WE ARE ALL VULNERABLE

There have been many occasions when someone who is a member of a congregation that is still in the ELCA has shared with me, “I have told my pastor about my concerns, but the pastor tells me that all those things happening in the ELCA will not affect us.”  I tell them that it is only a matter of time until your beloved orthodox or more moderate pastor will retire or resign and take another call.  And even if you are among the congregations that are fortunate enough to be able to find another orthodox pastor, what about the next time you will be looking for a pastor?  There are only a limited number of orthodox pastors remaining in the ELCA – and we thank God for every single one of them – and that number will only continue to decline.  Plus we know of situations where a synod used a change of pastors as an opportune time to move in and bring the congregation in line with ELCA beliefs, values, and priorities.  Every orthodox congregation still in the ELCA is potentially only one pastor change away from disaster.

And now we have in the ELCA’s Metropolitan Chicago Synod a striking example of the alarming fact that every orthodox congregation still in the ELCA is potentially only one synodical bishop election away from being swooped in on, becoming the victim of a hostile takeover, and being shut down.  Such was the case with the former (now closed by synodical action) St. Timothy Lutheran Church in the Hermosa neighborhood of northwest Chicago.

VIBRANT MINISTRY

For several years St. Timothy was the location for our annual, fall, Spanish language and bi-lingual ministries Encuentro.  These Encuentros had been Lutheran CORE’s best way of reaching out to and providing a valuable resource for the ELCA.  It was hosted by an ELCA congregation, a majority of those attending were ELCA, and a majority of the presenters were ELCA.  Over the years presenters have included ELCA pastors, theologians, and even a national ELCA staff person.  While drawing primarily ELCA congregations and presenters, the Encuentros were an inter Lutheran offering to congregations and church leaders.  We were delighted a few years ago when newly elected Bishop Yehiel Curry of the Metro Chicago Synod attended a portion of one of our Encuentros.  We warmly welcomed him and we were highly encouraged when he said that he saw himself as bishop for the entire synod.  We never expected what would eventually happen.

The Awes brothers – Joel, David, and Tom – are sons of the former pastor, Robert Awes, who served the congregation from 1981 until the time of his death in 2015.  His widow and three sons continued to live in the parsonage after he died.  His wife died in 2017.  One of his sons, Joel, was serving as president of the congregation.  He and his brothers were maintaining the property and leading the congregation.  Once the site of a vibrant English-speaking ministry, the congregation pre-COVID was making significant progress in reaching out to the Latino community.  COVID brought all that to a halt, but during the last several months the congregation had been able to resume their outreach to the neighborhood.  Among their ministries is the Uncle Charlie program, a monthly social and devotional gathering for adults with special needs, most of whom live in urban group homes on Chicago’s north and west sides. 

After the death of their father, the Awes brothers contacted the Metro Chicago Synod about their need for pastoral leadership.  The only person the synod could provide did not speak Spanish.  The Awes brothers knew that that would not work because they wanted to reach out to their primarily bi-lingual and Spanish speaking neighborhood, so they contacted a bi-lingual ELCA pastor whom they knew from other associations.  Pastor Keith Forni is now retired, but at the time he was pastor of First/Santa Cruz Lutheran Church in Joliet, Illinois.  He began providing bi-lingual pulpit supply at St. Timothy with the awareness and implicit encouragement of the former bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod.  He drove ninety miles round trip on most Sundays to lead an afternoon worship service at St. Timothy after leading bi-lingual and English-speaking services in Joliet in the morning.  Former Bishop Wayne Miller would often ask regarding a ministry site, “Is there green in the stem?”  There definitely was green in the St. Timothy stem.  The leaders of St. Timothy were open to being coached in bilingual neighborhood ministry.  They found in Pastor Forni the needed skill set, given his forty-plus years of experience in such contexts. 

In addition to frequently preaching and presiding at bilingual services of Holy Communion, Pastor Forni –

• Expanded the Uncle Charlie devotional experiences.
• Curated and gathered needed resources for bilingual Lutheran worship, outreach and Christian education.
• Initiated sidewalk outreach to the dozens of parents and students going to and from nearby Nixon Elementary School.
• Led the development of the Thursday Together / “Jueves Juntos” Family Bible Study themed events.
• Provided pastoral leadership for the community at a prayer vigil following the murder of a two-year-old boy by a gang member’s stray bullet a few blocks from the church.
• Arranged for a VBS & Service team visit by an Ohio ELCA mission partner congregation.
• Built up cooperative relationships with area organizations including the Walt Disney birthplace, where some after school events could take place.

St. Timothy became the host site for the annual Spanish language ministry Encuentros which Pastor Forni coordinated.  Lutheran CORE began sponsoring the Encuentros after Pastor Forni became a member of the board of Lutheran CORE.   

THREATS, BULLYING, AND INTIMIDATION

But all that changed in January 2023 when Bishop Curry invited Pastor Forni to his office “regarding St. Timothy.”  When he arrived Pastor Forni was presented with an as yet unseen agenda critical of his service as supply pastor.  Bishop Stacie Fidlar of the ELCA’s Northern Illinois Synod (the synod in which Pastor Forni was rostered) also appeared at the meeting, having made no contact with Pastor Forni prior to that moment.  Pastor Forni felt totally ambushed.  There was absolutely no expression of appreciation for his thirty-six years of faithful ministry in the ELCA plus six prior years in the LCA – all years in Hispanic Latino bilingual contexts.  Rather he was threatened with discipline and possible removal from the ELCA roster if he were to stay any longer than two more weeks with the congregation where he, along with other available bilingual clergy and lay worship leaders, had been providing pulpit supply over a course of seven years.    

Pastor Forni quickly concluded his ministry, as he had been ordered to do.  On his final Sunday there were a couple representatives from the Metro Chicago Synod present who offered a few perfunctory words of thanks for his ministry as supply pastor.  But they spoke in English only in the presence of the predominately Spanish speaking assembly. 

Bishop Curry did not need to be nasty.  He could have thanked Pastor Forni for his years of faithful service and then told him that the synod council had decided to move that ministry in another direction.  If the bishop had taken that approach, Pastor Forni certainly would have been totally cooperative.  But Bishop Curry does not function that way.  He operates by threats, bullying, and intimidation.  Equally disappointing was the fact that Bishop Stacie Fidlar of the Northern Illinois Synod was not willing to tell Bishop Curry to back off and not threaten someone rostered in her synod.  No resistance was given to a bishop who operates by threats, bullying, and intimidation. 

After the absolute fiasco that occurred in the Sierra Pacific Synod, when former bishop Meghan Rohrer removed Pastor Nelson Rabell-Gonzalez as mission developer of a Latino ministry on Our Lady of Guadalupe Day, an action which caused major uproar throughout the ELCA, it was absolutely astounding to me that another synodical bishop would commit such a grievous act of abuse of power.

COMMUNICATION WITH ELCA LEADERS

I read with great interest an ELCA news release dated March 10, 2023 about the February 28-March 4 meeting of the Conference of Bishops.  In that publication it said that the bishops “received a report from the task force addressing the disciplinary concerns of leaders of color.”  It also said that “the task force is expected to make recommendations regarding the current process for discipline, consider a process for community healing and grief, and make recommendations for an office to receive complaints of harassment and discrimination.”  I wrote to the two people who made the presentation, Judith Roberts, senior director for ELCA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and co-convenor of the task force, and Bishop Paul Erickson of the ELCA’s Greater Milwaukee Synod and a member of the task force.  Here in part is what I wrote:  

“The events that transpired in the Sierra Pacific Synod over a year ago certainly sounded the alarm as it brought to our attention the fact that there are times and situations where leaders of color are not treated fairly.

“I am also very aware of another situation in another synod where the synodical bishop, who is a person of color, has been bullying, intimidating, and threatening to discipline a rostered leader who is not a person of color and who is rostered in another synod.  This same synodical bishop is also bullying congregational leaders who are not persons of color.

“As you and your task force do your work, I would hope you would remember and make provision for the fact that –

I never heard from Bishop Erickson.  The next day I heard from Ms. Roberts, who wrote –

“Thank you for sharing your concerns, and we will certainly take them into account.  The Churchwide Organization takes misconduct complaints against synod bishops seriously; if you believe that a synod bishop has engaged in misconduct, please direct that concern to the Presiding Bishop.”

I deeply appreciate the fact that she would write back, and in such a timely way, but after the inexcusably long time that Bishop Eaton took before she responded to the disaster in the Sierra Pacific Synod – and even then, I am certain she responded only because she absolutely was forced to – it did not all blow over and go away as she had hoped – I wondered what chance did I have of ever being heard – let alone responded to – about the situation at St. Timothy.

But to get back to the story at St. Timothy.

ABUSE OF POWER

The next two Sundays the people of St. Timothy were deeply disturbed that the person who had been bringing them God’s Word and providing pastoral leadership and care had been so abruptly removed – and without consulting them.  Several of them wrote to Bishop Curry, advocating for Pastor Forni.  When they were told that the synod would be bringing in a couple Spanish speaking Latina pastors they asked for more time to grieve and process their emotions before the synod would replace Pastor Forni.  They were assured by an assistant to the bishop that they would be given more time.  But it did not turn out that way.  The following Sunday Bishop Curry and around a dozen people from the synod came in, took over the service from the elected leadership of the congregation, and held a congregational meeting afterwards.  At that meeting Bishop Curry said that he had visited a couple times during the meetings of the Uncle Charlie program (which simply is not true) and, in order to discredit and undermine the Awes brothers, he suggested that there may be charges brought against the Awes brothers from former members, but he would not say from whom or what those charges might be about.  Again, threats, bullying, and intimidation – this time combined with not telling the truth.  Certainly not the behavior that one would expect and hope for from a bishop.

