AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT EVENTS

IN THE ELCA’S SIERRA PACIFIC SYNOD

For years I have been writing articles about the ELCA – often with the subtitle, “What Will It Be Next?”  The images I have chosen for those articles have often been a car or motorcycle careening out of control, a road with the pavement washed out, a road with a bridge ahead washed out, a road covered by an avalanche of rocks, or a road that goes over a cliff.  I have been certain that eventually the ELCA will crash. 

That “eventually” could very well be soon.  Last December the bishop and synod council of the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod (northern California and northern Nevada) terminated the call of a Latino mission developer, and did so on December 12, the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, one of the most special days for many in the Latino community.  At first Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton did not follow the recommendations of the “Listening Team” which she had convened, but instead felt that the words and actions of Bishop Megan Rohrer of the Sierra Pacific Synod did not rise to the level of initiating disciplinary procedures.  Instead she merely asked Bishop Rohrer to resign because they (Bishop Rohrer’s chosen pronoun) no longer had the trust and confidence of the synod.  A resolution proposed at the June 2-4 synod assembly that Bishop Rohrer resign by the end of the assembly and that they be dismissed from their position if they do not resign failed to pass by a vote of about 56% to 44%.  A two-thirds majority vote would have been required.  The synod assembly ended with Megan Rohrer still serving as bishop, but the fallout continues across the ELCA.  Congregations within that synod have said that they will leave the ELCA and at least one other synod has said that they will stop sending financial support to the ELCA as long as Megan Rohrer continues as bishop.  In addition I read of plans for demonstrations during the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August.

Here is a link to a website that contains the most complete list that I am aware of to articles and videos related to the crisis.

I have been reading about the situation and watching it unfold for months, but I certainly do not claim to fully understand it.  Nor is it my role or my responsibility to make a statement about the rightness and/or wrongness of the actions and words of the people involved.  But I would want to make it abundantly clear.  Racism is wrong.  Abuse of power is wrong.  Discrimination and unequal treatment of people are wrong.   

In this article I want to explore two things.  First, Why has this whole situation been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA? (For shock waves have been reverberating not just in one synod, but throughout the entire church body.)  And second, What does this whole situation say about the ELCA? 

First, Why has this situation been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA?  I can think of six reasons. 

First, because the ELCA already was a weakened and injured church body.  The ELCA is painfully aware of the fact that it is significantly diminished from what it was when it was formed in 1988.  The number of members has decreased from over five million to less than 3.3 million in thirty-four years.  The number of congregations has dropped from over 11,000 to under 9,000.  And the congregations that remain are significantly diminished.  Smaller congregations mean less income to congregations, which means less income to synods, which means less money to churchwide.  The ELCA is obsessed with the fact that it has been labelled “the whitest denomination in the United States” (and this in spite of all of its efforts to be inclusive and multi-ethnic).  And the ELCA is constantly apologizing for everything and for all of the ways in which it has been complicit in the mistreatment of all disadvantaged peoples.  How could any organization – or any person – who is significantly diminished, failing to meet goals, and constantly apologizing be healthy and strong?

Second, the ELCA promotes a culture of victimization.  Throughout this whole situation – including at the recent Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly – people have been talking about how victimized they and other people are.  Now, I fully agree that it is wrong to victimize people.  I do not want to deny, minimize, or disregard the pain of those who have been victimized.  But I believe that any organization where such a high percentage of the people see themselves as and will frequently talk about themselves as being victimized will not be healthy and strong.

Third, in the ELCA there is competition for who is the most oppressed, marginalized, abused, and powerless.  For the person or group who is the most oppressed, marginalized, abused, and powerless actually has the most power.  They are the ones who are most to be listened to because that they are the ones who have the most accurate insight into the way things “really are.” 

Fourth, in the ELCA racism and white supremacy are the worst of sins.  A synodical bishop, who a few short months ago was the greatest of celebrities, has become the worst of sinners.  Even the presiding bishop is now being seen as having committed the unforgiveable sin.  Because Bishop Eaton at first did not follow the recommendations of the “Listening Team” and did not see racism as sufficient reason to initiate disciplinary procedures against a synodical bishop, she is being accused of being what she has been speaking most strongly against.    

Fifth, in the ELCA there is an absence of grace.  Oh, the ELCA talks about grace.  But it is the grace of being inclusive.  According to the ELCA, God is inclusive; therefore I need to be inclusive.  And anyone who is not as inclusive as God and me has committed the worst of sins.  If grace is all about being inclusive, then there is no grace for anyone who is not inclusive.  Not being inclusive is the unforgiveable sin.   

I wrote about this in my article, “Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?” which appeared in the May issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice.  A link to that article can be found here.  For many within the ELCA the reason Jesus died on the cross was not to pay the price for our sins (for if He needed to do that, then God the Father would be a Cosmic Child Abuser).  Instead Jesus was killed because His being inclusive was a threat to the Roman empire.  But the problem with that view is that without the blood of Jesus the only resource I have to deal with my own sins and the sins of those who sin against me is my being inclusive and following the example of Jesus who was inclusive and who resisted oppressive, non-inclusive power structures. 

Towards the end of the second day of the Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly there was talk about wanting to be able to find reconciliation and healing.  But without the blood of Jesus to cover over sin – without grace – how would you ever hope to be able to find reconciliation and healing when someone has committed the worst of sins?  

Sixth, there is a real zeal for works righteousness within the whole “woke” movement.  People need to show that they are just as woke as, if not more woke than, everyone else.  Therefore, if someone has committed the worst of sins, I must jump in and show myself to be totally woke.   

Those are six reasons why I believe the whole situation has been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA.

Now I would like to turn our attention to my second question – What does this whole situation say about the ELCA?  I can think of eight things.

First, just being part of a so-called “marginalized” people group does not qualify someone to be bishop.  Enough said.

Second, Bishop Eaton has a habit of being very quick to issue statements and make judgments regarding issues outside the ELCA.  And yet she was very slow – it took her three weeks – to make a statement about and to become involved in this issue within her areas of responsibility.   She has plenty to deal with within her own arena of oversight.  She needs to focus her energy and attention on her areas of responsibility.   

Third, at the Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly Bishop Eaton made a very strong statement against racism and white supremacy.  A similarly strong statement was made by the interim vice president of the ELCA, Carlos Pena, who presided over much of the proceedings.  I wonder whether Bishop Eaton will ever be able to regain full credibility.

Fourth, the vote on the resolution to call for Bishop Rohrer’s resignation or dismissal if they do not resign failed by a margin of 56% to 44%.   (A two-thirds majority vote would have been required.)  A majority voted to dismiss, but not a two-thirds majority.  That alone is a recipe for a disaster.  I think of congregations where the vote to leave the ELCA failed.  A majority voted to leave, but not a two-thirds majority.  There are many tragic examples of what happened next.

Fifth, before the formation of the ELCA, I was a part of the ALC (American Lutheran Church).  The ALC was much more congregational, much less hierarchical, than the ELCA was designed to be.  In the ELCA synodical bishops have been given a great deal of power and authority.

But recently there has been much discussion that there needs to be a curbing of the power and authority of synodical bishops and synod councils, because the bishop and synod council of the Sierra Pacific Synod are seen as abusing that power and authority.  I wonder how many synod assemblies will be working to have that issue come to the floor of the Churchwide Assembly.

Sixth, another dynamic that I have heard mentioned is what has been called the “Purple Code” – the at least unwritten agreement that the Conference of Bishops will circle the wagons whenever there is controversy and no synodical bishop will ever speak against another synodical bishop.  But several synodical bishops have been calling for the need to bring charges against Bishop Rohrer.  The wagons are no longer circled.  Will they ever circle again?  The Purple Code has been broken.  Will it ever be intact again?

Seventh, I have heard that there has been much discussion the last few months that such things as parliamentary procedures and Roberts Rules are all rooted in systemic racism and all promote and maintain white supremacy.  They disadvantage ethnic minorities, people whose primary language is other than English, and people of color.  Therefore, they must all be dismantled.  Again, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August should be interesting.

