I was going to write about the challenge of discipling online worshipers.  However, that topic will need to again wait for the next issue of this newsletter.  Why? Because something quite urgent has come to my attention.  It was a June 2^nd (2021) fundraising letter from North American Lutheran Seminary, the seminary for the North American Lutheran Church.  In that letter was this statement from the seminary President, Dr. Eric Riesen: “…Over the next ten years more than 70 percent of our current NALC pastors will retire.”

Reflect on the implications of that statement for just a moment.  And keep in mind that this forecast is undoubtedly reflective of the clergy supply crisis facing not just the NALC, but the LCMC and ELCA as well.

I am convinced there are three converging factors which will create a “perfect storm” when it comes to the available supply of pastors for American churches.

One factor is the significant number of current, working pastors who have already reached or surpassed retirement age.  We have not yet reached the peak of the exodus of pastors from full-time ministry for a couple of reasons: The pandemic; and the fact that some of these pastors just want to “keep going” despite their age.  But the aging process waits for no one, including clergy.  Like the full-time pastor who called me to talk about when he might want to start planning for his retirement.  His age?  81 years old!  And how does the pandemic impact retirements?  Some pastors, understandably, didn’t want to leave their congregations until the worst of the pandemic was behind them.  However, as we begin to enter a post-Covid environment many of these pastors are now about to retire.  

A second factor contributing to an increasing shortage of pastors is decreasing seminary enrollment.  This unfortunate cross-denominational trend has been going on for years, if not decades.  Just one example: In that fundraising letter from North American Lutheran Seminary that I mentioned there was a photograph of the graduating class of 2021.  Just four students.

A third factor in this developing shortage of pastors is clergy burnout.  Thom Rainer’s coaching ministry, Church Answers, conducted a cross-denominational survey of over one thousand pastors just last fall.  Close to 80% indicated they were thinking of quitting.  That’s right, 80%.  No doubt some of this was due to the multiple ways the pandemic has contributed to the stress of church ministry.  However, the trend of increasing pastor burnout preceded Covid and will undoubtedly persist post-Covid.  Kate Shellnutt, in the July/August (2021) issue of Christianity Today, writes: “Across the country, pastors…have ushered weary congregants through virtual worship setups, lonely hospital stays, funerals, job losses, intense political tensions, and relentless debates over pandemic precautions.”  She continues, “During the first months of the year, fewer than half of regular churchgoers in the US made it to an in-person service, according to the Pew Research Center, though more than three-quarters said their churches had reopened.”

All three of these factors are converging in the context of American congregations which are, more often than not, dealing with some level of institutional decline.  Be it an aging membership, declining worship attendance, or far fewer baptisms, most churches are facing a decidedly uncertain future.  Add the developing clergy shortage and the word “crisis” seems more than apt.  The Body of Christ will, of course, endure.  However, if we don’t confront this crisis in a proactive way a great many people will never be reached with the Good News.

Added to all these ministry challenges, American churches have, for generations, developed an unhealthy dependence on ordained, seminary-trained clergy to lead and serve their congregations.  And as I continue, keep in mind that churches led by seminary-trained, ordained clergy was not the New Testament model for local faith communities.  (1^st Peter 2:4-10)

Consider, with me, one possible scenario where a hypothetical LCMC congregation makes the decision—after a frustrating and unsuccessful search for a new, ordained pastor—to embrace a ministry model that aspires, out of necessity, to move “beyond clergy”.

This hypothetical church is Grace Lutheran, and it is located in a small city in the Midwest.  Grace’s call committee was organized in the summer of 2021; about the time that the pandemic was finally winding down, and shortly after their pastor of 18 years announced his retirement.

Since Grace was a healthy and conflict-free congregation the call committee was confident they would be able to find and call the pastor “God had in mind” for their church.  Mixed with the committee’s initial optimism there was, however, some anxiety.  Grace Lutheran’s post-Covid weekly attendance in the fall of 2021 had shrunk to 85 compared to a pre-Covid 2019 attendance average of over 125.  But the call committee forged ahead; confident that part of the attendance losses were simply due to their pastor’s retirement.  Surely the “right” new pastor would help rebuild their attendance back to at least what it was in 2019.

However, the search process dragged on into the fall of 2022.  The call committee in particular and the members in general were becoming demoralized.  There was one brief period of optimism when the committee extended a call to an applicant they were truly excited about.  But at the last minute this candidate decided to accept one of the other two calls he was “sitting on.”

It was after going through this frustrating search for over a year that the committee decided to engage the services of (you guessed it) a Congregations in Transition coach.  This coach suggested a new, some would say even radical, strategy.  While continuing their search for an ordained pastor the coach recommended that Grace Lutheran consider recruiting, training and hiring a congregational member to serve as their minister.  Here were the steps their coach outlined for the call committee and church council:

1. First there was the matter of identifying the right person from among their members.  The question posed by the coach was, “Does a particular male or female member come to mind as someone God might be ready to call—whether part-time or full-time—to be a minister here at Grace?”  It would need to be someone who had the necessary gifts, faith, maturity, and integrity to fill such an important role.  Also, this individual would need to have already established a reputation, among the members, of being a faithful and trustworthy congregational leader.  With these qualifications in mind the call committee and council members were asked to pray and reflect on this question.  After an extended time of prayer and reflection (weeks perhaps?) there was the difficult task of coming to a consensus as to which person would be approached.  This took place in a (one-day) retreat setting.