Over the next several weeks the engaging and personable Latina pastors endeared themselves to the Spanish-speaking and bi-lingual congregation.  Then they went around the Awes brothers to recruit some of the people to serve on an advisory council for the congregation.

NO RESPECT, REGARD, OR APPRECIATION

The next step came on May 4, when the Awes brothers received a “Demand for Possession and Notice of Termination – 30 Day Notice” from an attorney representing the synod.  They were informed that their tenancy of the parsonage would be terminated on June 30, 2023.  Again, absolutely no concern for them, no expression of appreciation for what they had been doing for many years to maintain the property and keep the congregation and its ministries going.  Just an abrupt eviction notice.  We were wondering about challenging the legality of that notice, in light of tenants’ rights in the city of Chicago and the fact that the letter stated that the synod was “the owner of the manse and church” and it gave the wrong address for the parsonage.  But the following day, on Sunday, May 5, the congregation was given a letter from Bishop Curry.  That letter told of a decision that had been made by the Synod Council to “exercise the power of S13.24 of the synod constitution to ‘take charge and control of the property of a congregation of this synod to hold, manage, and convey the same on behalf of this synod’” if “the Synod Council determines that the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers that it cannot provide required governance or that it has become impractical for the congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized” and if “the Synod Council determines that it is necessary for this synod to protect and preserve the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration.”

Therefore, the letter continued, “St. Timothy Lutheran Church is now closed” and will be replaced by a “new Synodically Authorized Worshipping Community, San Timoteo.”  (It is interesting that the name San Timoteo had been used interchangeably with St. Timothy in neighborhood outreach for six-plus years.)  The letter said that the congregation had the right to appeal this decision to the next Synod Assembly.  But with the way in which the Awes brothers had been undermined and circumvented, what chance would they have?

Joel Awes, former president of the congregation and son of the man who had been pastor for thirty-four years, was telling me what it felt like on that Sunday.  There was absolutely no recognition and expression of appreciation for the thirty-four-year ministry of his father.  There was no celebration of the work of that congregation over the previous one hundred nineteen years.  There was no sense that anything of value had been done by anyone since the congregation was founded in 1904.  There was just a blunt statement from the bishop, “St. Timothy Lutheran Church is now closed.” 

Any ministry that does not line up with ELCA beliefs, values, and priorities should realize that it may be only a matter of time – perhaps only one bishop election away – before the synod will come in with a wrecking ball, knock them over, and shut them down – all while showing absolutely no respect, consideration, or valuing of anything done by the people of previous decades.

Just think about it.  Let this sink in.

A synod that claims to be on the side of the oppressed has become the oppressor.

A synod that claims to be concerned for the homeless has thrown three brothers out on the street.

And what is scary is that we are all vulnerable.

QUESTIONS

If I had the chance to talk with Bishop Curry, there are several questions I would like to ask him – 

1. You said at a meeting with the congregation of St. Timothy on February 19 that it is against ELCA policy for a pastor to be able to serve as interim pastor, transition pastor, or do pulpit supply outside their own synod.  Where is that policy in writing?
2. If that is ELCA policy, why would Bishop Miller (former bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod) have allowed Pastor Forni to be transition pastor at St. Timothy? What about other situations where ELCA pastors have been interims and/or provided pulpit supply outside the synod where they are rostered? 
3. Since Bishop Miller allowed Pastor Forni to be transition pastor at St. Timothy, why did you threaten to bring charges against Pastor Forni for merely doing what he had been allowed to do?
4. What ELCA policy or provision empowers you to threaten to bring disciplinary charges against a pastor who is rostered in another synod – especially when the bishop of that synod says that she has no charges to bring against Pastor Forni?
5. Since you see what Pastor Forni and the Awes brothers had been doing as so grievous, out of line, and inappropriate, why did you wait so long to take action and why are you taking action now? If Pastor Forni’s serving as pulpit supply had been acceptable to you for several years after you were elected bishop, how did it become unacceptable?
6. On Saturday, February 18 the congregation was told by your assistant, Pastor Kathy Nolte, that she would honor their request for time to process their shock and grief over the abrupt removal of Pastor Forni before scheduling any meeting with the synod regarding interim pastoral leadership.  And yet the next day you and around a dozen other people from the synod showed up and took over the proceedings of the congregation.  Why the change, and why were they not told ahead of time? How is the congregation now to trust and have confidence in any communication from the synod?
7. On Sunday, February 19 you said that you had attended two Encuentros, including the entirety of one of them, and a couple sessions of the congregation’s Uncle Charlie program.  That simply is not true. You did attend a portion of one of our Encuentros, and you were warmly welcomed, but the director of the Uncle Charlie program does not remember a time when you attended one of their sessions.  When you attended a portion of one of the Encuentros, you said that you were bishop of the entire synod.  We were very grateful for and greatly encouraged by your comment.
8. On Sunday, February 19 you said that there are a couple former members of the congregation who may bring charges against the Awes brothers, but you could not say who those former members are and what those charges might be.  Making a statement like that is manipulative, bullying, unfair, and inappropriate for a leader in Christ’s Church. 
9. Paragraph C9.06 of the ELCA’s Model Constitution for Congregations states that an interim pastor is appointed by the bishop of the synod with the consent of the congregation or the congregation council. You did not have the consent of either the congregation or the council to appoint an interim pastor. You removed the congregation’s pulpit supply pastor without even consulting with the congregation and/or its leadership. Paragraph 9.31 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide says that congregations have authority in all matters not assigned by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws to synods and the churchwide organization. By your words and actions you have completely dismissed, discounted, disregarded, and ignored the integrity of a congregation. 
10. Through this whole process you have shown absolutely no regard or respect for and you have expressed absolutely no appreciation to Pastor Forni for his ministry at St. Timothy, and to the Awes brothers for their maintaining the property and ministry of the congregation. Is that typical of how you fulfill your role as Bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod?
11. On the day that a letter from you announced that St. Timothy is now closed, you showed and expressed absolutely no appreciation, respect, or regard for anything that anyone at St. Timothy had done during its life as a congregation.  You expressed no appreciation for the ministry of Robert Awes, who served the congregation faithfully for thirty-four years.  Does that complete disregard, ingratitude, and insensitivity reflect your attitude, opinion, and feelings about everything and everyone that pre-dates you?   
12. After former bishop Meghan Rohrer was pressured to resign when their overstepping of authority was exposed after their removal of a Latinx clergy person from his congregation and the ELCA clergy roster without due process, we were surprised that yet another ELCA synodical bishop would negatively impact another bi-lingual ministry without notice. Knowing that the ELCA is 96-97% white, ELCA church leadership wishes to encourage ethnic ministries.  How do your actions support rather than work against this goal and priority?   

What is scary about this whole situation is the fact that something like this could happen to any orthodox congregation still in the ELCA.  Potentially it is only one synodical bishop election away. 

In the ELCA we are all vulnerable. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find both our Video Book Reviews as well as our CORE Convictions Videos on various topics related to Biblical teaching, Lutheran theology, and Christian living.  You will find these videos in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  This month we want to feature two videos.     

MISSIO DEI – THE MISSION OF GOD

by Pastor Tom

Many thanks to Dr. Tom for his video discussion of Missio Dei – the Mission of God.  Here is a link to his video.  Pastor Tom has been active in global mission for many years.  In addition to being pastor of an NALC congregation in Illinois, he works with the organization Awakening Lives to World Mission as Director of their Heart for Mission Ministries.  In that capacity, he focuses on the countries of Laos and Thailand, which is a part of the world where he served for many years before returning to the United States.  In addition, he works as co-director of the Global Lutheran House of Study at the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he also teaches a number of courses on Lutheran Theology.

Pastor Tom from Northern Illinois emphasizes that Missio Dei is God’s mission.  It is not my mission or my church’s mission.  God is the initiator.  He sends us on mission.  He entrusts us with His mission.  He created the Church to do His mission.  We have the privilege of participating in God’s mission.  We are called to embody His Kingdom and to reflect His character to those around us.

Unfortunately, we can distort God’s mission.  We can lose sight of God’s purpose of mission.  We can try to make it our church rather than Christ’s church.  We want to do our mission, not Christ’s mission.  If a church focuses on internal matters, it loses sight of God’s mission.  We must begin with a big mindset.  A church that has a real heart for global mission will also be more involved in local mission.  As a congregation, when we focus on God’s mission rather than our own mission, we see the fruit of our faith. 

MODERN PAGANS SEEK TO ISOLATE A “SUBVERSIVE” RELIGION

A REVIEW OF “PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE CITY:

CULTURE WARS FROM THE TIBER TO THE POTOMAC”

by the Rev. Dr. Douglas Schoelles

Many thanks to NALC pastor Doug Schoelles for his review of this book by Steven D. Smith, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego.  Here is a link to his review.  A longer summary of his video can be found here.