Eighth, for months Bishop Eaton has been talking about Future Church and her goal to reach one million “new, young, and diverse people” by the end of this decade.  If people in the ELCA are already calling for a dismantling of everything in the ELCA that fosters racism and white supremacy, what will it be like when one million “new, young, and diverse people” become a part of the equation?  I assume that most of these one million “new, young, and diverse people” will not have a history with the ELCA, will not value the ELCA, and will not have experience in being a part of church life.  Is the ELCA really ready for what it says it wants?    

How all of this will play out I do not know.  Major new developments have occurred between the time when I started writing and when I finished writing this article.  Bishop Eaton announced that she would bring charges against and would initiate a disciplinary process against Bishop Rohrer and Bishop Rohrer has resigned.  I assume that there will be further developments by the time that you read this article.  Part of the reality of writing an article like this is knowing that it will always be out of date.

Please join with me in praying for all those within the ELCA.  No matter how far they have strayed, Jesus still loves them and He shed His blood for them. 

* * * * * * * *

ANALYSIS OF BISHOP EATON’S “A PASTORAL MESSAGE ON ABORTION”

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

Please find below my analysis of what she has written. 

Typically misleading 

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

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

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

Lack of clarification 

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

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

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

One-sided concern

Her concern for protection is totally one-sided. 

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

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

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

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

Fearmongering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the draft opinion actually says

A link to the draft opinion can be found here.

Please note these three significant sentences –    

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

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

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

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

Bottom line

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

She needs to be far more careful if she wishes to help contribute to “complex moral discernment” rather than “conflict and moral policing” (sixth paragraph).  Instead of helping to avoid conflict, she has created conflict by releasing a statement that is highly critical of a position held by many within the ELCA.  She is not serving well as presiding bishop of the whole church when she makes such strong statements that do not respect the diversity of viewpoint within the ELCA. 

Once again the ELCA communicates that in spite of all of its talk about diversity and inclusivity, traditional views and those who hold them are not welcome.  

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEWS

“WHEN HARRY BECAME SALLY” AND “STRANGE NEW WORLD”

Many thanks to NALC pastor Brett Jenkins for his review of two books which give a Biblical response to transgender ideology, a movement that is gaining predominance in our culture.  Brett writes –

Since the advent of the Renaissance, Christian orthodoxy has faced increasing challenges to its beliefs, primarily in the form of alternative spiritualities and, as the Renaissance became the Enlightenment, materialism in its various manifestations, including the Darwinian account of human origins.  The rise of transgenderism allied with postmodern assumptions presents a challenge on a new front, a front for which the Church is ill-prepared: human nature itself.  This fact makes these books worth reviewing.

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan T. Anderson

This book details the cut-and-thrust of academic and the politics it has influenced in bringing about a historical moment when the first question asked by new parents since the dawn of time, “Is it a boy or girl?” has become impossible—and in some cases, illegal—to answer.  It does so with evident compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria while making clear that Christians and others sharing the conviction that culturally conditioned notions of gender have their roots in the objective fact of biological sex need to prepare themselves to be cultural pariahs.  They need to take self-consciously active steps to educate their communities in a narrative different from that being imposed by cultural elites.

Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution by Carl R. Trueman

In this book Carl Trueman provides a succinct, easy-to-read history of the ideas and thinkers that have led to the “transgender moment.”  This book was produced at the request of a thinktank for a resource for non-specialist teachers, leaders, and political staffers encapsulating the key insights of his 2020 book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.  The book ends with some helpful suggestions for ways church leaders could contribute to the cultural conversation as well as provide pastoral responses and care for congregation members.

This review, as well as nineteen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

Thank you for your partnership in the Gospel. 

I am very grateful for all the people who expressed deep concern over the movement I described in my April letter from the director to “cancel” the Gospel of John and remove John 18-19 from the lectionary readings for Holy Week, because of the claim that they foster anti-Semitism.  A link to that letter can be found here.

In that same article I mentioned an even deeper concern – a movement not just to cancel the passion narrative in John, but to “cancel” the passion.  There are many within the ELCA and other liberal/progressive, mainline denominations who reject the teaching that Jesus died for our sins.  Instead they make Good Friday into the supreme example of Jesus’ bold political protest against the Roman empire, even unto death.  And now we need to join in the work of dismantling empires and all other oppressive, political and social power structures. 

One pastor wrote, “Empire killed Jesus for being a good rabbi, telling the truth, and therefore was a threat to the power structure.”  Unfortunately, many agree. 

Another pastor offers the following rewrite of two verses of the hymn, “O Sacred Head Now Wounded.”

Verse 2 –

What you, dear Jesus, suffered casts light upon our way,

We see the cost of loving and living for the day

When all God’s children flourish in justice and in peace,

When hungry mouths will be fed and warring ways will cease.

Verse 3 –

What language shall I borrow to thank you, dearest friend;

For this your selfless living, your love that did not bend?

May my life bless all people, may my love bring you praise,

That all might share God’s blessing, that all would know God’s grace.

According to this approach, I do not need a Savior to die in my place, forgive my sins, break the power of sin, and defeat the great enemy death.  Rather I just need to be inspired and motivated to join in the effort to oppose all oppressive power structures.

But the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus died for our sins.

In 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4 the apostle Paul emphatically states, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.”  Paul clearly states that not only did Jesus die for our sins, but also that that teaching is “of first importance.” 

Revelation 1: 5 – part of the second reading for the second Sunday of Easter – says, “To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood.”  First John 2: 2 describes Jesus as “the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”  In John 1: 29 John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”  Is there any way to interpret that verse except to say that John is comparing Jesus with the Old Testament lambs upon whom the sins of the Israelites were laid and who died in their place?  Paul also wrote to the Corinthians, “He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5: 21).     

Now certainly there are many additional ways to describe the saving work of Jesus.  He came to seek the lost (Luke 19: 10).  He rejoices when He finds us and when we come home (Luke 15).  He forgives, restores, and gives power for new living (John 8: 3-11).

I think one of the best passages for describing the rich variety of ways in which God has acted in Jesus can be found in the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. 

We were buried with him in baptism and raised with him through faith in the power of God (v. 12).

When we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ, when he forgave us all our trespasses (v. 13).

He erased the record that stood against us with its legal demands (v. 14).

He set this aside by nailing it to the cross (v. 14).

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and triumphed over them (v. 15).  (Based upon my reading of Ephesians 6, I am certain that Paul meant the spiritual powers of evil, not the political powers of Rome.) 

He made us alive. The charges against us were dropped.  The powers of evil were defeated.  All this Jesus did through the cross and the resurrection.  And that is a whole lot more than just calling on us to join with Him in His struggle against oppressive political and social power structures. 

Those who reject the teaching that Jesus as God the Son died for our sins do so because they claim that that teaching makes God the Father into a cruel, vindictive child abuser.

I would reply that rejecting the teaching that Jesus died for our sins is missing the whole point of the seriousness of our sins and the depth of God’s love.  Romans 6: 23 clearly says that “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.”  It is not that the Father inflicted His wrath upon the Son in order to satisfy the anger that He felt towards us.  Instead in giving His Son, God out of His great love for us gave Himself.  He Himself paid the price for us.  He satisfied His own requirements of justice.  And He won the victory over death and the power and penalty of sin.

But how widespread is it in the ELCA to reject the teaching that Jesus died for our sins?  I am not aware of any official doctrinal statement that has been approved by the ELCA Church Council, the Conference of Bishops, and/or a Churchwide Assembly which says, “We no longer believe that Jesus died for our sins.”  But evidence of how widespread this belief is is abundant, and it seems to be growing.  Here are some examples.  I will begin with two more extreme examples.

1.

Illustrated Ministry is a curriculum company whose faith formation resources are popular among many in the mainline denominations, including the ELCA.  Here is a link to an Easter resource. 

