An Analysis of the Work Of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

As promised, we continue to monitor the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC).   The Commission was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  The assembly directed the Church Council to establish a Commission “comprised of leaders of diverse representation” that shall “reconsider the statements of purpose for each of the expressions of this church, the principles of its organizational structure, and all matters pertaining thereunto.”  The Commission was instructed to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and to “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”

There was a very interesting article in “Living Lutheran,” the ELCA’s digital magazine, dated August 2, 2023 and entitled “Inside the commission that could restructure the ELCA.”  Here is a link to that article. The article begins by comparing the original Commission for a New Lutheran Church, which met between 1982 and 1987 and whose work led to the formation of the ELCA, and this recently appointed Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  According to the article, the original Commission (from the 1980’s) was “a mammoth research project that held forums across the country, reviewed over 12,000 letters from Lutheran faithful, and processed responses from the synod, district and national conventions of three Lutheran denominations hoping to merge.”  The original Commission was composed of seventy persons who spent five years doing their work.  In contrast, the current Commission will have less than two years to complete its work.  The article in “Living Lutheran” says, “The new group of 35 rostered ministers and laypeople from across the church will conduct a more condensed version of the original group’s investigation, examining ‘statements of purpose’ and ‘principles of organization’ for all three expressions and conducting nationwide research and listening forums.”

A Timeline for the work of the Commission can be found on their website. Here are some key dates.

The Churchwide Assembly that directed the Church Council to form the Commission was held August 8-12, 2022.

It was not until January-March 2023 that there was a nominating process for members for the Commission.

On April 20, 2023 the ELCA Church Council appointed members to the Commission.

On June 20, 2023 the Executive Committee appointed Leon Schwartz and Carla Christopher as co-chairs of the Commission.

It was not until July 13-15, 2023 that the Commission held its first meeting – almost a full year after the assembly which directed the Church Council to form the Commission and just a little more than two years before the July 28-August 2, 2025 Churchwide Assembly, which will vote on the recommendations from the Commission.  But the Commission needs to complete its work well before then.  Here are a couple more very significant dates coming up very soon which are on the Commission’s Timeline –

Spring 2025 – A draft of the Commission’s report and recommendations is to be shared with the Conference of Bishops for comment.

April 3-6, 2025 – The Commission’s final report and recommendations are to be shared with the Church Council, who will forward the report and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly for the assembly’s consideration.

The “Living Lutheran” article is filled with hope and anticipation.  It quotes from the memorial submitted by the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, which says, “The governing documents, constitutions, bylaws, and continuing resolutions of the ELCA do not allow (congregations, synods and the churchwide organization) to reorganize quickly to meet the changing realities for effective mission in today’s world.”  According to the article the other nine synods which submitted memorials used similar language. 

The article shares comments made by Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz, the two co-chairs of the Commission, in a sit-down interview after the first meeting of the Commission.

Carla Christopher said, “Church itself has changed.  The people coming to church have changed, and the systems necessary to support the work the church is doing have changed. . . . We want to make sure that churchwide is resourcing the best places where mission is happening and innovation is happening, that synods have the ability to support and address and equip rostered (ministers) for the future, that seminaries have relevant curriculum, and that parishioners have the ability to be active and involved even if they’re not traditional parishioners.”

Both Christopher and Schwartz told stories of a “church struggling to react quickly in a century when crisis is becoming the norm.”  Leon Schwartz added, “When the churchwide assembly meets every three years, and that’s the only chance you have to change the constitution, it’s very cumbersome. Even bylaws or continuing resolutions, they take a lot of time to change anything.”

Christopher cited numerous examples of the “church’s command structure breaking down” during the COVID lockdowns of 2020-21.  According to the article, neither co-chair would say that the decades-old model of three expressions is fundamentally flawed, but they did state that many areas of ministry do not fit under any of the three expressions.  These ministries include camps, colleges and universities, interfaith engagement, and environmental agencies.  Schwartz commented, “There’s a lot of things that have just grown up over the past 40 years.”