In this book Smith argues that the current societal and legal conflicts are a renewal struggle of Paganism to “reverse the revolution Christianity achieved in late antiquity” that brought an end to “the merry dance of paganism.” Smith makes the distinction between the immanent religion of paganism and the transcendent religion of Christianity. Modern pagans resent the all-encompassing Christian standard of truth and morality as an oppressive limitation to the desire to live as one pleases. Pagans want to remove the accommodation of religion as practiced by our secular government and courts and banish any reference or preference for transcendent religion. Ultimately, he asserts the Pagan City, aka the State, must have people’s allegiance above all other powers or influences. Ultimately this means that people devoted to a transcendent religion must be marginalized and excluded from public life, by force if necessary. 

* * * * * *

May the Lord continue to bless you, keep you, watch over you, be gracious to you, and give you peace. 

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

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.   

ARE YOU READY FOR CHRISTMAS?

Editor’s Note: This Lightstock image used for this post is described as a “Fresco painting of the Nativity, from the chapel of the Shepherd’s Field in Beit Sahour (a suburb of Bethlehem), the traditional site of the angelic annunciation to the shepherds.”

Are you ready for Christmas?  By that I do not mean, Do you have the tree up, all your shopping done, the presents wrapped, and the cards sent?  Rather I am asking, Are you really ready for Christmas?  Are you prepared for the arrival of God’s Son? 

Luke 1:  5-7 tell about an old Jewish priest by the name of Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. It says that they were “righteous before God, but they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.”  They had no children, and the days for their hoping for a child were long gone.

In those days people believed that God would close the womb of a woman if He was mad at her.  So a barren woman was a disgraced woman.  Elizabeth was forced to live her life as though she had a sign hung around her neck that said, “God is mad at me.”  And even though Zechariah did not have quite the same kind of social stigma to have to deal with, still he had to live with the deep disappointment of having no child to carry on the family name. 

Do you feel like Elizabeth?  Is there something in your life that makes you feel ashamed or inadequate?  Do you feel like Zechariah?  Are you facing some deep sorrow or disappointment?

Well Luke tells us that while Zechariah was performing his priestly service in Jerusalem, he was chosen by lot to enter into the Holy Place in the Temple and burn incense there.  This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.  While he was in the Holy Place, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and said, “Your prayer has been heard.  Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John.” (verse 13) 

What do you mean, “Your prayer has been heard?”  What prayer?  If it was a prayer for a son, Zechariah had probably stopped praying that prayer a long time ago.  Zechariah might have even forgotten about that prayer.  But God had not forgotten.  What prayer were you praying a long time ago?  Maybe you have even forgotten about that prayer, but God has not forgotten.

In verse 18 Zechariah responds, “How will I know this is so?  For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.”  Well the angel Gabriel did not like that response, and so he said, “Because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will become mute, unable to speak, until the day these things occur.” (verse 20)  Zechariah comes out of the Temple unable to speak.  A few days later he returns home.

Verses 24-25 tell us, “After those days Elizabeth conceived and for five months remained in seclusion.”  She said, “This is what the Lord has done for me when He looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.” 

So here is Zechariah, a priest, a righteous man who knows God and who serves God.  But Zechariah has some spiritual growing to do.  When God gave him a wonderful promise, he did not believe that promise.  He doubted and underestimated God.  Zechariah is a prime example of a person who has known God for a long, long time.  He goes to church.  He is involved in church.  He does all the right things at all the right times in all the right ways.  But when God comes along and challenges him to grow to a new level of faith, he is not ready.

In contrast there is Elizabeth.  Zechariah cannot speak.  Elizabeth can speak, and when she does speak, she speaks about God’s grace and mercy to her and of how He has taken away her shame and disgrace.  She did not become bitter.  Rather she kept on serving and praising God.  Elizabeth was far more ready for Christmas than Zechariah. 

Zechariah was not ready for Christmas because he did not believe that God could step into his life and answer some long-forgotten prayer in a totally unexpected way.  How many of us are like Zechariah?  If we were to be honest, we would have to admit that deep down inside we are deeply disappointed with God.  And so, like old Zechariah, we keep on doing what we are supposed to be doing, but we really do not believe that God could and would step into our lives and do something that would bless us in unimaginable ways. 

If that is you – if you no longer believe that God could and would step into your life and work in your life in an amazing way to bless you, then like Zechariah you are not ready for Christmas. 

But the same God who sent an angel to Zechariah.  The same God who sent a heavenly host to startle some shepherds and tell them about the birth of a Savior.  And the same God who put a wonder in the sky to catch the attention of some star gazers, that same God has some very interesting and wonderful and amazing ways of getting through to you. 

God has a way of sending you a word of hope to remind you that life is stronger than death, light is more powerful than darkness, good will prevail over evil, and joy is deeper than disappointment.  All of which is at the heart of the message of Christmas. 

The question is, Are we prepared for all that?  Do you believe that God can work in your life in ways that you would never imagine to take away everything that is negative and disappointing in your life?  If you do, then you are ready for Christmas. 

* * * * * * *

COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

In my August 2022 letter from the director, which I entitled “The Revisionists Have Completely Taken Over,” I wrote an evaluation of the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  A link to that letter can be found here.  Among the most significant of the actions taken was a resolution which 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 which would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”  We noted that the resolution seemed to make dismantling racism the main mission of the church.  We also observed that once you know the makeup of the commission, you will know the outcome.

In light of that fact, we have been watching carefully for any official word from the ELCA regarding progress in creating that commission.  The official word came in a November 16 news release reporting on the November 10-13 meeting of the Church Council.  A link to that news release can be found here. 

Before I comment on the makeup of the commission, which is the subject of the third paragraph of the news release, I would like to make a few comments regarding a very interesting statement from Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton in the second paragraph.  There Bishop Eaton is quoted as challenging the ELCA to “try as best as we can and as faithfully as we can to remain true to the gospel, but somehow find a way to speak and act in the cultural vernacular.”  If you cannot do both equally well, which one prevails – remaining true to the gospel or speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular?  With the way Bishop Eaton phrases it, speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular seems to prevail.  She then makes reference to Martin Luther’s translating the Bible into German so that “people could receive it in their own language.”  I cannot imagine that for Martin Luther speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular would take precedence over remaining true to the gospel. 

In the third paragraph it states that “the commission will consist of up to 35 voting members, to include at least 25 % people of color or whose primary language is other than English and a goal of at least 20 % youth or young adults.”  At least that is better than the position of many who had been driving this process and who did not want this whole matter to be minimized or buried by being referred to the Church Council.  Those people have made it very clear that they do not want any white male over the age of sixty to be allowed to have anything to do with the process.

At least this is better than that, but think about it.  At least 25% of thirty-five would be nine, and at least 20% of thirty-five would be seven.  Nine plus seven is sixteen.  At least sixteen out of the thirty-five members of the commission (just two short of a majority) will be people of color, people whose language is other than English, or people under the age of twenty-five or thirty (depending upon how you define young adults).    How representative of the ELCA is that?  There is no concern expressed for Biblical and theological awareness and no concern for whether these people would understand what it takes to create and run an organization the size and complexity of the ELCA. 

What would happen if your congregation’s council were to decide that a commission that would develop recommendations for totally redoing the structure and mission of your congregation were to be at least 45% people who do not represent the vast majority of your congregation?

As one member of our board said, What would have happened if the Council of Nicaea had been made up according to the requirements of these quotas?  Would we have had such a profound theological decision that defined and preserved orthodoxy?  Or what would have happened if the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 had been comprised according to these quotas?  Would we have had a decision which resolved the issue at hand and advanced the mission of the church? 

The third paragraph states that “nominations will be received from synod councils or synod executive committees as well as through an open nomination process” and “the Church Council’s executive committee will present a slate of nominees at the council’s April 2023 meeting.”  But I have a feeling that a lot of the decision has already been made in regard to who will be the people of color and people whose language is other than English who will be on this commission.

The third paragraph ends by stating, “The council also referred to the commission the question of changing the denomination’s name.”   There are many who would like to see the word “Evangelical” removed from the name of this newly reconstituted church.  The claim is that the word “evangelical” is associated in the minds of many people with right-wing, racist, white-supremacy fundamentalists.  

We will keep you posted.  One can only hope, when this new church is reconstituted, that congregations will be given an opportunity for an “easy exit” because this new church will not be what they had signed up for in 1988.  

I also want to comment on two of the bullet points in the section which begins, “In other actions.”  Under the second bullet point it says that the ELCA Church Council “scheduled for 2024 the initiation of a task force for reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”  Ever since that social statement was approved in 2009 we have known what would eventually happen.  Sooner or later the ELCA would renounce its promise to recognize as legitimate and valid traditional views of human sexuality.  It would only be a matter of time until the ELCA would renounce its commitment to provide a place of dignity and respect for those who hold traditional views.  No one should be surprised.  What is interesting is that the ELCA is minimizing the significance of this massive breach of trust by not even beginning the process of creating a task force until 2024, one year before the next Churchwide Assembly.  What the ELCA values it gives abundant time and energy to.  For something it considers to be of minimal significance, it does the opposite.