This resource describes itself in this way.  “This script outlines the way in which Jesus upended corrupt systems of power.  Because of his power, popularity, and message, those systems retaliated.”  It also says, “The good news of Jesus is often bad news for those who would like to accumulate power over others.  But in the end, death was not the end of Jesus!  We witness how Jesus lives.  His message of love and justice gives us hope.”  Did you get that?  Jesus dies only because he “upended corrupt systems of power.”  It is not that our sins need to be and are forgiven.  Rather we are to go and do likewise.

2.

Daneen Akers, author of the highly popular progressive/liberal curriculum, “Holy Troublemakers,” is another person who believes and who spreads the belief that Jesus died because he upset the status quo.  Here is a link to her article.

In this article she quotes another person as saying, “Jesus’ death was an interruption in his ministry, not the point of it.  His message of love-your-enemies, the last-shall-be-first, and God’s-realm-is-for-all was deeply threatening to the status quo.  So he was executed by the state as a cautionary tale for those who would follow his teachings.  This is why Jesus died: His teachings upset powerful hierarchies and status quos, so he was executed by the state.  The good news is that death and violence didn’t have the last word.  It’s a love-ultimately-wins story.” 

Many of the books in the picture in the article are published by Augsburg Fortress and/or are assigned or recommended as texts in ELCA seminaries.   

But some might say, But that does not mean that anyone in a leadership position in the ELCA is saying anything like that.  Is anything like that being said by anyone who would officially represent the ELCA?  Here are three examples. 

1.

Here is a blog post from the Rev. Dr. Kristin Johnston Largen, president of Wartburg Seminary, in which she condemns Isaiah 53 as “abusive” in theology.

2.

Here is a Huffington Post editorial by the Rev. Dr. David Lose, former president of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and author of “Making Sense of the Cross” (published by Augsburg Fortress).  Dr. Lose also condemns “Christ died for our sins” as abusive theology.

3.

Here is a video from the “Animate: Faith” curriculum, published by Augsburg Fortress, in which famed ELCA pastor and public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber condemns the idea that Christ died for our sins as divine child abuse.

I do not hear what Drs. Largen and Lose, and Pastor Bolz-Weber are saying as going as far as Illustrated Ministry and Holy Troublemakers are going in totally reinterpreting the life, death, and ministry of Jesus, but I also know that things never stay where they are now.  What is extreme now will soon become norm.  There is nothing about the ELCA that would tell me that the ELCA is able to go “just a little bit off base” without soon being “very far off base.”  Especially if more popular and accessible materials like those from Illustrated Ministry and Holy Troublemakers, and the content of books which are assigned as seminary texts, have a far greater influence on the average person and seminary students/future pastors than the writings of current and former seminary presidents. 

God is not a cosmic child abuser.  God is not wrathful and vengeful and anxious to take out on Jesus the anger He feels towards us.  But the Scriptures are very clear in teaching that Jesus died for our sins.  Any theology of what Jesus did on the cross must take that clear teaching into account in order to remain faithful to the Bible.   

There are many things that these people are saying that we need to hear, such as –

• The cross is God’s greatest expression of love rather than an expression of God’s wrath.
• The cross shows that when humans do their worst, God can bring about His best. 
• The cross shows that God is with us in all of our suffering.
• God is on the side of those who are the victims of the abuse of power, rather than on the side of the abusers of power.

From the cross Jesus cried, “It is finished.”  He did say that those who wish to follow Him must take up their cross.  But from the cross He did not cry, “Go and do likewise.”

FIVE RESPONSES TO AN EMPTY TOMB

In Luke’s account of Easter Sunday morning the Gospel writer records four responses to the empty tomb.  First, being perplexed.  The women found the stone rolled away, and when they went in, they did not find the body.  (Luke 24:1-4)

Second, being terrified.  Suddenly two men in dazzling cloths stood beside them.  (24: 4-5)

Third, disbelief.  The women told the eleven disciples what they had seen, but the men did not believe them.  It seemed to them like “an idle tale.”  (24: 5-11)

Fourth, being amazed.  Peter gets up and runs to the tomb.  He looks inside and then goes home.  He does not stick around long enough to see the risen Lord.  At this point he is just “amazed at what had happened.”  (24: 12)

Fortunately, the Gospel writer John tells of a fifth response – belief.  Peter and John go running to the tomb.  John gets there first, but does not go in.  After Peter arrives and runs right in, John also enters, sees the grave clothes, and believes.  (John 20: 8)

I am certain that there are people who attended Easter services this year who had each of these five different responses.  Some are perplexed as to what it is all about.  Many are terrified, and there is much in our world to be afraid of.  Some do not believe.  The whole story of a God who loves them so much as to die for their sins, and the whole account of someone’s returning from the dead, seem too good to be true.  Some are amazed.  They sense from the power of the music and the power of the proclamation that there might be something to all of this, but at this point they are not sure what to make of it all.  And some will hear and believe. 

My hope and prayer for you is that you were strengthened and encouraged in your faith during this Holy Week season, and that many people were strengthened in their faith and some also came to faith through your ministry and the ministry of your congregation. 

* * * * * * *

SPEAKING OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Speaking of the Gospel of John, there is a movement afoot to “cancel” the passion narrative in John 18-19 and remove it from the readings for Holy Week.  The claim is that these chapters foster anti-Semitism.  Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish New Testament scholar, is a leader in this movement.  Here is a link to a presentation she gave recently to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music of the U. S. Episcopal Church. 

I am concerned as I read and hear of her growing influence within the ELCA. 

Even worse is the movement not just to “cancel” the passion narrative in John, but to “cancel” the passion.  There are many within the ELCA who reject the teaching that Christ died for our sins.  Instead they make Good Friday into the supreme example of Jesus’ bold political protest against the Roman empire, even unto death.  And now we need to join in the work of dismantling our empires.  According to this approach there is no way that I am in need of a Savior who will forgive my sins and defeat the great enemy death.  Rather I need to join in the effort to oppose all oppressive power structures. 

But let’s take a look at Dr. Levine’s “more moderate” approach of not “cancelling” the passion, but instead merely “cancelling” the passion narrative in John.  There are many problems with what she is saying.

First, John 18-19 are not “anti-Semitic” in the way in which Dr. Levine is accusing them of being.  These chapters were written by a Jew, who had no intention of spawning the anti-Semitism which Dr. Levine is blaming on his writing.  This anti-Semitism came after him and would have harmed and even killed him and his family had he lived in a different place and time.  The responsibility for any anti-Semitism rests on those who have misused these texts, not on the texts – or on the author – themselves.

Second, the scripture texts which Dr. Levine wants to have cancelled are not insignificant texts.  Rather they are part of the Holy Week narrative.  Their stories and teachings are central to the Christian faith and the Gospel message of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  If there are any texts which should not be cancelled, it is these texts.  And it is not acceptable to say that we can “cancel” John because we will still have the passion narrative in three other Gospels.  Each of the Gospels makes its own unique contribution to our understanding of what took place and the meaning of what took place.  We are missing something vitally important if we do not have all four.

Third, Dr. Levine freely acknowledges the existence of difficult texts in the Torah, but she does not make the same demand of the Jewish faith community that she makes of the Christians.  Jewish people follow the custom of reading the entirety of the Torah, beginning to end, within the context of worship.  It would be unthinkable for them to “cancel” any part of the Torah.  So why is Dr. Levine asking Christians to do what she would never ask her own people to do?  The reason that Dr. Levine gives in her testimony as to why no part of the Torah is to be cancelled is because the Torah came down “directly from Mount Sinai.”  Her statement is nothing less than a direct devaluing and demeaning of the Gospels and their significance in the Christian faith.  Christians believe that these texts, also, were given to us by God.  The Gospels are no less sacred to Christians than the Torah is sacred to Jews.  The Gospels hold in the Christian lectionary the same place that the Torah holds in the Jewish lectionary. 

What Dr. Levine is asking of us is not merely the causal swapping of one insignificant text for another.  Rather she is asking of us both the cancellation of sacred texts which are of prime importance to our faith – something she would never ask of her own people – as well as a major change in how Christians view the Scriptures.