2. The next step—once a consensus was reached—was to approach the “candidate”.  The question asked of this individual was this: Would he or she be willing to eventually accept such a paid ministry position if the congregation agreed to pay the cost of online ministry training?  In addition to this training the future minister would be encouraged to establish a mentoring relationship with an ordained pastor.  This could either be a CiT coach or a pastor living and serving within driving distance of Grace Lutheran.

3. Once this member agrees to pursue ministry training the church council and congregation would make this arrangement both public and official, commissioning (and celebrating with) this “minister-in-training” at a worship service.

4.  In consultation with congregational leaders the chosen future minister would then decide on an appropriate online ministry training program.  Possibilities considered might include St. Paul Seminary (St. Paul, Minnesota), the Institute of Lutheran Theology (Brookings, South Dakota), and North American Lutheran Seminary (Ambridge, Pennsylvania).

Note: If the person chosen is unable to commit to eventually work as a full-time minister the congregation should then be open to negotiating a worker-priest contract where this individual would be part-time and bi-vocational.  It is imperative that the “right” person not be passed over simply because he/she cannot be a full-time minister.

The above hypothetical scenario does not by any means address all of the details that would need to be worked out by the leaders of a congregation like Grace Lutheran.  These include the eventual job description, compensation, and whether this member-minister would be pursuing formal ordination (or not).  However, this entire process could be monitored and, to an extent, led by a Congregations in Transition coach.  By all means email me if you have any questions.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Don Brandt

pastordonbrandt@gmail.com

503-559-2034

A recent discussion in Lutheran CORE’s private and visible Facebook group had to do with whether it is appropriate to refer to the Bible as the Word of God.

The question was raised regarding Lutheran CORE’s position on that issue.

We are fully aware of the fact that the real issue behind the issue is more often than not the authority of Scripture.  Refusing to call God Father, rejecting evangelism as part of the mission of the church, seeing faith in Christ as only one out of many ways to God, and embracing the radical LGBTQIA+ agenda all result from rejecting the inspiration, reliability, and authority of the Bible. 

Here is a link to Lutheran CORE’s 2007 statement, which is entitled “A Lutheran Statement on the Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Church.”  Although it was written within the context of the ELCA’s Book of Faith Initiative, it clearly states that “the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who has revealed himself most fully and completely in Jesus Christ.”  This document can be found on the About section of our website.  Click on About, and then on Historical Documents.

Rev. Bill Moberly is the Founder & Director of Awakening Lives to World Missions, which exists to call, equip and network congregations for more effective global outreach. ALWM draws on his 30+ years of experience in training churches across the US.

“The joy experienced during these months will never be forgotten,” he wrote, “the joy of telling people ‘The Old, Old Story,’ a story which they never before had heard. That joy cannot be described; it can only be experienced.” (Rev. Ralph D Hult, Lutheran pioneer missionary to Africa.)¹ Those stirring words echo Jesus’ teaching in Luke 15:7 “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” The powerful stories of the thousands of Lutheran missionaries who served the predecessor bodies that formed the ELCA, going back to the first missionary sent in 1842, are rooted in this truth and the call that compels us to pray, send and go.

This is still the primary Global Mission task given to His Church by our Lord Jesus Christ: to go and make disciples of all the nations (ethne)! If your only frame of reference for global missions is the past generation, during the decline in the number of synodical Lutheran missionaries, and the increasing focus on the “accompaniment” mission model in the ELCA, it might surprise you to learn, for example, that China (including Hong Kong & Taiwan) and India have received more Lutheran missionaries since 1842 than any other country! Lutheran pioneer missionary efforts among the unreached and least reached over the decades have always included proclamation of the Gospel, discipleship, along with building schools, hospitals and other humanitarian efforts.

With my undergrad degree in history, I love looking at where we have been – both for the powerful stories of people living and serving – but also to learn from the past. When I heard for the first time in the early 1990’s about ‘accompaniment’ as the likely new ELCA global mission, I had just begun working more directly in global missions. In that role I was learning terms like ‘unreached people groups’ and distinguishing between the unreached and unevangelized. My first thought on ‘accompaniment’ was, ‘how can the more than three billion unreached people, where the church barely exists – if at all – ever invite us to accompany them?’ Nearly half of the world’s population, the “all nations” still needing to hear the Gospel, were ignored. So, let’s look back to 1988.

When the ELCA formed, there were more than 780+ long term missionaries serving the three predecessor synods: ALC, LCA and AELC. By 2002 the collective number had dropped to 166. This now also included long term and short term missionaries (1-2 years). Now, according to the ELCA:

 “there are 240 missionaries in four categories:

• Long-term (usually four or more years)
• Global Mission two-year program
• Self-funded volunteer (varied length) – includes teachers and health care professionals
• Young Adults in Global Mission (usually one year)

Personnel positions in long-term service meet core programmatic needs in the ELCA’s global mission program… The number of long-term positions is limited” ⁴

The long-term pioneer missionaries of past generations – who learned the local language, adapted culturally and toiled continually to bring the Gospel to new ‘tongues, tribes, peoples and languages’ – are no more. What happened? Dr. Robert Benne put it this way:

“Convinced that all missionary activity was corrupted by western colonialism, the ELCA decided soon after its formation to forgo pioneer missionary efforts – bringing the Gospel to peoples who had never heard it before. Instead it opted for accompaniment, ie helping already established younger churches in whatever way they determined. While accompaniment itself is a noble enterprise, the refusal to carry the Gospel to those who have never heard it was a direct repudiation of the Great Commission. The number of missionaries plummeted, while social service helpers increased.” ⁵

The number of missionaries declined sharply, and the core task also drastically changed. The words of Rev. Hult, above, stand in sharp and disheartening contrast to the words of another Lutheran missionary written nearly a century later:

“My job as a missionary in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not to convert anyone to anything. The ‘accompaniment model’ for missionary work, to which we subscribe, is defined as walking together in solidarity, practicing interdependence and mutuality.” ²

“I usually associate evangelism with an effort to convert nonbelievers to Christianity, something that makes me very uncomfortable. Too often the desire to bring about conversions grows out of a belief that nonbelievers need to be ‘saved’ from eternal damnation by adopting the Christian faith. To the extent that evangelism is about ‘saving souls,’ I want nothing to do with it. I approach matters of faith and belief with humility, unwilling to assert the superiority of my own religious beliefs over those of others.” ³

The ELCA describes it this way, in the Living Lutheran at their website, in a post that has since been removed:

“Today, missionaries with the ELCA serve in 48 countries. . .Most missionaries from Europe and North America are now lay people with special expertise, rather than clergy intent on conversion.”

Essential to finding your way when you’re lost is knowing where you are, and how you arrived there! Although many reading this may not agree at all with the loss of evangelism and pioneer missions, or some of the startling statements, the truth is that in many Lutheran congregations global missions has diminished, and in some cases virtually disappeared. That is the tragic ‘new normal’ that has emerged in many churches after nearly 30 years of accompaniment, and a global missions decline that can be traced, in fact, back into the 1960’s. I don’t write here to cast blame or point fingers. Those persuaded that missions  = colonialism, or church members in our pluralistic age that believe that all religions are roads to the same God, are probably happy with the state of things.

On the other hand, there also many of us who want our congregations to return, in words and in actions, to the priority of Jesus’ global mission mandate! Rev. August Carlson, pioneer Lutheran missionary to India, anticipated a time like ours today when global missions would diminish. He urged the publication of a periodical solely on missions, “expressing the fear that missionary information might otherwise eventually come to be relegated to a less important place and missions itself come to be looked upon as secondary in importance”.⁶

The path forward for us is always found as we return to the Word of God and the Lord of the Church! Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) The resurrected Jesus Christ said, ^“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). Jesus’ command to HIS church is still to go and make disciples of all the nations! This still starts in our congregations: in our worship, Sunday school, in teaching, in our gatherings of various kinds, and when our members, councils and teams meet to pray and plan. Every congregation – rural or urban, large or small – is to be purposefully and personally engaged in helping fulfill the global great commission. We are called to be actively engaged as prayers, givers and goers. After the effects of the last generation, in many churches it may have been so long that you don’t remember how or where to start. To put it another way – the fact is that ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’. But ignorance as people and congregations in knowing how to genuinely answer God’s call to the nations is not bliss. Resources exist, the Lord is calling, and people are still waiting to hear the ‘old, old story’ of forgiveness and life in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

[For assistance with evaluating and energizing your global missions ministry, write Pastor Moberly at missionshelp@alwm.org]

Footnotes

1 -Three missionary pioneers and some who have followed them

by Swan Hjalmar Swanson p. 120

2-(https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-talk-no-peace-how-israels-separation-barrier-cuts-off-the-conversation0 – Sept, 2013

3 –https://www.exposingtheelca.com/exposed-blog/archives/10-2013 The original quote from the Living Lutheran, used in the article footnoted here, is no longer available at the ELCA website

4: Where We Work – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org)

5 – [https://www.atlantic-nalc.org/about/our-history/]  by Robert Benne.

6 -Three missionary pioneers and some who have followed them by Swan Hjalmar Swanson p. 33.

CELEBRATING GLOBAL MISSION (www.cgmmag.com) is a new, free, web based publication that “Informs, inspires & encourages Lutherans to take the Gospel to the nations”! The compelling PURPOSE behind CGM is the Great Commission: Jesus’ timeless command to “Go and make disciples of all the nations (ethne)”. The HEART of CGM is the faithful, challenging, difficult and fruitful work of our founding global mission partners: World Mission Prayer League, Lutheran Bible Translators and Friends of Madagascar Mission. Their front line missionary stories will be featured on a regular basis, along with other Lutheran agencies that may join us in the future, in  a wide-ranging collection of world mission themed articles published quarterly.

CGM is published by Awakening Lives to World Missions, in partnership with Bible Alive Ministries. The experienced team includes Rev. Bill Moberly, Editor; Rev. Kent Groethe, Consulting Editor (founding editor and publisher of Connections Magazine the first decade), and Joy Minion is Publishing Editor. She had the same role the first ten years of Connections.

Rev. August Carlson was a pioneer Lutheran Missionary to India from 1878-1882. He had a profound love for Christ and was a clarion voice for the missionary needs among the unreached. As was common in the early days, many missionaries left the USA not knowing if they would ever return. He pleaded passionately in many letters to the Synod to send more workers. Rev. Carlson also “advocated a periodical devoted wholly to missions, expressing the fear that missionary information might otherwise eventually come to be relegated to a less important place and missions itself come to be looked upon as secondary in importance.” That is where we are today in much of our Lutheran family! It is in that same Spirit that we commend to you CGM. The first issue was published in May. The second issue will be available mid July!

