  To continue down the path of implementation will resort to nothing less than a disaster.

1.  REPORT ON THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OF THE ELCA. Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll LLP.  Chief Author: N. NEVILLE REID.  November 2023. 

2. Ibid.  p. 4, 6-7.

3. Ibid. p. 3.

4. Ibid. p. 3.

5. Ibid. p. 8.

Many thanks to Kevin Haug for his very insightful article about the DEIA audit which the ELCA recently commissioned a law firm to do of its governing documents.  I hate to think of how many of your benevolence dollars the ELCA spent on this effort.  You will find Kevin’s article in this issue of CORE Voice.  It is a word of warning to all in the ELCA.  You do not need to take my word for it that these recommendations actually are being given as part of this audit.  You can check it out for yourself at DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf (elca.org)

I am an ELCA pastor who has been retired for nearly ten years.  When I read these recommendations, my first thought was, “I am glad to be retired.”  The immediate response of one ELCA pastor in his early 60’s when I shared these recommendations with him was, “How soon can I retire?”

I thought of the strong, negative response I am certain I would have received if and when I would have shared these recommendations with the congregation council of the church where I was the pastor.  I then thought, “We are already facing the challenge of trying to do everything that we are currently doing.  How am I now supposed to get everyone on board, enthusiastic about, and actively engaged in fulfilling these recommendations?”  And what will be the consequences for us in our synod if these recommendations become requirements and we do not meet them?  If congregations that are DEIA-compliant are rewarded with such things as having extra voting members at synod assemblies and greater access to grants and other financial resources, how will congregations that are not DEIA-compliant be punished?  For example, will they not be given any names of possible candidates for call if the congregation is looking for a pastor? 

Here is just a sampling of the audit’s Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations.  A question for all ELCA pastors and congregational leaders is this:  Is this what you want to spend a considerable amount of your time, energy, and resources on? 

1. Upgrade all personnel policies to reflect DEIA values.

2. Require annual DEIA training for all pastors, church staff, and lay leaders, using an Approved (approved by whom?) Provider.  At a minimum this training will cover the following topics:

a.  How does DEIA advance the values of the Kingdom of God?

b.  Is this particular congregation perceived as hostile or unresponsive to members of historically marginalized groups, and if so, how might this congregation reverse that perception?

The ELCA defines “historically marginalized groups” as groups that have for some significant period of history been excluded from participation or leadership in the church on the basis of certain characteristics.  They include racial and ethnic minorities, persons whose primary language is other than English, low income persons, persons with disabilities, gender non-conforming persons, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.  (I have asked ELCA leaders who are so concerned for “historically marginalized groups,” what about “currently marginalized groups”?  Which I would say includes older, white, cisgender, heterosexual males with traditional views.) 

This mandatory, annual DEIA training is also to consider such questions as these –

a.  What additional initiatives can this congregation pursue to promote DEIA values?

b.  What financial resources does our congregation commit to promoting DEIA values and programs, and should we commit more and if so can we do so on an annual basis?

c.  What is Christian White Nationalism, what causes people to adhere to it, and is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings?  How might members of historically marginalized groups be offended by Christian White Nationalism?

d.  What is Black Lives Matter, is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings, why are people drawn to it, what human needs does it address, and can the church do a better job at meeting those needs?

3.  In addition, each congregation is to identify at least one other congregation with opposite or at least very different demographic characteristics and commit to starting at least a one-year relationship with them.  This relationship is to include the following:

a. Periodic meetings between the pastors to discuss ways in which the congregations can get to know each other better and plan joint activities to strengthen mutual understanding on DEIA issues.  These activities may include joint DEIA training sessions with an Approved (again, approved by whom?) Provider and joint Bible Studies or Biblically based book studies on DEIA topics.

b.  Monthly meetings between the lay leaders to plan and administer activities, joint discussions, and ministries.

c.  At least six joint worship experiences, followed by a fellowship social hour.

At best these recommendations will be time and energy consuming.  At worst they will be one more way in which the ELCA is relentlessly being pushed to the extreme left – in the direction of critical race theory and DEIA ideology.

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. 

RUNAWAY TRAIN

A pastor colleague recently wrote to me regarding the ELCA – “The question remains as to whether this progressive freight train has any brakes at all.”  I replied, “Absolutely not. The ELCA has no brakes and feels no need for brakes.  The ELCA is bound and determined to go – at an ever-increasing speed – in the direction in which it is going – no matter what.

The ELCA reminds me of the 1976 film “Silver Streak.”  Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor star in this story of a murder on a train traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago.  After the engineer is killed and a toolbox is placed on the dead-man switch to keep the engine running, the Silver Streak becomes a runaway train.  The back part of the train is uncoupled in an effort to trigger the brakes, but the front part retains enough momentum due to the locomotive’s being at high throttle.  The film ends with the Silver Streak’s roaring into Chicago’s Central Station (is the city of location mere coincidence?), destroying everything in its path until the brakes finally take hold. 