As we said earlier, we are very concerned about the influence that Dr. Levine is having in the ELCA and will continue to monitor the situation. 

* * * * * * *

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES

Last September the ELCA celebrated the election and installation of its first transgender bishop,

Meghan Rohrer of the Sierra Pacific Synod.  ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton served as the lead consecrator and preacher at the service.  Bishop Eaton had a very interesting and typically ELCA way of twisting the Bible and distorting theology in order to justify what her presence and actions were legitimizing.   In her sermon message, Bishop Eaton noted that Jesus Christ’s identity as both fully human and fully divine were not an “either/or” but a “both/and”.  It is absolutely astounding to me to think that a church leader would believe that the two natures of Christ – His being both fully divine and fully human – are somehow support for transgender and non-binary ideology.     

It gets even worse.  Bishop Eaton went on to challenge those attending – both in person and remotely – to continue watching in the months ahead.  “You’re going to see a grace-filled, Gospel preaching, Jesus-loving servant of the Word serving everyone, all people. You’re going to see someone and a synod being transformed in order to invite people into the complete, the infinite, and the intimate love of God.  We’ll continue to work for those on the margins.  We do it surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses and we do it by a God who was not either/or but both divine and human.”

But all that changed, and it changed dramatically and rapidly within three months.  On December 12, 2021 – the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a very special day within the Latino community – the synod council of the Sierra Pacific Synod took action to remove Pastor Nelson Rabell-Gonzalez from his position as mission developer of Mision Latina Luterana in Stockton, California.

Lutheran CORE very intentionally and deliberately takes no position on these actions.  It is not our place, nor would we make any claim to know all the facts.  Rather what we want to do is to point out the significance of this entire event.  For those who would like to know more, here is a link to an article written by a friend of Pastor Rabell.  At the end of the article you will find links to more articles.  It is obviously written by a person who strongly favors one side in the struggle. 

For the first several weeks it appeared that Bishop Eaton was hoping that the whole thing would just blow over and go away.  As presiding bishop she claimed that she has no authority to interfere in the actions of a synod council.  But as the turmoil continued to spread and as the crisis continued to escalate, she eventually took action to appoint a three-person listening team, which would help her in determining what to do.  In the first link she tells about forming the team.  In the second link she gives an update. 

What was supposed to be so wonderful very quickly became not wonderful.  What was supposed to be continuing to work for those on the margins became accusations of severe discrimination against those on the margins. 

What is the significance of what is going on here?   The ELCA is experiencing the consequences of what it has been enabling, encouraging, and empowering.  Or, to put it another way – in terms of Galatians 6: 7 – the ELCA is reaping what it has been sowing. 

What else would you expect to result from the ELCA’s full embrace of critical theory?  What else would you anticipate when everything is viewed in terms of power/abuse of power, oppressor/oppressed, victim/victimizer, and privileged/marginalized.  It is only a matter of time until something blows and/or a single spark sets the whole forest aflame.  Please see below the review by Dr. Robert Benne of the book by Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.  This seems like a most appropriate time to have a review of a book like that.     

One of the things that is interesting here is that ELCA congregations in the Sierra Pacific Synod are taking action against the synodical bishop and synod council.  I am aware of congregation councils that are passing resolutions to have no dealings with the synod until and unless the synodical bishop and synod council all resign or are terminated.  And if they do not resign or are not terminated, these congregations will initiate the process to leave the ELCA.  One such resolution can be found on the website of Our Savior’s Lutheran Church in Fresno.  

There are a couple very interesting things going on here.  First, it is not – as in the past – orthodox, confessing congregations that are leaving the ELCA.  Instead it is among the most actively, aggressively, and outspokenly progressive congregations that are threatening to leave the ELCA.

Second, the recently approved version of the ELCA’s document, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” provides for the discipline of rostered ministers who “actively and affirmatively incite, initiate, or encourage a congregation to leave the ELCA” (page 11).  Since the ELCA is saying that it could discipline an orthodox, confessing pastor for encouraging a congregation to leave the ELCA, should not the same standard apply to a progressive pastor?  And if it does not, then is the ELCA not guilty of discrimination and “discipline inequity”?  (Which is one of the things that the ELCA is being accused of because of the Sierra Pacific synod council’s removal of a Latino mission developer.) 

If progressive congregations in the Sierra Pacific Synod are “able to get away with” no longer functioning as part of the synod, then should not the same standard apply to confessing congregations that no longer function as part of their synod?  (Which is the approach that some confessing congregations are taking because they are not able to “get enough votes” to leave the ELCA.) 

And if the Sierra Pacific synod council disciplines a pastor for inciting a congregation to leave the ELCA because the bishop and synod council have neither resigned nor been removed from their positions, how will all that play out?

I also am aware of confessing congregations that were forced to repay their synods large sums of money in order to receive permission to leave (which is required of ELCA mission starts and was demanded of some former LCA congregations before they received the required permission to leave).  Will the Sierra Pacific Synod congregations that leave the ELCA if the bishop and synod council neither resign nor are terminated be treated in the same way?  And if they are not, would that not be another example of discrimination and “ELCA inequity”?  Oh, what a mess!

* * * * * * *

OH, WHAT A MESS

Speaking of “oh, what a mess,” here is the latest from Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota.  Awhile back the board of Luther voted to continue to not be RIC.  RIC stands for Reconciled in Christ, which means that a synod, congregation, seminary, or other organization fully embraces the beliefs, values, agenda, and priorities of ReconcilingWorks.

According to its website, ReconcilingWorks advocates “for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”

They define their mission in this way.  “ReconcilingWorks advocates for the acceptance, full participation, and liberation of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions within the Lutheran Church.”

At this time Luther is the only ELCA seminary that is not RIC.  The board feels that their current welcome statement is sufficient. 

Immediately there was an uproar.  Students threatened to boycott the school.  There was conversation that the president should be removed from her position.  Please remember that it was not that long ago that the students at another ELCA seminary, United Seminary in Philadelphia and Gettysburg, were able to force the firing of the president because someone discovered that twenty years before she had been director of an organization that held and advocated for traditional views on human sexuality.  She was fired even though she is totally LGBTQ+ affirming now.

Members of the non-faculty staff wrote and signed a letter in support of the student movement to cause the seminary to become RIC.  Now a letter has been written and signed by most of the faculty members, again supporting the movement.  Here is a link to the letter.

Talk about groveling. Talk about one more example of the ELCA’s encouraging, enabling, and empowering extreme progressive elements.  Do the seminary faculty really think that good will come from their talking, acting, and handling a situation in that way?  Do they really think that it will stop there – with the seminary’s becoming RIC – and the students – thus emboldened – will not go on and demand something far more? 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEW

“THE RISE AND TRIUMPH OF THE MODERN SELF”

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to Robert Benne for his review of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution by Carl Trueman.  Dr. Benne has retired from his position as professor at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia, and currently teaches Christian ethics at the Institute of Lutheran Theology.  One of the founders of Lutheran CORE, he has been a friend of Lutheran CORE from the beginning.

In this book Carl Trueman, whom Benne identifies as one of America’s most important rising Christian public intellectuals, starts with the assessment of the modern self by two major theorists, who see expressive individualism as the essence of the modern self.  The modern self is no longer guided by the sacred order of great religions, obligations to others in the given stations of life, or virtues that solid traditions have formed in their adherents.  Rather the modern self aims at authenticity.  Highest value is placed upon the untrampled expression of whatever inner definitions or inclinations the modern self wants to express.  Such expressive individualism is not only to be tolerated, it is to be affirmed and embraced.  Any resistance or criticism amounts to hate speech.

Knowing that ideas have consequences, Trueman asks what are the ideas that have brought us to our current state.  Benne feels that Trueman has made a compelling case for understanding our current situation in light of thinkers in the past.  In this book the author reflects on what the future might be like for a society that has been so de-established by rampant individualism, and also what this means for the church.

The final section of the book, entitled “The Triumph of the Erotic,” deals with all the incongruities and contradictions of the powerful LGBTQ+ movement.  Trueman shows how all the various sorts of expressive individualism do not necessarily fit together easily.