Several years ago, I sent an email to Bishop Eaton sharing a concern that I had about seminarians with traditional views on human sexuality and marriage.  Earlier that year, there had been a crisis at United Lutheran Seminary, when it was discovered that the seminary president had once considered homosexuality to be sinful. What was worse, she had belonged to an organization that advocated conversion therapy.  The student body, along with ReconcilingWorks, demanded that she either resign or be fired.  In addition, ReconcilingWorks withdrew its endorsement of ULS as an RIC (Reconciling in Christ) seminary.  After the president’s resignation, ULS worked diligently to regain that endorsement. 

Given that a formerly traditional president was deemed unacceptable, I was concerned that ReconcilingWorks also considered traditional professors and students to be unacceptable.  Therefore, I wrote to Bishop Eaton to ask whether traditional students were still welcome at ELCA seminaries.  Bishop Eaton reassured me that they were indeed welcome.  After all, she said, the goal of ReconcilingWorks was inclusivity.  They wanted to make sure that all people were welcome in the ELCA.  They were also committed to the notion that we could live together in spite of our differences. 

I decided to find out if this was the case.  I contacted my synod’s branch of ReconcilingWorks.  I told them that my congregation had traditional values on sex and marriage, but was committed to living together in spite of our differences.  Could we become a RIC congregation?  The answer was “No.”  Only congregations that are committed to the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people could be RIC congregations. 

Since this contradicted what Bishop Eaton told me, I asked what ReconcilingWorks’ expectations were for synods and seminaries.  I was referred to the national office of ReconcilingWorks.  They confirmed what I had been told about their expectations for congregations.  When I asked about their expectations for synods and seminaries, I was told that they were different.  I asked them to be more specific.  Did ReconcilingWorks expect synods to weed out traditional pastors in the call process?  Did they expect candidacy committees to weed out traditional candidates for ordination or rostered ministry?  Furthermore, did they expect seminaries to refuse to hire professors who held traditional views, or refuse to accept applications from students with traditional views?  The spokesperson for ReconcilingWorks declined to answer those questions in writing.  She offered to discuss it further by phone.  Thinking that was a waste of time, I did not call her. 

However, in 2021, I decided to try again.  I contacted the same spokesperson and received the same reply.  She was unwilling to answer my questions in writing, but was willing to discuss it on the phone.  Unfortunately, when I called, there was no answer.  I left a message asking her to return my call, but she did not.  After further attempts, I gave up. 

What I have concluded from all of this is that ReconcilingWorks is not committed to the inclusion of all people despite their views on sexuality and marriage.  Instead, they are committed to the gradual conversion of all congregations, synods, and seminaries to their position.  It isn’t surprising that this is the goal of ReconcilingWorks, but at the least, we should expect them to be honest about it.  More importantly, since the ELCA endorses ReconcilingWorks as a ministry partner, and consults them before making any important decision, it should be honest about the true agenda of ReconcilingWorks.

“So Jesus again said to them … ‘The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.’” (John 10:7a, 10-12, RSV)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ —

My heart is broken. And no doubt, so is yours. Rarely, if ever (at least not since the 1860’s), have we experienced so much enmity and animosity rise up within our nation. It is especially evident within the Church, people groups, and our own families. There are many reasons for this. The purpose of this article is not to unpack a detailed history behind this cultural shaking but to name just one source of this great divide, Critical Race Theory (CRT). Minimally, CRT serves as a catalyst for this all-consuming fire of chaos and confusion, truly exasperating an already significant rift in our nation’s union. Also, I hope to scratch the surface of why pastors and leaders of the Church should be deeply troubled and consider engaging in the conversation surrounding CRT. As I consider this issue, in light of my call as a ‘little shepherd’ within Christ’s Church (and my own family), I am quite aware of what Jesus speaks to us in John 10:7-10, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”

We must stand on the truth of what it means to be followers of Jesus Christ, the way of the Cross, and what that way conveys in terms of genuine and eternal Redemption and Transformation. This way of CRT (the Cross of Redemption and Transformation) is radically different in its eventual outcome from that of CRT (Critical Race Theory) which is rooted in a Marxist ideology and does not include (or allow) a Christ-like redemption or reconciliation but only unhealthy reparations in a spirit of revenge. It does not understand the Christ-like grace and healing experienced in authentic transformation but only that which ‘transforms’ through tearing down and building back something totally unfamiliar to orthodox Christians and traditional citizens of the United States of America.

In his excellent article, Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It, Christopher Rufo explains why attempts to halt encroachment have not succeeded; one reason for this is that “ … Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise — that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history — is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion — that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown — does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.” (March, 2021, Imprimis)

Who’s shepherding our children?

Our hearts should be broken and our spirits in tremendous upheaval because of what CRT represents and how it is establishing itself as a ‘door’ to the hearts and minds of our children and our children’s children. It becomes “a hireling and not a shepherd!” (John 10:12) CRT’s agenda  is to dismantle the ancient foundational markers and bring division not only to the family but the nation. Deuteronomy 4:9 reminds us, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children.” An administrator in the public school system recently said, “Like a cancerous tumor that has metastasized in the body, Critical Race Theory and its variants including social justice; Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI); anti-racism; cultural competency; and implicit bias have poisoned all aspects of public education and even some private schools. These hateful and racist philosophies have become entrenched in every level and aspect of American public education.” (April 2, 2021, American Thinker, “I Work in the Public School System-Critical Race Theory Is Everywhere”) This is only one of countless dozens who are on the frontlines of this intrusive assault upon their students (sheep) who are responding in a similar manner. While many are speaking out, it seems that the Church is relatively silent.