With the appointing of a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC), combined with the recommendations of the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit which the ELCA spent who knows how much money on, the ELCA is like a runaway train.

An article by ELCA pastor Kevin Haug in the March issue of CORE Voice will tell more about the DEIA audit and what pastors, lay leaders, and congregations can expect.  Here I will present my review of the latest report from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.   I will be analyzing the Summary statement from the Commission’s November 30-December 2 in person meeting.  A copy of that Summary can be found HERE.

I would like to begin by thanking ELCA pastor Ryan Cordle for his article regarding Critical Race Theory and the Commission.  A link to his article, which appeared in the January issue of CORE Voice, can be found HERE.  What he wrote helped me tremendously in formulating and clarifying my thinking.

On January 16 the ELCA’s Grand Canyon Synod (the synod in which I am rostered) hosted a Listening Session where two members of the Commission gave a summary of their work followed by an opportunity for those attending to share concerns and ask questions.  During the session I made the comment that based upon the language of the resolution from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly which directed the Church Council to create the Commission and upon the fact that twenty percent of the members of the Commission – seven out of thirty-five – are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion leaders and/or officers at their place of employment and/or influence, I am convinced that the purpose and intent in creating the Commission is to re-structure the church according to the principles of critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.  I was told by one of the members of the Commission that there is no pre-determined outcome for the work of the Commission.

After reviewing the summary of the November 30-December 2 meeting of the Commission, which is available on the ELCA website, I then wrote to the two members of the Commission, stating that I did not see how they could make the claim that there is no pre-determined outcome.  I included the Bishop of my Synod among those who received my email.  After thanking them for providing the Listening Session, I wrote, “I would say that the resolution that led to the formation of the Commission as well as the summary of the meeting of the Commission are literally saturated with critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.”

I then wrote the following to support my point.

* * * * * * 

I will begin with the resolution.  This resolution includes the words, “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Those are very significant words.  They reflect the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do.  Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people).  The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language.  We must be anti-racist.  We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else.  The report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee on Day 1 takes this concept even further.  According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.”  Those also are very significant words.  According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.

The only specific instruction that has been given to the Commission is to “dismantle racism.”  Nothing else is of prime importance.  The new church is to be structured not first and foremost so as to position it to fulfill the Great Commission.  Rather it is to be structured first and foremost so as to position it to dismantle racism – as well as every other system of oppression that is interconnected with racism.  The summary of the three-day meeting shows how this top priority of dismantling racism is being pursued and implemented.

• On Day 1 Judith Roberts presented on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Status survey responses from all ELCA synods. I did not see any other area where responses were sought for and/or obtained from all synods. 
• On Day 1 the Commission “voted on and passed language that clarifies the mandate of the CRLC as being focused on governance.” At the Listening Session that I attended several people expressed deep concern for their congregation’s long-term viability.  You did say that the focus of the Commission is on governance.  I wonder how many members of ELCA congregations, once they hear and understand that, will feel that the ELCA is not concerned about the issues that are important to them.    
• On Day 1 the “Why and What” internal committee reviewed the completed DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) audit and discussed “how the recommended edits affect the current purpose statements.” Again, as with the DEI status survey responses from all synods, no other survey responses were solicited and received and no other audit was completed.  All of which shows what is important and what is not.
• I have already mentioned the great significance of the “intersectional lens of dismantling racism” language of the report from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee on Day 1. This same committee has also analyzed “how racism is embedded within the current structures of the ELCA.”  If systemic racism needs to be dismantled – along with all the other systems of oppression that are interconnected with systemic racism – and systemic racism exists throughout the ELCA, then we should not be surprised if in the end the Commission will recommend dismantling the entire ELCA.
• On Day 2 Judith Roberts was back to present the executive summary from the Task Force for Strategic Authentic Diversity. With all that is being said, I assume that the belief is that Strategic Authentic Diversity will never be achieved by the method that the ELCA has been using from the beginning – having and requiring quotas.  Rather Strategic Authentic Diversity will be achieved only by dismantling all interconnected systems of power imbalance and oppression. 
• On Day 2 three people presented on the ELCA Churchwide Office’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility audit. As I remember from the Listening Session, the ELCA is so proud of itself for being the first of its kind of organization to complete a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility audit.
• On Day 2 Vance Blackfox’s presentation on marginalized leadership movements and racial equity in the ELCA again shows the concerns, values, and priorities of the Commission.

So what are we to make of all of this?  I can see only one possible conclusion.  There is a pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission – and that is to create a whole new church that will be structured according to the principles of critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.  The Commission has been appointed to create a whole new church that will be positioned not to fulfill the Great Commission but to be in the forefront of a massive cultural movement to create a whole new society based upon (dare I say it?) Marxist ideology.

* * * * * *

I then ended by thanking them for hearing my concerns.  I sent this email on Friday, January 26.  I have received a very gracious response from my bishop.  As of February 4 – nine days after sending the email – I have heard nothing from the members of the Commission – not even the courtesy of an email like, “Thank you for attending the Listening Session and sharing your concerns.” 