And then under the sixth bullet point it says that the Church Council “adopted a continuing resolution establishing council advisory members to include . . . a representative of Reconciling Works.”  The use of the word “include” as well as the fact that the Church Council “also approved revisions to the ELCA Church Council Governance Policy Manual to include reference to advisory members,” would seem to allow for the possibility of additional “advisory members.”  I will be writing to the Vice President of the ELCA to ask how it was decided that a representative from Reconciling Works would be an advisory member and whether there will be any consideration given to a provision for a representative from a group with traditional views, such as Lutheran CORE, to be one of the advisory members.  In the January 2023 issue of our newsletter CORE Voice I will give a copy of my letter to the vice president and let you know whether I have heard anything. 

 * * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Each month we feature two videos – the most recent addition to our video book reviews, and a recent addition to our CORE Convictions videos.  The CORE Convictions series is designed particularly for those who wish to grow in their knowledge of Biblical teaching and Christian living as well as for those who want to know more about how Lutherans understand the Bible. We also want to provide this resource for those who do not have the opportunity or the option of attending a church where the preaching and teaching is Biblical, orthodox, and confessional.

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find recordings from both sets of videos – in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  We now have seven videos in our CORE Convictions series.  Many thanks to Dr. Robert Benne for his video on “Martin Luther on Vocation.”  His video will be featured in February 2023.

This month we want to feature a video book review by Kim Smith and a CORE Convictions video by Pastor James Hoefer. 

“THE AWE-FULL PRIVILEGE: THIS THING CALLED PARENTING”    

Many thanks to Kim Smith for her review of the book, “The Awe-full Privilege: This Thing Called Parenting” by K. Craig Moorman.  Kim hails from Maryland and is completing her third and final term on the board of Lutheran CORE.  A link to her video can be found here.

Pastor K. Craig Moorman is a Lutheran pastor in the NALC and is also on the board of Lutheran CORE.  He lives in Mt. Airy, MD.  He is a mission developer and is married with five children all of whom are now adults in their 20s and 30s.  One of the most remarkable things about Craig and his wife, Nancy, is that allfive of their children are Christians and have a deep and abiding relationship with Christ.  In his book, Craig writes that in claiming a “deep and abiding relationship with Christ, we are telling the rest of the world that we will build our lives on this reality.”

This book covers parenting from soup to nuts–from marriage to the culture wars impacting our lives, to the need to stand in the gap and be the gatekeeper—protecting the hearts of our children. He has chapters on parenting, chaos, managing time and things, being wonderfully made, what home should be, and the critical components that are key to serving the Lord with integrity and faithfulness.  He also writes about wisdom and where to look for it.  And he writes of the need to persevere and hold your family together at all costs.  He boldly discusses our societal ills and how to combat them.  And he ends with challenges that will help us start a Christ-centered revolution in our own homes.

Craig’s book will go a long way in helping you raise your children to be Christians—in more than name only.

“THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?”

Many thanks to AALC pastor James Hoefer for his very clear and complete explanation of the work of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.  A link to his video can be found here.

Just before His ascension Jesus told His disciples, “Don’t do anything until you receive the Holy Spirit.”  There was a good reason for that.  Without the Holy Spirit we cannot believe, we cannot love as God wants us to love, we cannot experience the freedom of being the person God wants us to be, and we cannot live the abundant life God wants us to live.

James expands on the five verbs that Martin Luther uses in his explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles Creed to describe the work of the Holy Spirit.

First, CALLS.  The Holy Spirit calls us through the Word of God, the voice of Jesus.  We experience true freedom not when we make choices, but when we realize that we have been chosen.

Second, GATHERS.  The Holy Spirit gathers us into the church.  It is not that we join a church.  Rather it is the Holy Spirit who adds us to the Church.  The Holy Spirit gathers us into groups of believers and into the Kingdom of God, which is bigger than any one denomination. 

Third, ENLIGHTENS.  The Holy Spirit uses the means of grace to do His work in our lives – baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Bible as the Word of God.  This is a process that goes on throughout our lives.

Fourth, SANCTIFIES.  Like a dentist who will not stop until every problem has been found and fixed, so the Holy Spirit finds and fixes everything in our lives that needs to change.  Using another image of our day, the Holy Spirit upgrades us with a whole new operating system.  We begin to see the Fruit of the Spirit develop in our lives as the natural result of being continually filled with the Holy Spirit.

Fifth, KEEPS.  The Holy Spirit guards and protects us with all the spiritual armor of Christ. 

Pastor James then concludes this video with a prayer for the Holy Spirit’s anointing power and new operating system.  He prays that God will empower our lives with His Word, His gifts, and the very life of Christ inside of us. 

* * * * * *

May God bless you with all the hope, love, joy, and peace of this Advent and Christmas season.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE

It should not surprise anyone that a movement is developing to get the ELCA to commit a massive breach of trust and to eliminate any provision for traditional views and those who hold them.

In my August letter from the director I told about some of the more significant actions that were taken by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  One of the most alarming was the overwhelming approval of a resolution “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” which “reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience.”  (These four positions can be found on pages 19-21 of the 2009 social statement.  They provide a way for there to be a place of respect for traditional views and those who hold them.  A link to the document can be found here.)

At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still it should be obvious to all that the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

In my August letter I wrote that I am certain that the ELCA actually never intended to honor traditional views.  The language regarding bound conscience and the four positions was placed within the 2009 social statement only to obtain enough votes to get the social statement approved, and even then it was barely approved.  One needs to look no further than the ELCA’s total embrace of ReconcilingWorks and its choice of keynote speakers for the 2018 youth gathering to realize that confessional Lutherans with traditional views are not welcome.

But how will it happen?  A recent statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries (ELM) suggests a possible path.  This organization describes its mission in this way.

“Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries organizes queer seminarians and rostered ministers, confronts barriers and systemic oppression, and activates queer ideas and movements within the Lutheran Church.”    

On September 7 this organization released a document entitled “ELM Churchwide Assembly and Bound Conscience Statement.”  A link to the full statement can be found here.

In this document they say, “The ELCA must address our sins of racism and ‘bound conscience.’”  It then says, “As Lutherans, we confess our participation in these systems, yet we continually fall short in the ways to overcome these systems of oppression.”  “Sin” and part of the “systems of oppression” – that is what Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is challenging the ELCA to join with them in calling traditional views of human sexuality. 

I am sure that no one who had been paying attention thought that bound conscience was anything more than temporary.  In some places it was ignored right from the beginning.  What is new here is explicit language with which bound conscience might be repudiated and the means by which it might be done – through a public apology by the Churchwide Assembly and the Presiding Bishop.

The statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries describes recent times when the ELCA has made a formal apology.

• “In 2019, the Churchwide Assembly adopted a formal letter of repentance to commit to examine the church’s complicity in slavery, and to acknowledge ‘the ELCA’s perpetuation of racism.’”

• Also in 2019 the ELCA made a formal apology to the African Descent community.

• “At the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, Bishop Eaton formally apologized to the worshipping community of Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina for both individual and institutional racist harm done to the congregation & the Latine community.”

And now Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is calling upon the ELCA to make a similar apology to the LGBTQ+ community.  Their document states, “Queer people in the ELCA deserve an apology and behavior consistent with repentance for the harm caused by ‘bound conscience’ and policies like ‘Visions and Expectations.’”  “Vision and Expectations” is a document that was approved by the ELCA Church Council in 1990 to describe what the church expected of its leaders but then removed from use by the ELCA Church Council in March 2020 because its more traditional views and expectations were “a source of great pain for many in the ELCA.”

Bound conscience and traditional views are now a sin – on the same level as racism and other forms of systemic oppression.  What should alarm every Lutheran with traditional views is the fact that Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries always gets what it wants.  They wanted the ELCA to remove the word “chastity” from its revised version of Definitions and Guidelines so that ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber would be able to remain on the clergy roster while bragging about her sex life with her boyfriend (to whom she is not married), and they got what they wanted.  If Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries gets its way (which they always do) sooner or later – maybe in 2025, maybe in 2028 – the ELCA will officially repent and apologize for permitting pastors and congregations to teach and live according to what the Church has been teaching for two thousand years.

But while the ELCA grovels and repents as Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries tells them to, do not expect them to repent for breaking their promises to honor and provide a place for traditional views and those who hold them. 

In my August letter I also wrote about another resolution that was approved by the Churchwide Assembly which should cause great alarm for confessional, traditionally minded Lutherans.  The assembly voted to direct 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.” 

The question naturally arises, Who will develop this revised version of the 2009 human sexuality social statement and possible reconsideration (rejection) of the four positions of bound conscience?  Also, who will be appointed to this “Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church”?  You can be sure that those who have been driving the process to get things to where they are today have been busy, working to make themselves the dominant factor in the process.  Many of these people have said that they do not believe that any “white male over the age of sixty” should be allowed to have anything to do with the process, and the Statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries urges “the committee tasked with reconsidering ‘bound conscience’ to include ‘new, young, and diverse’ voices and those that have been most harmed by ‘bound conscience.’”  The ELCA has made it very clear that high on its list of priorities for the coming years is to reach “one million new, young, and diverse people.”