Admittedly, in the past I have not addressed this issue as I should. It would be so tempting and much easier to remain silent and not enter into ‘the arena’ of this particular public discourse. It is messy and may be costly! However, my gut is wrenching when I consider these words: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42) Those who are most vulnerable and malleable — this present generation — are at risk! How can we haphazardly and quietly watch our children be told lies, shamed, and coerced into living a life contrary to the Gospel?

It’s all about the foundation

What has created this void of leadership, seemingly in all segments of our society, to allow such a corrupt and deceptive agenda to permeate the very core of our culture? How have our foundational underpinnings been compromised so terribly and brutalized so thoroughly to divide our nation so severely (cf. The 1619 Project, etc.)? “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” (Matthew 12:25)

It was just six months into the new millennium, on July 4^th, 2000, that I wrote down these random thoughts, slightly modified for this writing: “It’s all about the foundation … As I watch my home being built, I’m mindful that in a few short weeks the insulation will be installed, the drywall stocked and put up, and the trim work finished, thus covering up much of what’s most important … the electric, plumbing, HVAC, the framing, and, of course, the foundation. The stuff we take for granted. For the most part we only see the externals. The glitz. The façade. In our society, much of what’s most important is ‘hidden’ from our sight to the point of obscurity or even forgotten. On this first Independence Day of the new millennium our nation’s economy is robust and prosperous. But something is not right. We are much ‘too comfortable’ as a people, which should create a great discomfort and uneasiness within our collective spirit, primarily because in the midst of all of our comfort, we are simultaneously witnessing our values, morals, foundational pieces (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) eroding away … With so much emphasis upon the externals, we are in danger of forgetting what lies at the very core … what is foundational for our country.”

More recently, nearly twenty-one years after completing the construction of our home, we are now engaged in significant remodeling and renovation on many fronts; and once again, ironically, I find myself in a metaphorical and fairly introspective mood, especially as it relates to building on a solid foundation. Whether new building or re-construction, it really is all about the foundation, knowing that the foundation is the basis for all enduring construction which must be deep, bed-rock solid, and level. Before any construction project begins, a transit level (or builder’s level) is set upon the proposed construction site. A transit level is an optical instrument, or a telescope, complete with a built-in spirit/bubble level that is mounted on a tripod, and used to establish a reference line. Once the transit is secured, all the subsequent construction of a building is necessarily impacted and the resulting foundation will be either solid or faulty.

A beginning definition

As noted previously in this article, I’m gravely concerned about CRT and what it represents. I believe that it’s a particularly treacherous ‘transit level’ that is being established across the landscape of this great country to supposedly create a new and more hopeful future; but, it must first utterly demolish and completely dismantle the old foundational moorings, beginning with our nation’s history and divide us as a people. One of Rev. Martin Luther King’s closest friends and advisers, Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, clearly rejected CRT. One of the core principles of CRT begins with “blocs” (with each person assigned to an identity or economic bloc, as in Marxism). “Human-to-human interactions are replaced with bloc-to-bloc interactions. As Dr. Walker tried to make clear, thinking in terms of blocs of people, rather than of people as individuals, leads to a whole set of insidious results. How can two people bind together in friendship if they are members of power blocs that are presumed to be inherently opposed … How can we ever find peace among the races and religions if we won’t look to each other, person by person, based on actual facts and actual intentions?” (RealClear Politics, “The Civil Rights Legend Who Opposed Critical Race Theory”, Steve Klinsky, October 12, 2020)

In trying to remain objective in defining CRT, I’ve turned to a known and well-established source, the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, June 16, 2021: “Critical Race Theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.“

The proponents of CRT use a variety of euphemisms to attract potential followers; i.e., equity, social justice, diversity, culturally responsive teaching, white fragility, etc. For example, “ … critical race theorists realize that ‘neo-Marxism’ would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality.” (March 2021, Imprimis, “Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It”) CRT is being methodically and fiercely introduced and even inoculated into all segments of our culture, including government/military, mainstream media, public education, workplace, sports, religious institutions, etc.

We are presently witnessing the quick erosion — actually a deliberate eradication — of the foundational blocks of our country; except now, it’s right at our doorstep. Somehow, like a very plump and happy frog luxuriating in a very broad and shallow kettle full of plenteous water but totally oblivious to the reality that the kettle is sitting on a seductively warm fire — lulling the frog into a deep sleep and eventual death as the temperature of the water overcomes the frog — we, too, have become totally unaware of our immediate surroundings, either because we have taken so much for granted and the water is way too familiar or we have become distracted by the trivialities and choices of life or just plain fell into carelessness in our inability to assess the spirit of the age. (1 John 4:1-6)

In Part II, I will unpack further the distinctives between the philosophical ways and intent of Critical Race Theory and the theological-biblical ways and intent of the Cross of Redemption and Transformation.

K. Craig Moorman

Mission Developer/Pastor of River’s Edge Ministries/NALC-LCMC

Mt. Airy, Maryland

Editor’s Note: This piece was written by a Luther Seminary student earlier this spring.