Leon Schwartz pointed out that the original Commission (from the 1980’s) “took six years to collect its data whereas the new commission is down to about a year and a half before its report comes due.”  Therefore he “lamented that so much time had elapsed already.”  “It’s a different environment,” he said. “You can’t take six years to make changes anymore in this world.”

This same attitude of hope and anticipation continues as the article says, “When the next churchwide assembly convenes, in summer 2025, the CRLC will present its findings and recommend whether the church should then mount a special reconstituting convention without delay.”  I do not remember the words “without delay” being in the original motion.

If all that is the hope, dream, plan, goal, anticipated outcome, and reason for which the Commission was formed, what is the reality?  As of the time of the writing of this article, the Commission has met six times – three times in 2023 and three times in 2024.  Three of the meetings were in person; three were online.  The plan is that the Commission will meet twice a year in person and online every other month during the other months.  Summaries of the first six meetings can be found on the Commission’s website – Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org)     

I have read, studied, and reflected on the written summaries of the first six meetings of the Commission.  I noticed that earlier summaries were more specific in their content.  For example, the Commission revealed their priorities through whom they invited to address them.  They also mentioned their receiving a copy of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of their governing documents.  They have not stated what impact that audit will have on their final report and recommendations.  But the two members who held a listening session for the synod in which I am rostered celebrated the fact that the ELCA is the first of its kind of organization to have such an audit done.

For me, the summaries of the more recent meetings are very general and non-informative.  They speak of such things as reviewing highlights from listening sessions and online surveys, holding listening sessions at the recent youth gathering and adjacent events, identifying essential functions of the three expressions of the church, hearing from synods about their functions, ensuring that their work is viewed through a lens of antiracism, and discussing the current seal and name of the ELCA.  Nothing specific is said.  Reading the summaries tells you nothing about what actually is being done and is going on.

I can think of two possible explanations.  First, they are not getting a whole lot done.  They have grand ideas but do not know how to make those ideas a reality.  After more than half of the time has passed between their first meeting and when they need to give their report and recommendations to the Church Council, they are spinning their wheels.

There is also a second possibility.  They are intentionally not telling us what actually is going on and specifically in what direction they are heading.  For example, they are not disclosing how the ELCA’s DEIA audit will impact their recommendations.  This possibility reminds me of how quickly the recordings of the evening sessions from the recent youth gathering were removed from the internet.

Either way, I see and have a problem and will continue to keep you informed. 

WOE TO THE SHEPHERDS

The First Reading for July 21, the day after the conclusion of the ELCA Youth Gathering, was from Jeremiah 23.  In verse 1 the Lord says to the leaders of God’s people, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!”  I believe that the same thing could be said about the leaders of the ELCA, including the planners of the youth gathering, which was held July 16-20 in New Orleans. 

Because of COVID, the last youth gathering occurred six years ago in 2018.  That time recordings of the messages from the keynote speakers were available for some time after, so I was able to listen to them, analyze them, and report on some of them in detail.  This time the sessions were live streamed (except for when the arena was having difficulties with the internet connection) and the recordings were available only for a short time before they were removed.  I was able to watch the evening session on Tuesday, part of the evening session on Thursday, and the closing worship service on Saturday morning.  Other than that I am dependent upon written comments, including on Facebook, and the daily summaries – complete with ELCA spin – in the ELCA’s digital magazine, “Living Lutheran.”  Even the video recaps for days 1, 2, and 3 – which are still available on the gathering’s YouTube channel – do not give any content from the keynote speakers.  They basically show young people being energetic and doing service projects.  It gives the impression that the gathering planning team do not want people to know what the keynote speakers said.    

However, the team did put together a five minute “Week in Review” video, which is still available.  I will use that video to share my reflections on the gathering.  A link to the video can be found HERE.