The ELCA Church Council is scheduled to meet November 10-13.  We assume that among the actions taken will be the appointment of people to the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and the task force to review and revise the human sexuality social statement.  We all know that once you know who is on the committee, you know the outcome.  We will keep you posted. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Each month we feature two videos – the most recent addition to our video book reviews, and a recent addition to our CORE Convictions videos.  The CORE Convictions series is being designed particularly for those who wish to grow in their knowledge of Biblical teaching and Christian living as well as for those who want to know more about how Lutherans understand the Bible. We also want to provide this resource for those who do not have the opportunity or the option of attending a church where the preaching and teaching is Biblical, orthodox, and confessional.

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find recordings from both sets of videos – in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  We now have five videos in our CORE Convictions series.  Many thanks to retired AALC pastor James Hoefer for his video on “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.”  His video will be featured in December.

This month we want to feature a video book review by Pastor Chris Johnson and a CORE Convictions video by Pastor James Lehmann.    

“LIVES AND WRITINGS OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH”

Many thanks to Chris Johnson, LCMC pastor and secretary of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his review of this book, which is edited by Timothy Schmeling and Robert Kolb.  A link to his video can be found here.

Pastor Johnson begins by reminding us of the phrase, “If we can see farther, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.”  He sees this statement as true in many areas of life, including theology, and as well illustrated in the biographies and writings of twenty-one theologians who came after Luther from the 1550’s to the late 1600’s.

Some of these men were educators, some were brilliant systematic theologians, some were preachers.  Some were known for their poetry, their hymnody, or their devotional literature.  They served in many different ways, but they were all very gifted and dedicated to the Christian faith as understood by the Lutheran Confessions.   

Some were known for their polemical style, which is quite understandable since they lived during tumultuous times.  They faced many challenges and endured great suffering, such as during the Thirty Years War and from the plague.  Many experienced deep pain and sorrow from the death of several family members. 

They fought hard battles, were attacked on many sides, and suffered great losses.  They lived during a period of Lutheran history that we often ignore.  But according to Pastor Johnson, it is a great gift to us to get to know them and what they did.  They were men of faith who were dedicated to the Lutheran Confessions.  We would do well to learn from them as to how they persevered and remained true to the faith no matter what. 

TEACHING THE FAITH TO CHILDREN OF ALL AGES 

Many thanks to NALC pastor Jim Lehmann for his video, a link to which can be found here.  According to Pastor Lehmann, teaching the faith to children of all ages “may be easier than you think.  It does take discipline to make disciples.  It starts before a person can understand the language of faith and continues when language may be lost.  Join me for some ideas.”

The temperatures are cooler here in Arizona, and the Sonoran desert is lush and green from the summer rains.  No wonder the Snowbirds are returning.  We are constantly being reminded of God’s goodness.  May you also experience His blessings.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Note from CORE’s Executive Director: Many thanks to a seminarian, who wishes to remain anonymous, for writing about what it was like to attend an ELCA seminary.  Students considering enrolling in an ELCA seminary, as well as members of orthodox congregations still in the ELCA, need to know what is being taught and what they can expect from their future pastor.  Will this kind of woke educational experience train someone who will provide good pastoral care and leadership for your congregation?  Those who believe that theologically solid pastors are and will continue to be available within the ELCA should know that there are some (Thanks be to God!) but the number is decreasingly rapidly.   

I attended United Lutheran Seminary (United), in Gettysburg, for 3 semesters. My time there led me to realize that there was no place for a confessional Lutheran faith within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Growing up in central Pennsylvania, I knew nothing of the other Lutheran denominations. Every Lutheran church within an hour of my house was ELCA and that was all I knew. Upon entering seminary, I was assured by my synod’s bishop that there was a place for a confessional Lutheran in the “big-tent,” that is the ELCA.

United did not share this view and I realized this in my first semester, when I began questioning the “sacred doctrines” of the ELCA that were invented in the last 10 years. My first semester I took the class Systematic Theology 1: Creation, Sin, and New Creation, which I thought would provide me with a greater understanding of the ELCA’s newly held positions as well as a basic overview of theological concepts and systematics. I hoped that it would answer some of my questions and strengthen my ability to conduct ministry faithfully. I was disappointed to find that much of the class was heavily focused on womanist, feminist, and other niche and modern theological interpretation rather than core or confessional concepts. This was the only theology class that I was required to take. This lack of true theological instruction allows seminarians to believe they understood yet have made strawmen of a Biblical Christianity. Much of what the Church held for the last 2000 years could be dismissed as “privileged,” “racist,” or “sexist.”

My first (and only) sermon I gave at United was for my homiletics class. I was assigned to preach on the first week of Lent, which includes the Gospel reading of Christ being tempted in the wilderness. In my sermon I mentioned, not as the message of the sermon but to highlight the goodness of Christ, that hell was real. I felt relatively proud of my sermon while giving it. Given that it was my first sermon, it could have been better, but I stand by my message today. It shocked me when my homiletics professor opened my sermon up for critique and she implied that I shared a heretical message. I did not realize that the acknowledgement of hell was such a faux pas. After my professor shared that I was a heretic, much of my peers’ remarks echoed her idea. I called my parents as well as a mentor that evening and shared that I wanted to leave seminary because apparently, I did not understand anything about the faith.

Getting raked over the coals for believing that Christ was not lying when He spoke of hell was the straw that broke me. I realized that I could not stay at United, and I would not be welcome in the ELCA, if this is where the publicly acceptable discourse is.

Some of the common talking points that the professors would push in a variety of their classes include: using non-masculine pronouns for God, the merits of a variety of sexual relationships, how the church has been a force for bad in the world, and leftist political talking points.  It is a shame that there could not be serious theological discussions concerning these topics as to disagree with any point carried with it accusations of being “not-loving,” among other unflattering titles, and being shut down by the professor.

When I told my synod’s bishop about leaving the ELCA, I told her how I felt betrayed by a church that I grew up in and how I was lied to when I was told that there was a place for me. She was sorry and could not defend the actions of the ELCA from polygamy to the disbelief in hell. There is no Biblical defense, and she couldn’t spin one. When I went to my home congregation to tell my pastor, whom I grew up with, he was not nearly as cordial. He tried to challenge me as misinformed when I pointed to the ELCA’s radical direction. He accused me of being political for not agreeing with the ELCA.

Although the gospel is not preached there anymore, it is sad to know I am no longer welcome in my home congregation.

Since coming to the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), I have appreciated the professionalism of the professors in the North American Lutheran Seminary (NALS), the comradery among clergy, and general support from congregations. It is refreshing to be able to read the Bible and confessions in a seminary setting and have genuine discussions about the application and use of the concepts. There is a fellowship among the students as members of Christ’s Church, here for Christ, unlike what I have known within the ELCA.

I write this because this is my story. I could have shared more anecdotes about the inability of United to form its students, the unprofessionalism of the professors and ignorance of those who followed the party line, but these examples make my point. I do not want to slander the ELCA or any pastors or congregations in it. I only want to bring light to what is going on in the once great Lutheran seminary of Gettysburg, PA, United Lutheran Seminary.

It breaks my heart to have had to leave but I have found a home in the NALC.

No Mention of God

Here is a link to the ELCA’s description of the Highlights of its own recent Churchwide Assembly. Please notice.  Two words are conspicuously absent – the words “Jesus” and “God.” 

One would think that a church body that is holding its triennial, several-day assembly would consider some mention of Jesus and/or God in its Highlights, but not the ELCA.  I have read the Highlights three times, but have found no mention of either.

This is even worse than the ELCA’s own Summary of Actions from its 2019 Churchwide Assembly.  Again, that summary makes no mention of Jesus, but it does make one mention of God, when it says that we are all created equal in the eyes of God.

In the summary of the 2022 assembly there is mention of greenhouse gases, D. C. statehood, diversity, equity, and inclusion, but no mention of Jesus or God.  It is only a matter of time until the ELCA will bear little if any resemblance to a Christian church. 

Updated Understanding

In my August letter from the director I expressed my concern that the 1991 social statement on abortion (which is more conservative than what most in the ELCA would want) could be gotten rid of through archiving.  Actions taken by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly included archiving several social policy resolutions, including a couple related to the issue of abortion.  I knew that it was social policy resolutions (not a social statement) that were archived at the 2022 CWA, but I was concerned that since the 1991 abortion social statement takes a similar position to the social policy resolutions that were archived in 2022, what would prevent the social statement from being archived in 2025?  It is good to know that a social statement which is more conservative than the preferred and prevailing position within the ELCA today cannot just be gotten rid of through archiving.

The ELCA held its Churchwide Assembly August 8-12 in Columbus, Ohio.  The gathering sent a strong message to confessional Lutherans with traditional views – You are not welcome.  In this article I will list several ways in which the decisions that were made and the events that took place communicate that message loud and clear.    

First, the resolution concerning human sexuality that came from the Memorials Committee early on in the gathering was bad enough.  The assembly voted overwhelmingly, without discussion, and with no concerns expressed “to authorize a social statement reconsideration to revise Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (2009) so that its wording reflects current church understanding, church policy, civil law, and public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-confirming couples.”  It was obvious where this was headed, and it took only two days to get there.  Towards the end of the week a resolution came through the Reference and Counsel Committee “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” which “reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience.”  At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

I am certain that the ELCA never intended to honor traditional views.  The language regarding bound conscience and the four positions was placed within the 2009 social statement only to obtain enough votes to get the social statement approved.  One needs to look no further than the ELCA’s total embrace of ReconcilingWorks and its choice of keynote speakers for the 2018 youth gathering to realize that confessional Lutherans with traditional views are not welcome. 