I can’t tell you what spring is like in places beyond the Midwest — I’m sure they have it but it certainly pales in comparison to the spring that we enjoy in Minnesota. Saint Anthony Park and the ever-creaky Bockman Hall were covered in snow one day this week and basked in warm sun the next. Through open windows a new breeze blows in and with it the promise of a new age. A new age not held by the chains of ice and cold but one dominated by the warmth of the sun.

It is on to this odd state of transition that I cannot help but project my own faith. We as believers live in a time of transition. We have felt the warmth of the Son but are all too familiar with the cold and death of sin. Yet just like those experiencing spring in Minnesota, we know that the days of sin are numbered. We may not know for certain what that number is but that God has assigned it.

There is a moment in early March (and yes, I am a hardy one) when we first feel the warmth that God has given us. It is a feeling unlike anything else as it brings us to the end of our reality and then on to the next. That first warm day in March announces that winter is ending and summer is soon to follow. It is a sweet promise but one that loses its meaning if we spend the rest of the season behind closed windows and in a dorm. There, away from the sun, the promise becomes stale.

I remember the moment when I first felt the warmth of Christ. It brought me to the end of my reality and onto the next. Yet it is a warmth unappreciated when it is followed by distance and silence; by greeting the new breeze with closed windows and walls. Like students in spring, we as believers must live into the warmth and not merely observe its effect through a double-paned window. We will never replace the experience of when the Son first broke the cold but we can continue to live into the promise of that which the Son brings.

How do we live in the sun in a time when winter looms so close? I really couldn’t say but certainly we must first step from our dorms and houses and into where that light shines. We know darkness because we have seen light; cold because we have felt warmth. There is wisdom in that simple pairing — now that we have known, we should know.

The snow on my window’s ledge is gone but, without any regard of my own attitudes, it may return tomorrow. Spring is a time of transition, one that aims to break us of winter and usher in a period where we need not worry about snow. Until that time, I will have to wait and celebrate the warmth as it is given — that is the reassurance that allows us to hope for summer even when winter surprises us again.

A. Nestenprest

Earlier this year, I noticed that ELCA Advocacy had given the Equality Act its full and unqualified endorsement.   It also encouraged members of the ELCA to write their Senators, calling upon them to support the legislation.  In doing so, the ELCA made reference to the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (HSGT). 

I wrote to Presiding Bishop Eaton, saying:

The ELCA has declared its support of the Equality Act.  It is also urging its members to write to their Senators in support of the Equality Act. What I am wondering is whether the ELCA has given any thought to how the Equality Act will affect those congregations who choose not to call partnered homosexual pastors, or who choose not to perform same-sex weddings.  

As you know, there is debate about whether the act will remove religious freedom protections from congregations and pastors.  Has the ELCA considered this question?  Is the ELCA prepared to defend the right of its congregations and pastors to act in accordance with their “bound consciences” as was promised in 2009

The response came not from Presiding Bishop Eaton, but from Rev. Amy Reumann, Senior Director, Witnessing in Society, ELCA.  She assured me that the ELCA is aware of the “implications with respect to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”  She further stated that the ELCA is “reviewing that language in consultation with a number of our full communion partners and ELCA legal staff.”  Finally, she said that the ELCA hopes “to work with these Senate offices in discerning legislative language that achieves a bi-partisan and fair bill for protecting equal rights and religious integrity.”

I was very pleased to hear this and I had only two requests.  I asked if the ELCA would be willing to reiterate what Rev. Reumann told me in a public statement to ELCA congregations and whether I could share her reply.  She said yes to the latter.  In regard to the former, she asked what kind of public message would be helpful in my context.

It is at this point that our conversation began to go awry.  I gave her a fairly detailed response, clearly stating what I would like the ELCA to reaffirm.  Essentially, I asked that the ELCA publicly restate that choosing not to call a partnered homosexual and not to perform same sex weddings, and teaching in accord with positions 1, 2, or 3 of HSGT are still permitted and encouraged by this church.  Secondly, I asked that the ELCA publicly state its opposition to any language in the Equality Act that would or might punish ELCA congregations for these approved practices.

From that point forward, I received several replies reiterating ELCA policy, along with historical documents that detailed the Ministry Policy Resolutions adopted in 2009.  However, the question about whether the ELCA would publicly reiterate its commitment to those documents and to religious freedom protections for its congregations was not answered.  Finally, after a full week and another e-mail to Presiding Bishop Eaton, I received an e-mail telling me that my concerns would be addressed in ELCA Advocacy materials that would come out in April.

In April, ELCA Advocacy did in fact include the following words in its message:

Some U.S Senators support the intent of the Equality Act but have broader concerns about religious exemptions. There may be amendments proposed responding to these concerns.

As in the Senate, in the ELCA there is a diversity of beliefs and debates about possible impacts of this legislation on religious exemptions.

In an April 13 “guest blog” on ELCA Advocacy Blog, ELCA General Counsel, Thomas Cunniff, wrote:

We urge the adoption of legislation that ensures the full rights of LGBTQ+ persons without infringing on religious liberty or permitting improper government interference in the ecclesiastical activities of religious organizations. Blanket exemptions for anyone claiming a religious motive are too broad and would eviscerate necessary civil rights protections for historically marginalized groups. Not providing space in which dissenting religious groups can practice their beliefs free from government interference, however, would gravely damage freedom of conscience. Moreover, fully exempting statutes from RFRA sets a dangerous precedent of permitting the government to forcibly impose the views of the majority on minority religions, a precedent which could easily be weaponized by a future Congress and President. For these reasons, the ELCA is committed to continue working with others, including full communion partners, to find a solution that fully protects the civil rights of our LGBTQ+ siblings while at the same time protecting the free exercise and conscience rights of religious objectors.