According to Dr. Benne this is a formidable work which will lead the reader to greater understanding of our current chaos and polarization.  Dr. Benne has notes on every chapter and offers to share those notes with anyone who wants to teach this book in Sunday School.  

This review, as well as eighteen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

PLAYLIST

If you would like to watch Lutheran CORE’s playlist of all of our video book reviews, click here, then scroll down and start the video by selecting the play button or click on the three vertical lines near the top right of the first video to select a new video from the list that will pop up. 

* * * * * * *

WEEKLY BIBLE STUDIES ON THE LECTIONARY READINGS 

One of the goals and purposes of Lutheran CORE is to provide resources for confessing Lutherans.  On our website we have daily devotionals as well as suggestions for hymns, Scriptures, and prayers related to the themes for each Sunday.  Here are links to these resources.

Daily devotionals

Scriptures and hymns suggestions  

Prayers of the church

A new resource that is now available is a Bible study that I am doing each week based upon the lectionary readings for the following Sunday.  The resource includes a twenty-five-to-thirty-minute video and a two-page study guide.  A new one is available each Tuesday and is dated on Wednesday, because that is when the church where they are recorded posts them.

Many thanks to Living Water, an ELCA congregation in Scottsdale, Arizona, where my wife and I are members and where the studies are recorded.  Many thanks also to Shepherd of the Hills, an LCMC congregation in Fountain Hills, Arizona, for permission to provide a link to their website where the videos and study guides are posted.

It is a great joy and privilege for me to be able to provide these studies, and I am very happy whenever anyone finds them helpful.

Wishing you the joy, power, love, and hope of Easter,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

April 2022

Dear Friends –

The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4)

He also wrote to his young friend Timothy, “And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.” (2 Timothy 2: 2)

The writer of the Gospel of John penned these words.  “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20: 31)

The witness of Scripture is clear and strong.  It does matter whether the message of the Bible is preserved, shared, heard, and believed. 

The most sacred and precious time of the year for those who love Jesus is Holy Week.  It is then that we hear and read once again of His triumphal entry, last supper, agony in the garden, betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection.  The accounts of this one week form the major part of each of the four Gospels, and we are fortunate to have four Gospel accounts.  We know more about what Jesus did for our salvation because we have all four.

And yet what do we see going on now?  A movement to “cancel” the passion narrative in the Gospel of John and remove it from the lectionary readings for Holy Week.  The reason given is that the two chapters of John 18 and 19 are being accused of fostering antisemitism.

There is no doubt but that antisemitism is wrong, just as there is no doubt but that any form of racism is wrong.  Historically, according to the Gospels, it was the Jews who cried for Jesus to be crucified.  It was the Romans who carried out the crucifixion.  But it was my sins that nailed Jesus to the cross, just as much as anyone else’s.

This movement to “cancel” John is “gaining steam” within the U. S. Episcopal Church.  I am alarmed when I read comments also from ELCA pastors who would like to see the Gospel of John removed from the list of Scripture readings for Holy Week.

In my April letter from the director, which will be published in mid-April, I will tell more about this movement and how it is gaining ground within the ELCA.  Here we see just one more way in which the authority of the Scriptures first is questioned and then is rejected.  Anything difficult in the Bible is thrown out, rather than wrestled with and learned from.  Any time when the voice of the Bible is in conflict with the voice of our culture, the voice of our culture prevails.

If the passion readings in the Gospel of John are thrown out, what will it be next?  That is a question we continually ask regarding the ELCA.  What will it be next?  We already know of ELCA pastors who believe that the message of the cross is not that Jesus died for our sins.  Instead it is a challenge to join God in the work of dismantling oppressive, political power structures.  There are others who say that the main message and mission of the church is to support environmental causes and concerns.  What will it be next?  As everyone who has observed trends and events in the last decade knows only too well, it will not stop here.  The departure from and rejection of traditional, Biblical beliefs and values will only accelerate. 

What is at stake is the very heart of our faith – the message of the cross, the hope of the resurrection, the privilege and joy of knowing God as Father, Christ’s command to His church to fulfill the Great Commission, and God’s call to His people to holy living. 

We of Lutheran CORE have been working hard to show you how the orthodox Christian faith and Biblical moral values are first being compromised and then rejected by such things as the embrace of critical race theory by many Christian leaders, the choice of keynote speakers for national youth gatherings, the ELCA’s full embrace of the LGBTQ+ agenda and values, and the way in which many in the ELCA twist the message of the Bible in order to support that agenda.  Through our being one of the sponsors of the NEXUS Institute at Grand View University, our support system for orthodox seminarians, and our support group for younger persons, many of whom are planning on attending seminary, we are also working hard so that there will be Biblically faithful and Great Commission-minded pastors in the future.  Thank you for your interest in and support of these efforts and your generous gifts to our Pastoral Formation Fund. 

It is your ongoing prayers and gifts to Lutheran CORE that enable us to continue our work of being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Thank you for your prayers for us.  Click here for a form that you can use to let us know how we can be praying for you. 

Giving thanks for the cross and the empty tomb,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Visit our website www.lutherancore.org

Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/LutheranCORE

Like us on Facebook www.facebook.com/LutheranCORE

Join us on MeWe https://mewe.com/p-front/lutherancore

Watch us on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtoknmLRxWxGeLkpBeRjRVA

Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lutherancore/

I would like to tell you about two communications which I recently sent to ELCA leaders.  The first one I sent to Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  The second one I sent to a synodical bishop.  As usual, I have heard nothing from Bishop Eaton.  I am very grateful to the synodical bishop, who I feel has very graciously and respectfully listened to and heard my concerns.

My communication to Bishop Eaton had to do with the slowness of her response to a crisis brewing within the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod (SPS – northern California and northern Nevada).  Last December the SPS synod council took action to terminate the call of a Latino mission developer, and they implemented their decision on a day that is very special to the Latino community.  Please notice that I am not taking a position regarding the action taken by the SPS synod council.  What I am taking a position on is only the slowness of Bishop Eaton’s response – particularly in light of how quickly she will take a position and send out a communication on other matters that are not within her scope of authority, responsibility, and expertise.  Here is what I wrote to Bishop Eaton.

* * * * * * *

Dear Bishop Eaton –

I was astounded to learn that it took you over three weeks to send a communication to the ELCA Latino Ministries Association regarding the termination of call of the mission developer for the Mision Latina Luterana in Stockton, California. 

You have said that, as presiding bishop, you have no authority to interfere with the actions of synodical councils and synodical bishops, but I do not understand why it would take you over three weeks to reach out to the Latino community and acknowledge their confusion and pain over the loss of their pastor. 

When the verdict regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was announced, you almost immediately had a response and you spoke critically of the judicial system, as if you knew the facts of the case far better than those who were involved day after day with the case.

In your communication on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you did honor the veterans of World War II, and you did honor the memory of those who died in that conflict, including at Pearl Harbor, but you could not let it stay at that.  You also had to speak against racism.

There are plenty of issues, situations, and problems that need your attention in the organization over which you have oversight and responsibility.  I would suggest that you clean up your own house before you claim to be able to speak helpfully, insightfully, and authoritatively concerning matters over which other people have oversight and responsibility.

As one who has a deep love for Jesus,

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

I purposefully signed the letter as “Retired ELCA Pastor” rather than “Executive Director of Lutheran CORE,” hoping that might increase the chances of my receiving a response.  So far it has not.

* * * * * * *

WOKE FRAGILITY

My letter to a synodical bishop had to do with that synod’s joining with the ELCA in making a Statement of Land Acknowledgement as a primary part of all of its communications.

First, some background information.

The February 2022 issue of ELCA Worship News contains a section entitled “Resources for Land Acknowledgement.”  A link to that section can be found here.

Reading that section raised several questions in my mind as I realize that the ELCA Churchwide offices on Higgins Road, as well as the offices of all sixty-five of the ELCA synods, as well as all of the ELCA congregations, are all located on land formerly occupied by native Americans. 