David Charlton, vice president of our board, has done a powerful analysis of the possible (even probable) implications of this action. 

• Candidacy committees and seminaries will no longer need to pretend to work with traditional candidates.  They can reject them outright.
• Seminaries will be able to openly purge any traditional professors who remain, in the name of ELCA policy.
• Synods will no longer need to work with congregations who do not want to call LGBTQIA+ pastors.  These congregations can be told, “Either call an LGBTQIA+ person or you will get no pastor at all.”
• It will be difficult for a pastor who holds traditional views to move to a new synod or a new call.  A bishop will be able to refuse to recommend a pastor for a new call if that pastor is unwilling to do same sex weddings.
• It will be easier to sue congregations for not doing same sex weddings.

Second, during the days leading up to the assembly there was much conversation about calling for a restructure of the governance of the ELCA.  I read comments from many people who believed that the Memorials Committee’s original recommendation to refer the memorials from synods to the Church Council was an act of deliberately stonewalling their efforts.  Some even talked about a showdown at the assembly.  By the time of the assembly the Memorials Committee had changed its recommendation – to one which 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.” 

One could hope, when this new church is reconstituted, that congregations will be given an opportunity for an “easy exit” because the new church will not be what they had signed up for in 1988.   There is even talk about removing the word Evangelical from the name of this new church.  The claim is that the word evangelical is associated in the minds of many people with right-wing, racist, white-supremacy fundamentalists.   

Prior to the assembly I read much criticism of Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton – some of it even very severe.  Some were calling for her resignation or a vote of no confidence because of the way she initially handled the situation with Meghan Rohrer and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina.  Bishop Eaton survived the assembly (though she did test positive for COVID on the morning of the final day – we pray for her quick and full recovery) and she demonstrated throughout the week her great giftedness for presiding over a large and complex gathering.  But I definitely got the impression that she was not setting the course.  The relentless revisionists were, and they have completely taken over.

Third, the whole assembly was a powerful example of the amount of damage that can be done to and the depth of embarrassment that can be created for a large organization by the foolish and self-centered actions of just one person.  It felt like the specter of former bishop Meghan Rohrer and their termination of Nelson Rabell on the Feast Day of our Lady of Guadalupe hung over the entire week.

Fourth, Bishop Eaton’s apology to Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina was deep and thorough, and the response of the representatives of the congregation was incredibly gracious, but it should be noted that Bishop Eaton apologized only on behalf of the ELCA.  She did not apologize for herself.  It is a whole lot easier – and a whole lot less painful – to apologize on behalf of a large group of people rather than on behalf of yourself.

During the apology she said, “Part of the body was disconnected; the body was not whole.”  She also promised to be “committed to listen to voices that have traditionally been marginalized.”  But what about another part of the body that is disconnected?  What about other voices that are being marginalized – the voices of those who hold traditional views?  During and after the 2009 Churchwide Assembly Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson reached out to those who were feeling alienated by the actions that were taken (even if it was only for the self-serving reason to preserve the organization).  I have not heard of any effort – nor do I expect to hear of any effort – to reach out to those who feel disconnected and marginalized, even more so now because of the vote on the human sexuality resolution.  We are just too few in number and we are seen as insignificant.  Unlike Pastor Rabell and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina, pastors and congregations who hold traditional views do not have well-positioned, powerful, and credible people to advocate for them – and to do so relentlessly – until finally something is done.

Fifth, the overwhelmingly positive vote on the Land Back Memorial is another example of ELCA inconsistency and hypocrisy.  The assembly fully supported a resolution which, among other things, called upon the ELCA to “support creative programs of restorative justice in partnership with Indigenous people, including, but not limited to, whenever considering a transfer or sale of real property, including returning land (and any structures built on it) after satisfying any financial obligations, to the appropriate Native nations, and when direct return is not feasible or not desired by the Indigenous people, to return the proceeds from the sale of the land to the ELCA Native American Ministry Fund or other local Indigenous led ministries or organizations.” 

Several months ago I wrote a letter to the bishop of the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  In that letter I said that if that synod truly believes that the land now occupied by the synod offices and all of the congregations of that synod is stolen land, then they are morally obligated – whenever they close a congregation and sell the property – to return at least the value of the land to indigenous persons, and if they do not do so, then they would be complicit in the stealing of land.  The problem is that the number of congregations in that synod and the size and vitality of the remaining congregations are so diminished.  Therefore, that synod needs considerable funds from the sale of buildings and land of closed congregations to balance the budget. 

Will the ELCA truly want to return land and structures to Native nations if the ELCA is struggling financially, or is virtue signaling something the ELCA does only when it does not cost too much?  Also, will the ELCA be willing to return the land and structures of congregations that had to pay a very high price to leave the ELCA?  And if those congregations no longer exist, will the ELCA be willing to give the land and structures (or the value of that land and those structures) to other church bodies which better reflect the beliefs and values of those congregations that paid a very high price to leave and/or were decimated by the persons whom the synod sent in?

Sixth, those who hold a pro-life position should be deeply disturbed by the action that was taken to archive a number of social policy resolutions. In the ELCA social statements cover broad frameworks and are intended to help God’s people think about their faith in the context of social life.  Social policy resolutions are a much narrower and more focused category of social teaching.   

The idea behind archiving a social policy resolution or social statement is to say that that document is no longer relevant to the ELCA’s mission, does not have continued significance for society, and is no longer congruent with ELCA social teaching.  The ELCA’s abortion social policy resolution states essentially the same thing as the ELCA’s 1991 abortion social statement, and it has now been archived.  It has been ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent with ELCA social teaching.  It is only a matter of time – perhaps at the 2025 churchwide assembly – until the ELCA’s abortion social statement also will be ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent.  After all, as one person said recently, “The ELCA’s abortion social statement was written in the 1900’s.”  I do not remember any explanation of the meaning and significance of archiving prior to the vote to archive.  If anyone who holds a pro-life position happened to be present, there is a good chance that that person would not have understood what just happened. 

Seventh, there was a lot of strange spirituality and even the worship of other gods during the assembly.  The opening focused more on the original inhabitants of the land than on Jesus, and the welcome from the bishop of the host synod focused more on the rivers that flow through that synod than on Jesus.  And the prayer from a member of the prayer team during the vote on the human sexuality resolution was particularly strange.  First, Bishop Eaton needed to be reminded of the importance of having a prayer even though voting had already begun.  And the wording of the prayer was completely irrelevant. A member of the assembly prayer team read from her i-phone an invocation to Mother Earth and Father Sky, concern for all the creatures of the earth, and repentance for our not recycling enough.  The only possibly relevant phrase was, “Help us to dance together,” but even considering that phrase relevant is a stretch.  The thinking seems to be that if we pray prior to a vote, then the outcome of the vote must be within the will of God. 

Eighth, one might wonder how so much groveling, repenting, and apologizing by the assembly could possibly be uplifting for the voting members.  The reason is that they were groveling over, repenting of, and apologizing for what other people have done and not for anything that they have done or ever would do.  A definite characteristic of the whole Woke Movement is an arrogant self-righteousness.

Ninth, in an article entitled “Major Disaster on Its Way,” published prior to the assembly, I wrote of my concern regarding two constitutional amendments that would be considered.  A link to that article can be found here.  The first amendment, which removed proclaiming God’s love for the world from the role of rostered leaders and essentially made them social justice advocates, was originally voted on in 2019.  This amendment was part of a block of amendments that were ratified overwhelmingly.  A motion to ratify previously approved amendments is not open to debate.  ELCA parishioners should not be surprised if their pastors do not preach about Jesus, but instead are only social justice warriors.   

I was glad to hear considerable concern expressed regarding the role of the ELCA’s colleges and universities as described in the other amendment.  Many felt that the deletion of a certain paragraph from the constitution weakened the church’s connection with those institutions and diminished their Christian witness.  A slight majority voted to approve, but it did not receive the required 2/3rds, so the amendment failed.

Tenth, it was good to see certain issues addressed – such as the evils of racism and abuse of power, the need for fair and adequate compensation for all rostered leaders, and the issue of seminarian debt.  And there were four times when the proceedings made me chuckle.

• When Bishop Matthew Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod responded in the words of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to a motion to eliminate the breaks in order to give more time to the consideration of the memorials.  He said, “If we do not satisfy the lower level needs, we will never be able to self-actualize.”
• When a voting member who made a motion to table the Land Back Resolution was told that a better way to go would be a motion to postpone debate until a fixed time or when certain conditions have been met.  His response was, “I have no idea how these rules of whatever work.”
• When Bishop Eaton said to Bishop Riegel, “I have learned not to doubt you.”
• When a voting member spoke to a certain resolution, using all the right woke phrases but not making any sense.  Bishop Eaton had a very pained and confused look on her face as the voting member was speaking and then said, “Thank you.”

The “Embody the Word” Bible studies prior to the assembly culminated on the second day with a theological presentation by Anthony Bateza, associate professor of religion at St. Olaf College.  He talked about the importance of trust, the lack of trust today, and the question of how do and can we become people who can be trusted.  He told of his having to undergo surgery and physical therapy after tearing his ACL in a skiing accident.  He said that he needed to learn to trust his own body again.