The video concludes with the person who actually opened the gathering – Bishop Michael Rinehart of the host synod, the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod (4: 40).  He began not with an opening prayer calling upon the Lord to bless the event but instead by acknowledging the indigenous people who had previously lived on the land and from whom the land was stolen.  It reminded me of the opening of the August 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, where greater emphasis was placed upon the rivers that flow through the area of the host synod than upon the God who created the rivers.  Bishop Rinehart told of how one of the indigenous tribes had sued the federal government and had succeeded in getting their land back.  At the announcement that a tribe had been successful in a lawsuit against the U. S. government, the young people cheered.  Hearing their cheers, I wondered what else they would become (and had already become) conditioned to cheer for.

But what I thought was most significant in Bishop Rinehart’s comments in the “Week in Review” video is the fact that he is the only person in the video who mentions Jesus.  And how does he describe Jesus?  As the “Jesus who calls us to challenge systems of oppression and power.”  Jesus through the lens of Marxism, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology.

The “Week in Review” video opens with Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  This is not in the video, but on Tuesday (opening) night Bishop Eaton was introduced by one of the emcees, Rebekah Bruesehoff, as having worked for eleven years for “inclusivity, advocacy, and social justice.”  The introduction certainly shows what is considered most important.  I thought it was very interesting that Rebekah Bruesehoff, who along with her mother Naomi spoke at the last gathering in 2018 promoting transgenderism, was now one of the emcees.  In 2018 Rebekah was a pre-adolescent, transgender child.  Her mother is the author of “Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.”  The ELCA reveals what it values most by whom it elevates, lifts up, and makes heroes of.

The “Week in Review” video quotes Bishop Eaton as saying with joy and anticipation on opening night, “You can make a change; you can be disruptive” (0: 01).  Actually on opening night Bishop Eaton used three phrases – “You make a difference; you can make a change; you can be disruptive.”  Anyone who does public speaking knows that in a series like that, whatever you want to give the greatest emphasis to – whatever you want to be the climax of your comments – you put last.  On opening night, when Bishop Eaton said, “You can be disruptive,” the crowd cheered.

Many times during the five days the youth were told that they were “Created to Be Brave, Free, Authentic, and Disruptive Disciples.”  I noticed that none of the keynote speakers were brave and free enough to be introduced without including their pronouns.  (When I register for ELCA synodical events, I make sure that I do not give my pronouns.)  The model for being disruptive that was held up was Jesus’ overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple.  But I wonder what kinds of behavior 16, 000 youth thought were being approved, endorsed, and even promoted when they were told that they were created to be disruptive.

Evidently there was one example of being disruptive that did not please everyone.  At the closing worship service Bishop Eaton mentioned that there had been a low point during the gathering when a group was made to feel as if they did not matter.  She said that the group had been offered a heart-felt apology on a previous evening.  Again, because recordings of the evening sessions were very quickly removed, I was not able to watch that apology and find out exactly what it was in response to.  But I can think of one strong possibility.  Someone posted on Facebook that his group had felt “triggered” by one of the speakers.  “Triggered” seems to be a favorite term for those who feel offended.  So the group started talking about it out loud.  People who were nearby asked them to be quiet because they wanted to hear the speaker.  That request led to the group’s feeling even more triggered and claiming that they were being subjected to racist behavior so they will never attend a future youth gathering.  I do not know if that is the incident that triggered the apology, but if it is, it does raise the question of whether talking out loud as a group near other people during a public gathering was validated and legitimized by the ELCA’s saying that we are created to be disruptive.  If my public rudeness leads to your having to apologize publicly because I feel triggered and subjected to your racist behavior, it also shows – in the strange world of wokeness, critical race theory, and DEIA ideology – that the one who is the most empowered is the one who claims to be the most victimized and oppressed.

For me the bright spot of the gathering was the presentation Tuesday evening by Michael Chan (2: 06).  Michael’s message at the ELCA’s Rostered Leaders Gathering last summer was also the bright spot at that event for me.  At the Rostered Leaders Gathering I felt that he was the only keynote speaker who expressed care and concern for us – the ministers of the church – rather than merely viewing us as underlings who need to get totally on board with fully supporting the ELCA agenda and priorities.  At the youth gathering he spoke on Psalm 139: 13 – “You formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  He began by saying, “Wonders happen in the dark,” and then said so many other good things that I would have wanted the youth from my former congregation to hear.  These comments include “You were loved and treasured long before you performed your first good act” and “You were precious long before you could prove it.”  He talked about the difficult circumstances that can bury us and then said, “You are not in the grave, you are in the womb: something is happening in the darkness.” 