* * * * * * *

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan, Media Director, Director of International Programs, and Staff Counsel for Trinity Lutheran Church and School in Joppa, Maryland (NALC) for his review of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland.  A link to Ken’s video review can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of nearly three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE. 

According to Ken, this volume is an almost 700-page collection of essays from the brightest minds in the field on the subject. However, for any Lutheran the first question we have to answer is whether Natural Theology has a place in the Lutheran tradition in light of Luther’s views on the limitations of human reason.

In this review, Christian apologist Ken Coughlan first gives a brief outline of the specifically Lutheran question to help you decide whether further exploration of the book is in line with your theological convictions. He then describes the book’s approach as a whole and gives a summary of the pros and cons for particular audiences. This work is not for everyone, but it can be a valuable resource for its intended audience.

For more material from Ken, please check out his website – kencoughlan.org

* * * * * *

May the Lord bless you as you begin your Lenten journey.

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director Lutheran Core

In the September and November editions of CORE Voice, Dennis Nelson analyzed the activist constituency of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). The fact that there are a number of activists on the Commission is not surprising, since the Churchwide Assembly’s directive to the ELCA Church Council was to create a commission to recommend restructuring the church being particularly attentive to the church’s commitment to “dismantling racism.” In other words, whatever recommendations the CRLC makes must take steps to dismantle racism within the denomination.

For many members of the ELCA, the question of racism in the church is confusing. In this instance, why is there a move to restructure the whole denomination around dismantling one particular sin?

To answer this question, it is important to understand the chief philosophical assumption of ELCA policymakers, namely, Critical Theory. In critical theory, the world is viewed chiefly through the lens of power and how some groups use their power to oppress other groups. There are oppressors and victims, especially in the sense that some groups are kept from having full access to the power that opposite groups enjoy. This oppression is racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, etc. This means that oppression like racism is much more than personal prejudice (which is how most of us would understand the term); rather, racism is systemic and institutionalized.

The assumptions at work in the ELCA’s effort to “dismantle racism” rely on a subset of Critical Theory usually called Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory has been popularized recently by books like How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and White Fragility by Robin Diangelo. In Mainline Christianity, Critical Race Theory has long been defended by ELCA Pastor, anti-racism advocate, and author Joseph Barndt. Barndt offers the distinction in his work that power can be used by Christians for good when it is shared without exclusivity.

The modern anti-racist movement based on Critical Race Theory makes a fundamental claim: You are either a racist or an antiracist. Within this framework, you are either supporting racism or you are working to dismantle racism. Because, in this view, racism is so enmeshed in American culture, one cannot simply be “not-racist.” There is no neutrality. If you are a White person, racism is your original sin. Furthermore, because racism is institutionally enmeshed, to be anti-racist is about supporting particular political policy changes that deconstruct supposed hierarchies of power within society.

Connected to this understanding of Critical Theory is the understanding of Intersectionality, which asserts that there are interlocking systems of oppression that affect more than one individual trait. Thus, oppression based on race is intricately tied together with oppression based on sexuality, gender, ability, etc. Under this framework, for example, opposing the full inclusion of practicing homosexuals on the roster of Word and Sacrament is descriptive of institutional racism. To be anti-racist is to support the full inclusion of any group that claims oppression.

Understanding this will help one understand many of the ELCA’s policy commitments. Working to end so-called Global Climate Change is an anti-racist policy, because it is argued that Global Climate Change disproportionately affects minorities. Likewise, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s statements such as those regarding Israel and Palestine or the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, which drew the ire of many moderate and conservative ELCA members, can be understood through the oppressor/oppressed framework of Critical Theory.

The question is, what will it mean to restructure a church around the tenet of dismantling racism? Barndt answers this question in his book Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness, providing six steps: Commitment to Institutionalizing, Full Power Sharing, Assured Cultural Inclusion, Mutual Accountability, Multiplying Inclusion, and Restored Community.^[1] The purpose of these steps, according to Barndt is, “The ultimate vision that drives the process of institutional change is a future in which both the church and the wider community overcome systemic racism.”^[2] Consequently, this means that the fundamental goal of a church restructured to be anti-racist is to be an institution that can partner with the world to overcome systemic racism. In other words, the anti-racist church will be on the leading front of the anti-racist policies that shape the world.

Understandably, when one hears the phrase “dismantle racism,” it is easy to hear it through what we all know: Racism is a sin. There is no question, and the church must always call racism what it is; however, when you hear ELCA policy makers using phrases like “anti-racism” and “dismantling racism,” please understand the goal is to structure a church around political activism. This ought to concern those in the ELCA who understand that Christ has given his church a different commission, a commission found in Matthew 28:16-20 and John 20:21-23.

^[1] Barndt, Joseph. Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness. 1517 Media, 2011, p. 188-189.

^[2] p.194