Even more so than ever before – with the motion “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” and reconsider “the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” – the ELCA has totally obliterated any reason why anyone with traditional views would ever trust the ELCA.  The damage to the body is irreparable.  Far more than an ACL has been torn. 

The ELCA will be holding its triennial Churchwide Assembly next week, August 8-12, in Columbus, Ohio.  The Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative body of the ELCA.  There is much coming up which should be of grave concern to Biblically faithful, confessional Lutherans.  I will be watching the assembly online and will report back in my August letter from the director.  But in the meantime, I wanted to inform you of three actions which are on the agenda, which only go to show how far and how quickly the ELCA has strayed from Biblical truth and moral values and the mission that Jesus gave to His Church.

The first two are amendments to the ELCA constitution.  The first one has to do with the mission and purpose of ELCA colleges and universities.  My understanding is that if this amendment is approved, it will need to be ratified at the 2025 assembly.  Here is a link to all of the amendments which will be voted on.

The second amendment has to do with the role of rostered ministers.  This amendment was approved at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly and needs to be ratified at the 2022 Assembly.  Here is a link to all of the amendments which were approved in 2019 and need to be ratified in 2022.

Unfortunately, both of the above are to be passed – or not passed – “en bloc,” meaning one vote on many amendments, so specific discussion about any one amendment is discouraged.  My expectation (and fear) is that many people will not know what they are voting on and for, because there is so much material for them to go through and master in the Pre-Assembly Report.  (The cynic in me believes that part of the ELCA strategy is to inundate voting members with “so much stuff” that the assembly will approve what the “powers that be” want them to approve.)

#1:  The Mission of Colleges & Universities

Here is the text of the first amendment. 

Any section which is underlined is being added.  Any section which is crossed off has been in the constitution and is being deleted.  The implications for ELCA colleges and universities are enormous.

Are ELCA colleges and universities no longer to be Lutheran/Christian?  Are they no longer to be faithful to the will of God?  Are they no longer to provide religious education and worshipping community?  Are they no longer to provide holistic care of students (body, mind, spirit)?  Are they to be reduced to mere vocational training institutes–not distinctive from any other college or university out there–and nothing more?

What impact will this have upon colleges and universities which previously have had a strong Lutheran identity and/or solid confessional teaching?  What will become of colleges and universities when they are no longer held accountable to the godly mission for which they were founded, and which is now being removed by constitutional amendment?

#2: The Role of Rostered Ministers

Something very similar is being done to the role of pastors (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and deacons (Ministers of Word and Service).  Here is the text to the second amendment.  Again, these amendments were approved at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly and will not be made official until and unless they are ratified at the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  (I guess there was so much focus on the ELCA’s declaring itself to be a sanctuary church body and the Declaration of Inter-Religious Commitment back in 2019 that this one “slipped by us.”  Again, this can happen when you inundate people with so much “stuff.”)

Are rostered ministers no longer to be “proclaiming God’s love for the world” and “witnessing to the realm of God in the community, the nation, and abroad”?  This change is rather shocking, and I would assume that even “radical, liberal, and progressive” clergy, with their very different definitions of “God’s love” and the “realm of God,” would generally agree that the role of clergy should include “proclaiming God’s love” and “witnessing to the realm of God.”  Are clergy to be primarily social justice advocates?  How will it go for your congregation if your next pastor is primarily a social justice advocate? 

#3: Revision of Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

We knew it would be coming, and now may be the time.  We knew that the human sexuality social statement which was approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly would not stand.  Eventually this statement, which is far more traditional than current ELCA belief and practice, would fall.    

Memorials have come from three synods, which ask the ELCA to review and revise the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” social statement.  The most extensive wording comes from the Milwaukee Synod.

Although the “resolved” is not clear about what it means when it says “current church understanding, church policy, civil law, and public acceptance,” the activities and advocacy of ReconcilingWorks and Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries give us some hint as to what we might expect from a proposed revision of this social statement.  These two groups are calling for such things as allowing those who identify as polyamorous to be included on the Proclaim roster of LGBTQ+ clergy and seminarians, and redefining marriage as a mere aspiration rather than as a hard requirement for sexually active rostered leaders.

Here is a link to the complete report of the Memorials Committee.

There are seventy-eight memorials coming to the Churchwide Assembly, so it should not surprise us that the recommendation of the Memorials Committee is to vote on most of them “en bloc” – in a yes or no vote on all of the memorials, which, as in the case of the amendments to the constitution would work against any discussion of individual memorials.  Again, things get approved because there is too much “stuff” for voting members to be able to process.     

I believe it is good that the Memorials Committee is recommending that three memorials be removed from the bloc and voted on separately, including the memorials regarding “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”  Therefore, there will be opportunity for discussion on this issue.

However, no matter how the revision process unfolds this time, I am certain that it is only a matter of time until there is no place for traditional views within the ELCA and congregations and clergy in the ELCA will be forced to adhere to LGBTQ+ affirming policies, all in the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

It is now old news that the issue of abortion in the United States, which has long simmered on medium heat in our national discourse, has recently boiled over. Because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe (1973) and Casey (1992), individual states now possess increased ability to restrict abortion, including banning the practice outright. Though this is a significant victory for those who consider themselves prolife, the issue of the legality of abortion now simply shifts to a more local level. Even so, many abortion rights advocates are outraged, which has prompted commentary and statements from many, including church leadership.   

It had been over twenty years since I first read the ELCA social statement on abortion when I was recently asked to do so again. The first case was for a class as a college sophomore. The second, the result of which is this reflection, was in response to ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s references to this statement in response to shifting abortion policy in the United States. My reaction after both readings of this statement was the same: Though far from what I would consider a perfect document, the 1991 social statement on abortion is much more life-affirming than one might expect. The development of this statement involved input from people of different viewpoints who listened to each other and worked hard to produce a document that, while not satisfying everyone, incorporated various concerns in a balanced manner.

Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that the ELCA statement on abortion, one of the earliest such social statements considered and adopted,[1] has not been without controversy in the history of the ELCA and has been subject to controversial “interpretation.” The question of how or whether to harmonize the content of this statement with the health plan coverage provided by the ELCA Board of Pensions (now called Portico) was one issue that early on created for some a lack of trust in the leadership of the ELCA. Among these is Russell Saltzman, former ELCA pastor and now member of the Roman Catholic Church, who offered the following comments in 2010 in the wake of the ELCA’s policy change concerning pastors in same-sex relationships:

My real disaffection with the ELCA didn’t start with sex. It began in earnest over the ELCA abortion statement and the subsequent decision by the national council to treat elective abortion for pastors and dependents as a reimbursable medical expense under the church health plan. From the abortion statement, the church said to value my baptism as an infant regards my conception by step-siblings as a morally justifiable reason for terminating the pregnancy that became me at the baptismal font. From the schedule of benefits by the health plan, had my birth-parents in any way been covered under the ELCA health plan, my church would have paid to do it.[2]

Comments such as these, the recent Supreme Court decision, and Bishop Eaton’s communications invite us to explore more fully what the 1991 social statement on abortion really says in its fullness. In fairness, documents such as this touch on a variety of issues and make several assertions. Nevertheless, one must ask whether Bishop Eaton’s comments about the statement accurately reflect the spirit of the document.

Reviewing Bishop Eaton’s Communications

On May 30, 2019, Bishop Eaton issued a communication in response to various attempts by states “to restrict access to legal abortion,”[3] in which she invited her readers to revisit the ELCA social statement on abortion. In the first incarnation of this message, she stated that “this church seeks to travel a moderating path by supporting abortion as a last resort for pregnancies that are unsafe or a result of rape or incest.”[4] This is a fairly accurate summary of what the ELCA statement says. Not long after this communication went public, however, she issued a revised statement, nearly identical, but which omitted the words “for pregnancies that are unsafe or a result of rape or incest.”

In response to the leaked draft of Dobbs in May of 2022, she issued further comments about abortion, including many references to the 1991 social statement. She claimed that the content of the draft opinion “contradicts the church’s teaching” and that the 1991 statement affirms that “abortion must be legal, regulated and accessible.”[5]

Finally, after the actual opinion, which does not differ significantly from the draft, was released in June of 2022, Bishop Eaton emphasized again that the ELCA’s position is that “the practice (of abortion) should be legal” in spite of “deep concern” over the number of induced abortions.[6] Further, she expressed her concern that “Overturning Roe v. Wade and placing decisions about abortion regulation at the state level encumbers and endangers the lives of all persons who need to make decisions about unexpected pregnancies.”[7]

What the Statement Says

How does one effectively summarize the content of a ten-page statement, especially one that seeks a nuanced approach to a difficult moral issue? This is a challenging task, to be sure, and Bishop Eaton does communicate some truth in the parts of the statement that she cites. In her communications, she quotes liberally from the 1991 social statement. Yet there are many things in this statement that she overlooks and in at least one case even misrepresents.