I would have been happy to have the youth from my former congregation hear Michael Chan.  I would not have wanted them to hear another keynote presenter, ELCA pastor Keats Miles-Wallace, who spoke on Thursday evening (3: 00).  Pastor Miles-Wallace shared that he always knew that he was different.  In middle school he did not fit in anywhere, and he made himself miserable trying to be what every group that he wanted to be a part of wanted him to be.  He finally learned that God created him to be free – “free to be my weird, different, unique, transgender, non-binary, neuro-divergent, and Anglo-Mexican-Indigenous self.”  Rather than finding his identity in Christ, he found his identity in being himself “out loud.”  He found peace when he finally experienced the “freedom of expression that God intended for all of creation.”  He is a member of the task force that is reviewing the 2009 human sexuality social statement. 

A video was shown on Thursday evening about ten minutes before Pastor Miles-Wallace spoke, which certainly set the stage and prepared the way for Pastor Miles-Wallace’s remarks.  This video went through the various days of creation in Genesis 1 as it prepared the young people to fully embrace the LGBTQ+ agenda.  Its argument was that at first glance, creation seems full of binaries.  God created light and then separated the light from the darkness, but there are also sunrises and sunsets, dawn and dusk.  God separated the land from the waters, but there are places that are not fully land or fully water, such as marshes and bogs.  God created the sun and the moon, but there are also stars, planets, and asteroids.  God created creatures of the land, sea, and sky, but there are also land animals such as penguins that swim and fish that fly.  God created male and female, but He also made all other types of people.  The video concluded, “At a glance creation seems full of binaries, but there is also a beautiful in between.  Genesis gives examples, but does not exclude the possibility of more, and God saw that it was good.”

The video said nothing about God’s creating male and female not as just two of an endless number of possible varieties, but instead so that two could become one flesh and so that the two would be able to be fruitful and multiply.  (Genesis 1: 27-28, 2: 24; Matthew 19: 4-6)  The stage was now set for ELCA youth to fully embrace the full LGBTQIA2S+ agenda and every variety of gender identity.  No wonder the “Week in Review” video even showed a group of youth with a drag queen (2: 00).  

The video of the closing worship service on Saturday ended with a short introduction of the location of the 2027 gathering – Minneapolis.  Minneapolis was described as a city that has a “commitment to inclusivity,” “celebrates diversity and embraces dialog,” and where “every voice is heard and every story matters.”  I noticed the Palestinian flag at one point in the “Week in Review” video (4: 20).  I am sure that during the gathering the voices of the Israeli people were never heard and their story did not matter.  Typical of ELCA youth events, there was not even one person who spoke in support of traditional views of human sexuality and gender identity.  Typical of the ELCA, this time also not every voice was heard and there were stories that did not matter. 

Dennis D. Nelson

lcorewebmail@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider an earlier part of the resolution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bp. Eaton

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

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

How DEIA, Anti-Racism and CRT Are Becoming the New Gospel in the ELCA

Any meaningful discussion of these modern-day heresies absolutely must begin and end with scripture.  DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and now Accessibility – other letters are soon to come, I’m sure, as other intersectional groups demand recognition and victimhood status), Anti-Racism (which seems to actually be sort of reverse racism), and CRT (Critical Race Theory), which defines everything and everyone through the lens of racism. They ultimately divide the world into victims and victimizers, and if you’re deemed a victimizer, you must be destroyed at any cost. 

Although these ideologies are often dressed up in biblical/religious terms to sound Christian enough to mislead people, they actually are in direct opposition to scriptural admonitions, and in fact seek by their very nature to undermine the authority of Scripture and replace the Good News of the Gospel of God’s love poured out for us through Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the cross, with something truly vile and destructive. In order for these progressive idolatries (more on that term later) to be accomplished, people have to be convinced that the Bible is wrong and not to be trusted in matters of faith and life, that faith only matters if it is filtered through the DEIA, CRT and anti-racist ideologies – nothing else will be tolerated!