First, the whole matter of land acknowledgement must be very important to the ELCA because its Declaration to American Indian and Alaska Native People commits the ELCA “to begin the practice of land acknowledgements at all expressions of the church.”  The importance of this practice is also displayed in the fact that the introductory letter suggests all kinds of occasions and ways in which land acknowledgement statements could be used – read aloud at the beginning of every worship service, printed at the top of worship bulletins, used to create outdoor signage and a plaque for the narthex, and used at the beginning of zoom meetings.  

Second, this practice is clearly based upon the premise that all land in the United States is stolen land.  The resource document states, “All land is Indigenous land.”  The introductory letter states, “A land acknowledgement is a ritual intended solely to show gratitude to the land and acknowledge the original and Indigenous peoples from whom the land was stolen.”  (A whole other issue is the fact that I do not know what it means to show gratitude to the land – not gratitude for the land, gratitude to God for creating the land and making it a good land, or gratitude to those who developed the land, but gratitude to the land.)

Third, both the introductory letter and the resource document clearly state that the practice of land acknowledgement is only a first step – and an easy first step.  The introductory letter says, “This is arguably one of the easier commitments.”  The resource document adds, “We understand that this protocol is only a first step and that, as we venture into the world, we must learn more, do more and realize healing and justice for the Indigenous peoples whose lands we now occupy.”

In my communication to this synodical bishop, I summed up the content of the introductory letter and resource document.  I then made the following three observations.  I believe that this issue is even more significant and poignant in light of the fact that the congregations in that synod are significantly diminished, the giving from the congregations to the synod has dropped significantly in the past decade, the annual spending plan for the synod is much greater than the anticipated income, and a significant part of the shortfall is made up from funds obtained by selling the properties of closed congregations.  Here is what I wrote to that synodical bishop.

“First, if the synod feels that the land now occupied by its offices and congregations is stolen land, then the synod is morally obligated to return to native American people at least the value of the land whenever a congregation is closed and the property is sold.  If the synod does not do that, then the synod is clearly being complicit in the stealing of land from Indigenous persons.  The word ‘complicit’ is a word that the ELCA uses often to describe those whose attitudes and actions it is critical of.  Before I accuse someone else of being complicit, I need to ask whether there is any area where I am being complicit.

“I can certainly understand the synod’s not returning also the value of the buildings, because the buildings were not present when the land was stolen.  But if the synod does not want to be complicit in the stealing of land by holding onto the value of stolen land, and for the synod to act in a way that is consistent with its values, statements, and priorities, then the synod would need to return to Indigenous persons at least the value of the land.

“Second, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority to have a statement of land acknowledgement as part of its communications and worship services?  Having such a statement without also returning to Indigenous people the value of stolen land gives the impression that the synod is in favor of justice only if being in favor of justice does not cost the synod anything.    

“Third, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority – along with the ELCA – to advocate for reparations for people of African descent?

“I am reminded of what John the Baptist said to those who came out to hear him and be baptized by him.  ‘Bear fruit that befits repentance.’ 

“When the ELCA, including the (Synod), calls upon our country to repent of past evils and injustice, then the ELCA, including the (Synod), also needs to think through whether there are any ways in which they are being complicit in perpetuating those evils and injustices.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

I am constantly amazed over how arrogant, self-righteous, ungrateful, and inconsistent the “woke” agenda actually is.  You take what they say, bring it out to its logical conclusions, apply their standards and criteria to them, and it collapses.  We hear a lot about “white fragility.”  I think instead we should hear about “woke fragility.”

HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

THE ELCA AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – PART TWO

Introduction

For the January 2022 issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, I wrote the first part of a two-part article entitled, “How Did It Happen?”  How did LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda completely take over the ELCA, and so quickly?  I began with an explanation of the principles of community organizing and how that methodology has been used extremely effectively by such groups within the Lutheran community as ReconcilingWorks.  A link to that article can be found here.

In that article I covered such things as –

• Resources for further study
• Community organizing as part of the curriculum at ELCA seminaries
• The emphasis upon strong relationships and shared values
• The “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” from ReconcilingWorks
• Minimal use and major misuse of Scripture

In this second part I will further describe how those who put into practice the principles of community organizing can take over a congregation.  Then I will close with several suggestions as to what those who hold to a high view of the authority of the Bible and the Bible’s clear teachings regarding human sexuality can and need to do.    

Mapping the Journey

A key component of community organizing is categorizing people according to how supportive and/or useful they will be to the cause, and then working to change the minds of the others who are most likely to change their minds and support the cause.

The fourth (out of eleven) steps is called “Mapping the Journey.”  In this step people are divided into five categories according to the level of their support or lack of support.

• Innovators – 2.5%
• Early Adopters – 13.5%
• Early Majority – 34%
• Late Majority – 34%
• Laggards – 16%

The percentages given for each category reflect the estimated percentage of people in the total group (a typical congregation) who will fall into that particular category.

The Innovators are expected to be either already on board or easily convinced.  They are then appointed as core team leaders and/or congregational influencers.  After the Innovators, the Early Adopters are the easiest to convince.  The Early Majority will require more persuasion to be on board, but with some effort, they, too, are not too difficult to convince.  Therefore, the Building an Inclusive Church (BIC) Toolkit recommends that these three groups be the primary focus of the efforts.

Because a vote to gain RIC (Reconciled in Christ) status requires a 75% vote on the part of the congregation, the Late Majority will also have to be engaged in order to have enough people to say “yes.”  The BIC Toolkit’s strategy for dealing with the Late Majority is to do the following:

• Focus first on the Innovators, Early Adopters, and Early Majority.  These people will be easier to convince.  Only then start working on the Late Majority.

• It is hoped that efforts to win over the Early Adopters and Early Majority will have some effect on the Late Majority so that it will be easier to convince them.

• Engage in One-to-One Visits with the Late Majority in order to get to know them better, build trust, make them feel heard, and form a strong relationship with them.

• Leverage this trust with the Late Majority in order to press them to agree with you, or at the very least to not be opposed to you, as you push for change.  (Statistically most people who do not agree with a decision will be willing to live with that decision if they feel that they have been heard and included in the decision-making process.)

• Gradually work on their hearts and minds, until they are willing to say at least “maybe” if not “yes.”

Laggards are regarded as lost causes.  No attempt is to be made to meaningfully engage with them.  Instead, the BIC Toolkit’s strategy is to engage with everyone else, get all the others on board, and then force the Laggards to either change their minds, begrudgingly accept the decision, or leave the community.  The expectation is that many Laggards will choose to just leave.

The community organizing approach reflects what ReconcilingWorks has been doing throughout the ELCA to bring the ELCA to becoming LGBTQ+ affirming.  This is how the liberal/progressive wing of the ELCA has managed to gain so much power and to have so many things, such as changes in liturgy and in church policy and practice, go in their favor.

Response and Actions

Clearly, the confessional Lutheran community has not been effective in battling the community organizing method nor in responding to the needs and concerns of those who get swayed by these tactics.  What do we who hold to a high view of the authority of the Bible and the Bible’s clear teachings regarding human sexuality need to do?  I can think of several things.

• We need a strong and effective response to these community organizing techniques.  We need to build strong relationships with people.  That is at the heart of how the LGBTQ+ affirming community was able to get so many people who were once opposed to their ideology to accept it.  If they can do it, we can do it too!  In fact, I believe that the revisionists may have had the advantage in gaining empathy through their telling stories of same-sex attracted people who have experienced rejection, are suffering from depression, and are even suicidal, but those who hold to traditional Biblical moral values should be able to have the advantage of gaining empathy through telling stories of people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery and now regret their decision, are experiencing medical ill affects because of their decision, and/or have found that their undergoing that surgery did not bring them the joy and peace that they had been hoping for. 

• We need to build a strong understanding of the basics of the Lutheran understanding of the Bible.  We need to promote and model good engagement with Scripture and proper understanding of Scripture – the whole of Scripture – in light of Scripture’s primary message of Law and Gospel.  People’s lack of Biblical knowledge and failure to properly engage with Scripture leave them vulnerable to all manners of false teaching.