That was not the last word on the matter, however.  On April 16, ELCA Advocacy sent an Action Alert with the following apology:

Issuance of the Action Alert related to the Equality Act on April 13 elicited strong reaction communicated through social media and other channels. Anger, deception, confusion, and contribution to a deepening of harm already part of the lives of many LGBTQIA+ members and other siblings surfaced, along with questioning advocacy process and accountability in the ELCA. For presenting a lack of care on these deep-felt issues, we apologize.  [alert]

It further stated that:

The blog post, “Equal Rights and Religious Freedom,” remains public on our ELCA advocacy blog not for prescriptive purposes but as background on “a false choice between equal rights and religious freedom.” Anticipated is a guest blog post that will provide further perspectives.

This seems to indicate that Mr. Cunniff’s blog post does not express the opinion of the ELCA and in no way indicates how the ELCA will proceed in relation to the Equality Act.  So we are left with a deeply ambiguous and equivocal statement of ELCA policy regarding “bound conscience” and religious freedom.  

Sadly, this leaves us where we began.  Any congregation with a commitment to traditional views on marriage and ordination is left uncertain about the future.

From a Washington Post article on March 29, 2021: “Church membership in the United States has fallen below the majority [of the population] for the first time in nearly a century … First time this has happened since Gallup first asked the question in 1937, when church membership was 73%.”

Some caveats here: Gallup uses a “scientific” yet relatively small number of respondents for their surveys.  However, Pew Research uses a far larger number of respondents.  And Pew has been seeing a similar, dramatic decline when it comes to not only whether people are formally affiliated with religious institutions (i.e., membership), but also a significant decline in the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Christian.  Second caveat: This Gallup survey was focused on formal institutional affiliation, and Americans have become increasingly cynical about almost all institutions, not just religious ones.  But again, I would refer you to multiple Pew Religious Survey results which have been revealing significant declines not just in formal church membership, but in people self-identifying as Christians by faith.

Now back to this very recent Gallup survey.  From a long-term historical perspective — something Gallup provides — this current survey should be something of a “wake-up call” for church leaders.  One more quote from the Washington Post article: “In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque.”  This Gallup survey “also found that the number of people who also said religion was very important to them has fallen to 48%, a new low point in their polling” going all the way back to 1937.

Not surprisingly, the Gallup and Pew Research findings are being reflected in decreasing worship attendance.  And this worship attendance decline was painfully evident in a majority of Lutheran congregations long before the current pandemic.

In the last issue of this newsletter I wrote of ways to improve what your congregation offers to online worshipers.  And I do consider online worship as a needed outreach strategy in the years to come.  However, do not think you can afford to give up on offering quality in-person worship.  Those who already are — and soon will be — worshiping in person deserve your congregation’s best efforts.  Below are some specific, practical suggestions regarding how you can incrementally increase in-person worship attendance: “One Sunday at a Time.”

As mentioned, a majority of Lutheran congregations were already dealing with decreasing worship attendance even before COVID.  Needless to say, this can be demoralizing for faithful members on a “number” of levels.  First of all, for them this is about more than numbers, because this decreasing attendance represents friends who are “missing in action”; whether due to inactivity, their having moved, or illness.  Whatever the factors involved, low worship attendance is perhaps the single clearest indication — to members and visitors alike — of a congregation in decline.  Given this fact, anything that pastors and lay leaders can do to noticeably increase attendance will most likely improve congregational morale and bring added energy and enthusiasm to worship services.

Perhaps the best, initial strategy would be having the pastor and a few congregational leaders commit to meeting monthly to coordinate the implementation — one Sunday at a time — to the following, multiple strategies.  (Disclaimer: This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I realize your congregation might already be employing some of these ideas.)  I encourage you to utilize at least one of these ideas on any given Sunday.

1. Special Music – This could be a solo, a duet, a vocal ensemble, or an instrumental performance. Offering this not only improves the quality of your worship celebration, but it also requires the presence of the above musicians; many of whom bring one or more guests to hear them perform.

2. Congregational Sermon Survey – In preparation for the next Sunday’s sermon these very short surveys can be filled out by worshipers during the previous Sunday’s worship service.  Tell them not to sign.  Mention that you will be using some of their comments and opinions in the pastor’s next sermon (or sermon series).  Odds are this will be an encouragement for some otherwise infrequent worshipers to definitely show up the following Sunday.

3. Drama Skits – There are excellent Christian drama skits available.  One example: Drama Ministry at dramaministry.com.  This Christian ministry offers over 750 small-cast scripts for performance. Obviously, a short (usually under 10 minute) drama means the guaranteed presence of not just cast members, but probably their families, and maybe some friends.  Note: Many of these scripts are quite humorous.

4.  Refreshments Following the Service –  Provide a light “brunch”; if not weekly, then perhaps monthly.

5.  Involve Children and/or Teens in Some Part of the Service (They typically come with parents!) – This could be a musical performance, or as Scripture readers, or ushers and greeters.