As background and foundation for this article, I ask that the following biblical references be kept in mind and heart. The biblical language is clear and must not be allowed to be subverted by the typical “theological word salad,” manipulative gaslighting tactics and fear mongering (“If you don’t agree with us, you’re a racist, homophobic, transphobic, or whatever ad hominem attack they can think of to cower people into silence) so often used by activists and race-baiters to stifle debate and confuse those who are not well-grounded in scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

Scripture for Consideration

Galatians 3:23-29, especially verse 28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (NRSV)

Colossians 3:5-11, especially vs. 11: “In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!” (NRSV)

1 Corinthians 12:12-13: “¹² For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. ¹³ For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (NRSV)

Rom 8:1-8, especially 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (NRSV)

The DEIA, Anti-Racism and CRT Replacement Gospel

One of the great gifts that Christianity has given to the world has been the cure for the destructive problem of “tribalism.” For the purposes of this article, I would define tribalism as the pitting of one tribe, nation, group or even gender and intersectional identity against another. When Christianity began to spread, something amazing happened: tribalism no longer defined the lives of people of faith, and that change affected their communities.  A new possibility for communal living began to emerge because people believed in, as THE defining characteristic of their lives, salvation and forgiveness through faith in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for them.  As people came to faith, the tribalism that had separated them and pitted them against one another began to fade away. The rebirth that comes through baptism and faith was incompatible with the old waring cycles of death and destruction, and light began to shine in the darkness as the Kingdom of God began to emerge. Although we begin to see changes coming in cultures and even governments because of the presence of those changed by faith, darkness, however, will always be a part of this broken and sinful world.

Despite all the happy rhetoric surrounding them, DEIA, CRT, anti-racism, and the victim-victimizer way of categorizing people actually turn people against one another, bringing back the tribalism that fell to the power of forgiveness, becoming ultimately profoundly racist and demonic.

Why? Because it skips the whole life-changing-relationship with Jesus part that CAUSED the changes and tries to go right to the end result. But since scripture and true faith are bypassed, the end result actually becomes the activists’ Utopian fantasy of a perfect world. This is where my use of the term idolatry comes in. They worship this vision and will destroy anything in the way of accomplishing it. Their goal, sadly, is a reflection of their own brokenness(as all idols are), and therefore HAS to accommodate virtually every kind of behavior forbidden by scripture (just keep adding more letters to the abbreviations!). God and scripture are, other than the occasional out-of-context reference to give some illusion of legitimacy, taken out of the equation completely. The resulting idolatry is then inside-out and backwards (I think the technical term is “bass-ackwards”) from what scripture invites us to experience. 

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

Imagine the horror and embarrassment of ELCA leadership when it was discovered that after 35 years of mandated 10% quotas of people of color and people whose primary language is other than English, the ELCA actually became on average MORE Caucasian, with some figures being quoted as high as 97%!

Imagine the thought processes at work: “What can we do now? How can we FORCE the ELCA to become the church that we want it to be. The ‘racist’ ELCA must be destroyed and rebuilt in our image (but see Genesis 1:21 to see whose image is important!). We’ll call it ‘decolonization’ or ‘deconstruction,’ but we’ve got to completely destroy it. But how can we make the churches go along with all of this? I know! We’ll use guilt to do it! That worked before, right? We’ll throw enough Bible-sounding word salad at them to confuse them, but we’ve got to convince the 97% that THEY are the problem, condemned by God, that they are evil, racist, misogynistic, sexist, and that they are victimizers! THIS is the new gospel. ‘No condemnation in Christ Jesus’? Hah! We’ll HEAP condemnation on them! We’ll minimize Jesus’ death on the cross and salvation through faith in him. We’ll undermine people’s confidence in scripture, the confessions and the creeds, and we’ll guilt them into submission. Then they will actually help us destroy the church! Brilliant! And we’ll promise them a million new members who look just like us! All they have to do is shut up and get out of the way.”