Before addressing the issue of the legality of abortion, it is important to note this statement’s expression of the value of unborn life: “Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity. Guided by God’s Law, which orders and preserves life, human beings are called to respect and care for the life that God gives.”[8] It goes on to state that “We mourn the loss of life (through abortion) that God has created” and that “The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort.”[9] As a consequence of this commitment to preserve and protect life, the statement declares that the ELCA “in most circumstances, encourages women with unintended pregnancies to continue the pregnancy.”[10]

The social statement on abortion does speak of certain situations where it can be “morally responsible” for a woman to obtain an abortion, such as in cases of rape, incest, or extreme fetal abnormality.[11] Even so, however, the ELCA “opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology.”[12]

While the social statement seeks to balance the importance of the life of an unborn child and the life of the woman bearing that child, it clearly states that “government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion.”[13] In fact, it states that the ELCA opposes “the total lack of regulation of abortion.”[14] To be sure, it also opposes “legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances” and laws that “deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions.”[15]

This all leads, however, to a concluding paragraph about the regulation of abortion, which reads as follows:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes laws prohibiting abortion.[16]

I suspect that many would be surprised to know that the ELCA social statement on abortion directly opposes abortion after viability and even supports legislation that prohibits abortion after viability, only considering abortion “morally responsible” in the difficult circumstances above. Bishop Eaton’s assertion that abortion must be “legal, regulated and accessible” can only be responsibly read to apply to these difficult circumstances of saving the life of the mother, rape, incest, and embryonic or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. Similarly, if the Dobbs opinion “contradicts the church’s teaching” as she claims, it would only do so if individual states enact laws that prohibit abortion in these difficult circumstances.

Getting to the Root of the Matter

As mentioned, the 1991 social statement touches on many other important issues involved in the abortion debate, such as supporting pregnant women in their needs, encouraging adoption and foster care, the use of contraceptives, and encouraging congregations to be places of hospitality for women facing difficult circumstances. But the foundational issue for our society in its discussion of abortion is the very thing that leads to the perceived need for abortion: sexual intercourse and its appropriate context.

It might also surprise readers of the statement to learn that the ELCA states the following: “Marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse. This continues to be the position of this church.”[17] Moreover, it affirms that congregations and church schools should emphasize values such as “abstinence from sexual intercourse outside marriage” and that “young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly.”[18]

Clearly, the authors of the 1991 ELCA social statement on abortion recognized the challenges posed by a society that had by then begun to face the shockwaves created by the sexual revolution. The over three decades since 1991 have seen even further movement away from the vision that marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse. Sex is most often portrayed in entertainment media as an inevitable part of taking a relationship to another level and most always as purely a part of adult fulfillment and pleasure, detached from concern for procreation. Any life created by these sexual encounters is viewed as an inconvenience and unfortunate consequence.

I encourage ELCA leadership to study this social statement on abortion and to take seriously what it actually says. I also encourage other Lutherans to do so. There are some aspects of this statement with which I and others disagree, but there are many things in this statement worthy of our consideration and affirmation. Significantly, if our society is to address the crisis of abortion, we must not only address the desire for abortion as it arises. We must address the underlying issue and lift up the call of God for sex to be used responsibly, between a man and a woman who are married and committed to nurturing life created by that loving union. Regardless of what Lutheran church bodies we are members, the ELCA social statement on abortion can be an encouragement to us in lifting up that important vision.    

---

[1] According to the social statement itself, “…adopted by a more than two-thirds majority vote at the second biennial Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, meeting in Orlando, Florida, August 28-September 4, 1991.”

[2] Russell E. Saltzman, “From the ELCA to the NALC,” First Things, https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/from-the-elca-to-the-nalc, Accessed 7/2/2022.

[3] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, May 30, 2019.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, May 17, 2022.

[6] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, June 24, 2022.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, “A Social Statement on Abortion,” 1991, p. 2-3.

[9] Ibid., p. 3-4.

[10] Ibid., p. 6.

[11] Ibid., p. 7.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., p. 9.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., p. 10. Emphasis added.

[17] Ibid., p. 4.

[18] Ibid., p. 5.

On May 17, a couple weeks after the news broke of a leak of a draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton released “A Pastoral Message on Abortion.”  A link to her letter can be found here.

Please find below my analysis of what she has written. 

Typically misleading 

It is very typical of Bishop Eaton to say a few words to make it sound like there is room for traditional views within the ELCA, but then she always comes down solidly on the revisionist side.

In the third paragraph of her communication she refers to the ELCA’s 1991 social statement on abortion and says, “This church holds both women and ‘developing life in the womb’ (page 2) as neighbors.”  She acknowledges “life in the womb” as life and seems to give the impression that that life will be valued, considered, and cherished.  She goes even further in the third paragraph when she adds, “This church longs for a future with fewer abortions every year.”

So far it sounds good.  But in the seventh paragraph, after advocating for a “more just society that cherishes and guarantees the dignity of all,” she expresses no concern for cherishing and guaranteeing the dignity (or even life) of the “developing life in the womb.”  She acknowledges the “developing life in the womb” as life, but then totally ignores any concern for the rights, preservation, and cherishing of that life. 

Lack of clarification 

In the third paragraph she states that the ELCA opposes “the total lack of regulation of abortion” (page 9 of the 1991 social statement) but does not state or affirm what kind of “regulation of abortion” the ELCA would and does support.  As is typical, Bishop Eaton is very careful to make sure that she does not say anything that would lead to her being “blasted” by liberals and progressives.  I understand that that is what happened when she said after the death of George Floyd that rioting was not peaceful protesting.  

In the fourth paragraph she says, “Abortion must be legal, regulated, and accessible,” but she says nothing about how abortion should be “regulated.”  Again, if she were to do so, she probably would be “blasted” by liberals and progressives. 

She says nothing specific and definitive about whether there are situations where abortion would not be a morally defensible decision.  She says nothing about the kinds, timing, and/or circumstances of abortions that the ELCA would not or might not support.  She says nothing about the difference between situations where abortion may be deemed “medically necessary” for the life, health, and well-being of the mother, and situations where abortion is an easy way to get rid of an inconvenience. 

One-sided concern

Her concern for protection is totally one-sided. 

In the fourth paragraph she says, “People who choose to have legal abortions should not be harassed,” but she shows no concern regarding –

• The vandalizing of church buildings or the disruption of worship services for congregations with traditional views.
• The picketing and protesting outside the homes of SCOTUS Justices with the intent to harass and intimidate.
• The long-term effects of allowing people who need to make difficult decisions to be harassed and intimidated – whether at the federal or local level, or even in the church. 

Here is one more example of Bishop Eaton’s being very careful to make sure that she does not say anything that would result in her being “blasted” by liberals and progressives. 

She also does not address the whole issue of the leak of a SCOTUS document and how that kind of betrayal of trust undermines the integrity of our institutions. 

Fearmongering

She engages in the same kind of fearmongering that has been running rampant in this situation.

In the sixth paragraph she says, “Any Supreme Court decision similar to the leaked draft. . . . has the potential to foster communities of conflict and moral policing rather than complex moral discernment.  It will likely endanger or cause the deaths of people who need an abortion.  And the legal bases (sic) established by any such decision threaten people’s access to birth control, same-sex marriage, voting rights and their right to privacy.”

Bishop Eaton makes these statements even though the draft opinion clearly states that the right to have an abortion is “fundamentally different” from “rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage.” (page 5)

She makes strong statements but then gives no evidence for how a change in one area (abortion) would threaten all these other areas.

Those who hold traditional views were belittled and ridiculed for their concerns leading up to 2009 regarding the slippery slope – that changing the ELCA’s position regarding same sex marriage would lead to other changes.  Here we see “the other side” having a major concern for the slippery slope.  

In the seventh paragraph she adds, “Any ruling similar to the leaked draft will . . . damage the health and well-being of many.  The prospect is daunting.”  Again, she is fearmongering. 

In the fifth paragraph Bishop Eaton says, “This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible.”  By combining contraception with abortion within this sentence Bishop Eaton is again engaged in fearmongering – implying that if the Supreme Court takes away your right to an abortion, it may next take away your access to contraception. 

What the draft opinion actually says

A link to the draft opinion can be found here.

Please note these three significant sentences –    

• “The constitution makes no mention of abortion.” (page 1)    
• “No such right is implicitly protected by any constitution provision.” (page 5)
• Therefore, the draft would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” (page 6)  

Progressives/liberals say that the Supreme Court would make abortions illegal.  In actuality, the draft opinion would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

The draft opinion would not make abortions illegal.  Instead it affirms that the constitution does not provide a basis for the right to an abortion.  The right to have an abortion – or the limitations to the right – should be based upon the action of individual states. 

In the sixth paragraph Bishop Eaton makes the statement, “I urge you to work locally to moderate any Supreme Court decision similar to the leaked draft.”  In making that statement she seems to be acknowledging what the draft opinion is actually doing – returning the decision to the states.

Bottom line

Bishop Eaton’s “Pastoral Message on Abortion” makes one wonder whether she actually read the draft opinion before writing a letter about it. 

She needs to be far more careful if she wishes to help contribute to “complex moral discernment” rather than “conflict and moral policing” (sixth paragraph).  Instead of helping to avoid conflict, she has created conflict by releasing a statement that is highly critical of a position held by many within the ELCA.  She is not serving well as presiding bishop of the whole church when she makes such strong statements that do not respect the diversity of viewpoint within the ELCA.  Once again the ELCA communicates that in spite of all of its talk about diversity and inclusivity, traditional views and those who hold them are not welcome.