6.  Celebrate and Honor People from Your Community – Do this as part of your worship service and invite not just members who qualify but non-members from the community as guests on this Sunday.  Some examples include schoolteachers, first-responders, veterans, fire fighters, police officers and especially in this time of COVID, health care workers.

7.  Enlist Additional Volunteers to Celebrate Church Year Festival Sundays – Maybe enlist members who are infrequent worshipers to help out on these Sundays.  In addition to Christmas and Easter, do not forget the first Sunday in Advent, Epiphany Sunday, Palm Sunday, All Saints Sunday, and Pentecost.  Plan for creative ways to utilize these volunteers.

8.  Use Special Video Resources – While this strategy does not increase attendance on a given Sunday, it can improve the overall quality of your worship celebration.  And that will most likely improve attendance over time.  Free resources on the internet include live performance music videos from Mercy Me (“Even If”) and Chris Tomlin (“Is He Worthy”); and many more.  Obviously, you need to be sure that showing any given video does not violate any copyright laws.  There are also short sermonettes online that could emphasize the pastor’s theme for a given Sunday.  Additional video resources that involve a reasonable fee include drama skits from “The Skitguys” at skitguys.com, and video messages available from the ministry Sermonspice at sermonspice.com.

Obviously, this is only a partial list.  And you can no doubt come up with more and better ideas for your congregation.  But remember the principal that underlies all of the above: Working on the quality of your worship celebration not just for your faithful worshipers, but in the hope of connecting with new people over time.  So why not organize that small team, involving the pastor and a few lay leaders, to strategize and plan for worship attendance growth: “One Sunday at a Time.”

Note: In the next CORE newsletter issue I will cover the theme of “How to Disciple Online Worshipers.”

Not too far from our home – in the Sonoran Desert outside Phoenix – is the Southwest Wildlife Conservation Center.  This wonderful facility cares for many desert animals that have been injured or orphaned.  The goal is always to be able to return them to the wild.  But that is not always possible, so for some animals this place becomes their permanent home.  Some animals are brought there by people who naively thought that a mountain lion cub would make a great pet.  But mountain lion cubs always grow up, and people come to realize that something they thought would be safe has become a threat.

I thought of people who mistakenly believe that they could tame a mountain lion cub when I read the April 16 letter from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton addressing racial justice.  A link to her letter can be found here.  In her call for reform to “any institutionally racist system” she essentially endorses Black Lives Matter.  She encourages people to join Campaign Zero, which she describes as “a 10-point policy platform created by the #BlackLivesMatter movement to address and improve relationships between local law enforcement and the communities in which they serve.”  She also urges people to learn more about ELCA resources at elca.org/blacklivesmatter. 

I was relieved to read on the ELCA website that “the ELCA churchwide organization does not provide financial support to this chapter-based organization.”  I have been deeply disturbed to read about some other organizations and businesses that do contribute financially to Black Lives Matter.  It also seemed very reasonable to read on the ELCA website, “This movement does not seek to elevate Black lives above others.  Rather, the movement seeks to help people recognize that Black lives matter no less than other lives.”

The ELCA website is correct when it says, “Scripture tells us that each person is created in the image of God. . . . All of us have integrity and value.”  There is absolutely no question.  Racism does exist, and racism is wrong.  The First Readings for Easter Sunday and May 9 have both come from the account in Acts 10 when God clearly directed Peter to go to the house of Cornelius.  In the First Reading for Easter Peter said, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.” (verse 34) In the First Reading for May 9 “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” (verse 45) Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (verse 47) If God has included them, how could we exclude them?

But for at least three reasons the ELCA’s endorsing and embracing the Black Lives Matter movement reminds me of people who think that a mountain lion cub would be safe.

First, the page on the ELCA website does not address the fact that at least two of the three original founders of Black Lives Matter are self-avowed, trained Marxist organizers.  Marxism has led to political systems that have enslaved people and that have been severely hostile to the Christian faith.

Second, while the full embrace of the LGBTQIA+ agenda is very strong within the ELCA, I am not aware of any official action taken by the ELCA to affirm that full agenda.  A document recently approved by the ELCA Church Council, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” includes the sentence, “This church’s understanding of human sexuality is stated in its authorized social teachings.” (page 8) The most recent of these social teachings is the social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” which was approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  Actions taken by that assembly provided for the blessing of and ordination of persons in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  They did not embrace the full LGBTQIA+ agenda.  In contrast, Black Lives Matter has said, “We foster a queer-affirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”  It is interesting that the page that contains that wording from Black Lives Matter appears to no longer exist.

Third, what Black Lives Matter used to call its “Full Manifesto” also is on a page that appears to no longer exist.  One of the most disturbing sentences in the “Full Manifesto” reads as follows – “We disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children.”  Every orthodox Christian parent should be horrified over a statement like that, which advocates for the state’s taking over the raising of children.  Every Christian parent needs to do everything they can to keep from losing the ability to influence the faith formation of their children.  To me it is interesting – and I believe significant – that some of the statements from Black Lives Matter that have caused the greatest alarm are on website pages that appear to no longer exist.  If you can find them, please let me know.  Has the Black Lives Matter movement modified and/or softened its position?  I doubt it.  I believe they are just downplaying it.  They want people like the ELCA to believe that there is nothing to fear.  What Black Lives Matter advocates for, every reasonable person should be in favor of.  Mountain lion cubs will stay mountain lion cubs