In order to accomplish this on any level, ALL of the institutions of the church must be changed so that DEIA is the unquestioned operating procedure (done!), and they have to infuse DEIA into all of the constitutional documents of Churchwide, synods, and especially churches. Already on the ELCA website is the result of their DEIA audit and recommended changes to all of our constitutions. Being pushed by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, this represents the reworking of the framework of the ELCA, from top to bottom. Once the DEIA is fully unleashed, nothing can stop it, and I don’t think most of the leadership in the ELCA fully understands what hell they’re about to experience themselves. DEIA demands complete obedience with no tolerance for conservative or dissenting voices. Even bishops will be forced to conform. 

The one thing still standing in the way of full domination for DEIA is Bound Conscience. These positions, put in place apparently to gaslight people who disagreed with changes made in 2009, are what gives legal cover to those who would disagree with DEIA, CRT and anti-racism. Oddly, from a conservative and biblical point of view, these clauses are deeply flawed. We would say with Luther, that our consciences are bound to the Word of God. Oddly, that part is never mentioned in the Bound Conscience clauses.

However, when Bound Conscience goes (and it is being actively “reconsidered” now), nothing is left to protect conservative pastors and churches who still dare to disagree, and we will be subject to legal action, discipline and punishment for being racist or any of the usual phobics, and whatever other attacks that would be launched. That, I believe, will happen as soon as DEIA is fully implemented in our constitutional documents. DEIA leaves no room for disagreement. The change will be breathtakingly swift. The United Methodists are now discovering, with the departure of huge numbers of conservative pastors and churches, what happens when the conservative brakes are released. Even progressives there are showing some concern at how quickly their founding documents and positions are being abandoned – with not much of substance being put in their place.

I expect these changes to begin to be implemented at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. Once DEIA changes are implemented, Bound Conscience will fall. Conservative pastors and churches will no longer be welcome in the ELCA, nor will we be safe.

Be sure to check out the two new videos on our You Tube channel.  A link to our You Tube channel can be found here.  Both of these videos are from members of the board of Lutheran CORE.  Doug Schoelles, NALC pastor, has given us a CORE Convictions video critique of the “Created to Be” curriculum used by Lutheran Outdoor Ministries.  A link to his video can be found here.  Chris Johnson, LCMC pastor, has given us a video book review of a biography of Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers of all time.  A link to his video can be found here.

LUTHERAN OUTDOOR MINISTRY CURRICULUM

A CORE Convictions Video by Doug Schoelles

What makes it even more important that people know about this curriculum is the fact that basically the same teaching material is being used in preparation for and at the ELCA Youth Gathering this summer.  The material claims that the focus of each of the five sessions is to give youth “an opportunity to explore more deeply the authentic selves God has created us to be.”  But in actuality it is rife with social justice works righteousness and saturated with DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) ideology as it tells young people that God created them to be exactly as they are, their identity is however they define themselves, and that they are to be brave and disruptive change makers.

Under the theme “Created to Be Free,” there is no mention of being free from sin, rebellion, and death.  Under “Created to be Authentic,” there is no mention of who I am in Christ and how Christ defines me.  Instead it is completely how do I define myself.  The young people are told they are loved by God, but there is no reference to why or how.  The cross of Christ is only referenced once. 

“SPURGEON: A BIOGRAPHY”

A Video Book Review by Chris Johnson

Who is the “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)? Arnold Dallimore shares with us the story of a man whose reputation spans generations and continents, a man who has been read in many languages and still is respected to this day. This biography recounts the life of Spurgeon from a faithful young lad, to becoming a “Boy Preacher,” to being the leader of, at the time, one of the largest churches in the world, the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. The Lord, through this church, would educate generations of pastors, care for orphans, and serve as a clear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Dallimore’s biography serves as an entry point to know the life of this British preacher. Without getting bogged down into too many details, Dallimore recounts for us Spurgeon as a riveting preacher, a teacher of pastors, a public theologian, a prayer warrior, a faithful husband who loved and was loved by his loving wife (Susannah), a capable administrator of a large urban church, a pastor who had the salvation of souls as his main mission, a pastor who had a heart for the many meek, mild, and poor in London, a man who dearly loved his Lord, his Scriptures, and his calling as an under-shepherd of the Good Shepherd.

Though Spurgeon (what we might consider a Reformed/Calvinistic Baptist) and Lutheran theology don’t always see eye to eye on key points of doctrine (the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, to name two), Lutherans can still learn from this man’s passion, dedication, and seemingly indefatigable nature to help build a bit of the kingdom of God here on earth. One works as hard as possible for the sake of the kingdom and God does the rest. We sow, God provides the growth. Pastors and laity can both enjoy this accessible biography of Spurgeon and have a fire rekindled in them for the difficult, yet eternally essential mission of the Church.

Some widely circulated works of Spurgeon, in addition to his many sermons, include the following: “Lectures to My Students,” “Morning and Evening,” “Smooth Stones Taken from Ancient Brooks,” “The Treasury of David,” and decades of his monthly publication, “The Sword and the Trowel.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·      How will it be determined who is experiencing oppression? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

So far I have not received a response.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“A SHORT COURSE ON PRAYER”

by CATHY AMMLUNG AND TIM HUBERT

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

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

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

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

Folks interested in Tim’s book, for themselves or as a manual for an adult study group, may contact Cathy at cammlung@gmail.com. She will put you in touch with Tim!

Scripture

Mark 4:35-41

Script

Props: Disciples and boat. You will need the egg carton and the eggs labeled with the names of the disciples. You will also need bookmarks, one for each child. These are simple to make. Simply print the following on a long strip of cardstock. You can laminate, add ribbon, stickers, or an image from the computer on the bookmarks, or you can keep them simple with just the text. You may want to think about giving bookmarks to all members of the congregation as well.

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

Because of Jesus, I don’t have to be afraid.

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

Pastor: Good morning boys and girls! Welcome! Let’s say good morning to our friend Sammy and see if she is there. Ready? One, two, three: Good morning, Sammy!

Sammy: Good morning, everyone! Pastor, let’s get out the disciples and their boat.

Pastor: Who here has seen the ocean or the bay before? What is the ocean/bay like?

[Allow time for responses]

Sammy: I love it when Farmer Mark takes me to the ocean.

Pastor: Farmer Mark takes you to the ocean, Sammy?

Sammy: I get around, Pastor.

Pastor: Our gospel reading today is about how Jesus calmed the sea.

Sammy: What happened?

Pastor: Jesus and his disciples were on a boat and Jesus was so tired that he fell asleep in the stern of the boat?

Sammy: What’s a stern?

Pastor: The stern is the back of the boat. Jesus fell asleep and the wind blew and the waves crashed against the boat. Then the boat began to fill up with water.

Sammy: Oh no! That sounds bad. Jesus had to be awake for all of that.

Pastor: He slept through everything.

Sammy: Boys and girls, why do you think Jesus slept through the bad storm with the wind and the waves and the water in the boat?

[Allow time for responses]

Pastor: Great answers, everyone! The disciples did wake Jesus up, and they said, “Jesus, don’t you care about us?” And Jesus told the wind and the waves to be still, and the storm stopped right away.

Sammy: Just like that?

Pastor: Everything was quiet. And Jesus asked his disciples two questions: “Why are you afraid?” and “Have you no faith?”

Sammy: There are many important things for us to remember about this passage from Mark.

Pastor: Well, I have a little gift for everyone. I have a bookmark for you all to remember Jesus’s promises to us based on this story. What does the bookmark say?

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

Because of Jesus, I don’t have to be afraid.

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

Sammy: Can I say our prayer? Let’s bow our heads and fold our hands. Dear Jesus, Thank you for always being with us. Thank you for calming us. Thank you for faith. We love you. Amen. Bye, everyone! Enjoy the bookmarks!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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