• We need to model what showing love to the LGBTQ+ community looks like in a biblically sound way.  The charge against us – that we are angry and hateful – is widely believed because some people have experienced far more anger than love from those who hold to traditional views of human sexuality.

• We need to have good answers to such questions as, “What do I do if I am gay?” and “What should I do now that my child or friend has come out as gay?”  We need to do more than just tell people not to sin.  We also need to equip them with tools and support to resist sin.  We need to provide and be for these people a loving and supportive faith community which will walk alongside of them in their struggles against sin and will proclaim God’s gift of forgiveness for them so that – when they do fall – they will find hope in Jesus.

• We need to find resources that have been created for LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones that are biblically sound.  We need to find them, let people know about them, and promote their use.

• We need to provide support for LGBTQ+ identified persons who are honest about struggling with sin, yet who want to live in a biblically faithful way.  We need to encourage them and show them that it is possible to live a life that is pleasing to God.  These people carry a heavy burden, which is often made only heavier by rejection from conservatives (because of their having same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria) as well as from liberals (because of their wanting to live in a biblically faithful way).  These people need our support.  We need to have empathy for them and show love to them. 

Conclusion

There is no question but that those who have wanted to totally remake the church’s view and practice of issues related to human sexuality have been extremely effective – much more effective than those who desire to maintain traditional, Biblical moral values. 

In Luke 16: 8 Jesus said, “The children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.”  Those within the ELCA whose beliefs, values, and priorities reflect the world rather than are based upon the clear teaching of Scripture I would call children of this age rather than children of light.

We need to be concerned for upcoming generations, who more and more are going to be told lies concerning human sexuality, so we must be aware of the principles and methodology of community organizing.  Traditionally minded congregations need to be made aware so that they will not fall prey.  We who believe that the Bible is the Word of God need to show compassion and care for those who struggle with same sex attraction.  We need to be of encouragement, support, and help to their family members and friends.  And we need to be prepared to point them to resources that will help them live a life that is pleasing to God.        

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEWS

“THE PATIENT FERMENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH”  

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to ELCA Pastor Matt Voyer for his review of the book, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, by Alan Kreider. 

We all have admired and been in awe over the phenomenal growth of the early Church, even in spite of opposition and persecution.  Alan Kreider argues that the great growth of the early Church was driven by the lifestyle of early Christians.  What attracted people were not moving and relevant worship services but the way of life of the early believers.  It was not what Christians said, but what they did.  Their lives and habits and ways of being and living in the world drew people not just to the Church, but to our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Pastor Voyer highly recommends this book and suggests that it be read by individuals, church councils, and within small groups.

“A PLACE FOR TRUTH” – EDITED BY DALLAS WILLARD

I would also like to remind you of ELCA Pastor Kevin Haug’s review of a book edited by Dallas Willard, A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions.  Dallas Willard was a long-time professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and is well known for his writings on Christian spiritual formation.

The book is a series of fifteen lectures covering such topics as truth in relation to post-modernism, an examination of the exclusive claims to truth of Christianity, human DNA as evidence for a creator, and a psychological study of why some people may be atheists. 

Pastor Haug commented regarding the book, “I found it to be very intellectually stimulating and satisfying.  If you have a high regard for the authority of Scripture and a high regard for reason, logic, and science, if that is you, this book is for you.” 

These reviews, as well as fourteen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

PLAYLIST

If you would like to watch Lutheran CORE’s playlist of all of our video book reviews, click here, then scroll down and start the video by selecting the play button or click on the three vertical lines near the top right of the first video to select a new video from the list that will pop up. 

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

Introduction

A question I am often asked by people is this – How did it happen?  How did LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda completely take over the ELCA, and so quickly?  The purpose of this article is to show how the principles of community organizing were used most effectively to bring about this change.

The ELCA was formed in 1987 and began functioning as a church body in 1988.  At the 2005 Churchwide Assembly traditional values prevailed, though just barely.  It was not until 2009 that standards changed, and look at all that has happened since.  For nearly twenty-two of the thirty-four years that the ELCA has existed, at least the officially recognized position was more traditional.  It has only been during the last twelve years that revisionist views have prevailed.  Actually and officially, the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly only gave its blessing to (PALMS) publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same sex relationships.  But in reality the ELCA has fully embraced the LGBTQIA+ agenda, values, priorities, and lifestyle.  The ELCA has completely marginalized anyone who holds to any other view, and it is charging ahead at such a rapid pace that it makes you wonder whether anything could stop it except a total crash.

How did it happen?  Part of the answer can be found in the fact that those who have been driving this are super focused and relentlessly dedicated.  Part of the answer can also be found in the image of lily pads on a lake.  Let’s say that the area of the surface of the lake that is covered by lily pads doubles each year.  At first, the amount of increase is small.  Then it becomes larger and more noticeable.  Eventually lily pads are covering half of the lake.  At that point and at that rate how much longer will it take for lily pads to cover the entire lake?  One year.

Community Organizing

A more detailed answer can be found in the principles of community organizing and how that methodology has been used extremely effectively by such groups within the Lutheran community as ReconcilingWorks.  ReconcilingWorks is an organization that since 1974 “has advocated for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”  Specifically we will be looking at how community organizing is the central approach employed by the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit (BIC) developed by ReconcilingWorks in order to change peoples’ minds, turn the minority position into the majority position, and thereby take over the church.  A link to the Toolkit can be found here. 

Community organizing is also the primary approach employed by many other social justice activists – in the secular world as well as in the mainline church – in order to push for social change.  It is popular because it works.  Its techniques are effective, which is why and how the liberal/progressive movement has been so successful in taking hold of the mainline church and secular society.

Lutherans who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture need to be aware of this process, so that we might develop and offer an effective response.  Our failure to do so is a major reason why we are losing the battle – in the mainline church as well as in the secular world – to the LGBTQ+ agenda and other liberal/progressive concerns. 

Texts

Here are some resources that you can use for further study.  Fortress Press is “an imprint of 1517 Media.”  1517 Media is “the ministry of publishing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

• Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit by Reconciling Works
• Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing by Dennis A. Jacobsen (Fortress Press)
• Faith-Based Organizing by Charles Frederickson, Violetta Lien, Herbert E. Palmer, and Mary Lou Walther (Fortress Press)
• Faith-Rooted Organizing by Alexia Salvatierra and Peter Heltzel (Fortress Press)

Theological Education

Several ELCA seminaries offer classes and/or training in community organizing as part of the public theology and/or practical theology components of the seminary curriculum.  At one ELCA seminary the “public church” curriculum has become the primary organizing principle around which the degree programs are structured.  At other ELCA seminaries, efforts have been made and/or are in progress to expand the “public theology” focus, often at the expense of Biblical and confessional theological content.  At one ELCA seminary a career in community organizing is one of the possible career pathways that the Master of Theological Studies (M. T. S.) degree leads to and prepares for.

Background

Community organizing methodology was developed by Saul Alinsky, a secular Jewish man, in the late 1930’s.  Although Alinsky never identified as a socialist and/or a communist, he shared in common with them radical left (for his time) ideology, concern for the poor, and support for working-class communities and labor movements.  Alinsky saw the need to fight for specific goals and used the principles and techniques of community organizing to achieve those goals.

Overview

Community organizing relies on two main things – strong relationships and shared values.  Community organizers use these two things to change the minds of community members in order to get them to support a cause.  In this way they build a coalition of supportive people.  They then rally these people together and work together to press for change.

Community organizing begins with the following steps –

• Gather together a small core team of people who are already committed to your cause. These are the people who will start the process of pushing for change.
• Gather information about individual people as well as about the community. Build relationships with people.  Learn about what they believe and why.  Use what you learn to plan your approach.  Identify key influencers and supporters who may be assets to your cause.
• Tell stories which evoke sympathy and support for your cause.
• Build common ground with your community (shared values and/or experiences).
• Educate the community in order to bring its members to your side.
• Once the initial prep work has been done, choose a course of action.
  • Either a conflict approach, where the people in power are seen as your enemy.  If so, confront them and take them down.
  • Or a consensus approach, where the people in power are seen as people who can change their minds.  If so, convince them to side with you.

Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit

The Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit from ReconcilingWorks builds upon, and relies upon, the community organizing method.  Its approach assumes that there is already support from the leadership (clergy, church council, lay leaders, etc.) and that what needs to be done is to convince the rest of the community – enough to secure a 75% vote for RIC (Reconciling in Christ) status, as required by ReconcilingWorks.

As such, the proposed course of action is similar to the consensus approach.  However, normally in community organizing the primary target is people in power (i. e. the clergy).  However, in the BIT Toolkit, the primary target is the community at large (i. e. the congregation).  The primary target’s minds need to be changed in order to accomplish the desired goal. 

A Faith Community Assessment Survey is taken to evaluate the faith community’s current position(s).  A link to the survey can be found here. Based upon the results, one of three timelines is suggested – Cautious, Moderatus, and Adventurous.  The timetable ranges from six years to under one year.  But no matter how long it may take, those working to bring about change are focused and relentless.  

Whichever timeline is followed, the process is broken down into eleven steps, and there are six tools that are employed in order to work the process.  These steps and tools are described in the Toolkit.  Four of the six tools are Graceful Engagement, One-to-One Visits, Public Storytelling, and Scriptural Engagement.

Scriptural Engagement

It is interesting – and significant – that the sixth step – Providing Educational Opportunities – and the sixth tool – Scriptural Engagement – both come so late in the process.  Typically, people who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture would begin by focusing on what the Bible says.  But that is not what the BIC Toolkit does.  Instead the primary means of building community support are finding shared values – such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and welcome – and then engaging in carefully crafted storytelling in order to evoke sympathy and support for the cause.  “Scriptural Engagement” does not actively come into play until the steps that build support from the community have already been completed. 

It should not surprise us that “Scriptural Engagement” does not come until late in the process.  The Bible does not support what ReconcilingWorks is trying to accomplish.  The Scripture passages that are included in the BIC Toolkit include Luke 10:29-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan), John 4: 4-26 (Jesus and the woman at the well), Matthew 22: 35-40 (the Greatest Commandment), Matthew 26: 51-52 (Peter’s cutting off the high priest’s servant’s ear), and Luke 23: 34 (one of the words of Jesus from the cross.)  There is obviously no way that these passages support the LGBTQIA+ agenda.  They do not even address LGBTQIA+ issues.  No wonder support and agreement must be built in other ways rather than on the clear message of Scripture.  Relying on the principle that feelings are often more important and more powerful than facts when it comes to convincing people to change their minds, the BIC Toolkit focuses on feelings-based approaches, such as storytelling, rather than on facts-based approaches, such as asking what the Bible says, in order to get people to come on board with the cause. 

By the time the “Scriptural Engagement” tool comes into active use, the community’s minds and hearts have already been shaped into being LGBTQ+ affirming.  Very little of Scripture is engaged with, and the purpose as well as the message of Scripture is distorted.  The whole of Scripture’s message is reduced to three themes –

1. We are called to love God and love our neighbors.
2. It is not our place to judge.
3. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Specific passages from Scripture which appear to support these themes are selectively chosen in an effort to demonstrate that these ideas form the fundamental message of Scripture.

Other themes of Scripture – such as sin and our need for God’s forgiveness, God’s command that we repent of our sins, our need to obey God, and the Bible’s instructions regarding holy living – are minimized or avoided entirely. 

The prescribed approach to the so-called “clobber passages” (the passages that clearly speak against same-sex sexual behavior) is to avoid them, or else to minimally engage with them only as needed, until the three themes mentioned above are firmly established in the hearts and minds of the community as the primary message of Scripture.  Only then are the “clobber passages” engaged with, under the assumption that, if indeed the primary message of Scripture is one of welcome and inclusion, and the “clobber passages” are neither welcoming nor inclusive of LGBTQ+ identified people who are engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, then either we have misunderstood these “clobber passages” or the “clobber passages” must be wrong in some way. 

With so little engagement with Scripture, and with what little of Scripture is utilized being so badly misrepresented, people are left with an understanding that is far from biblically sound.

I will be completing this article in my February Letter from the Director.  In that second part I will tell more about how the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit uses the principles of community organizing to change people’s minds and get them on board with the cause.  I will also offer several suggestions as to what those with a high view of the authority of Scripture need to do and can do in order to provide a viable, effective, and convincing alternative. 

A concerned member of the ELCA contacted me, asking me to do a review of a new curriculum from Augsburg Fortress’s Sparkhouse. That curriculum is entitled T.B.D.: Think. Believe. Do.  Sparkhouse touts it as their newest youth curriculum.  A blogpost describes T.B.D.

as a new small group series that gives students the tools to articulate, investigate, and test out their beliefs on a broad range of topics that connect to their daily lives. However, the goal isn’t to come away from each series with a settled idea about the topic. Although they might feel more settled than they did before. Instead. T.B.D. focuses on how students think, not just what they think.

https://blog.wearesparkhouse.org/youth-faith-process

Currently, T.B.D. offers six topical courses on Prayer, Sin, Mission, Salvation, and Bible, broken up into four sessions each.  Each session begins with a “Provocative Statement” before moving through three major sections: Think, Believe and Do.  After answering a series of thought provoking questions in their journals, students watch a video and reflect on two Bible Passages.  Following this, they come up with an honest statement of what they believe as individuals and as a group.  Finally, the group brainstorms a low risk way to test out that belief in the following week. 

The Video

In the videos that accompany each session, a young person wrestles with questions about the topic of the session.  This is very interesting.  Like many people today, both young and old, the character in each video turns to the internet, searching for an answer.  As you would expect, answers come from all quarters.  The internet search yields many quotes from the Bible.  Quotes are also given by Luther, Augustine, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, St. Benedict, and other Christian teachers.  Others come from more dubious places, like Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins.  This is what you would expect from an internet search.   The character in the video is left with more questions than answers as a result.  Pastors and catechists are very familiar with the kind of idiosyncratic views that people develop from their use of the internet. 

Values Clarification

The question is where to turn.  The answer is more than a little surprising.  After pondering challenging statements, watching the video, and looking up two Bible verses, the students are immediately asked to formulate their own responses to the questions.  The result is something very similar to the kind of “values clarification” that was practiced decades ago.  It’s almost as if the students are told, “You’re on your own.  The Bible is unclear and unreliable.  The Christian tradition is too varied and contradictory.  Who’s to say what is true.  You need to chart your own path.”

As a person who grew up in the 1970s, I am quite familiar with this way of teaching.  I learned to ask open ended questions and to accept the challenge to decide for myself.  Fortunately for me, I had pastors and college professors who pointed me to the answers.  (I attended a Lutheran college.) Otherwise, I would have been lost.  During my senior year of college, the process of asking open questions and deciding for myself overwhelmed me.  I realized that I was drowning in a sea of meaninglessness and purposelessness.  In the midst of this, I became acutely aware of my sinfulness.  It was then that I turned to the things I had learned from my pastors and professors.  In particular, I remembered what I had learned about the Cross and the Resurrection.  If I had been left entirely to my own resources, I don’t know where I would be.

A Third Resource?

In T.B.D., youth are presented with two resources with which to interpret the Bible: 1) the confusing diversity of answers given by the internet and 2) their own wisdom and the wisdom of their peers.   It’s too bad that a third resource is not introduced into the discussion, namely, the wisdom of the Creedal and Lutheran tradition of interpreting the Bible. If the person teaching this curriculum is a pastor or a well catechized lay person, T.B.D. might not be harmful.  The same would be true if it was used with well catechized youth.  As one reads the lesson book and watches the video, it is easy to identify answers to the questions that are raised. 

For instance, in the unit on Prayer, the video character, a young woman, wrestles with the meaning and purpose of prayer.  What does the Bible teach?  How is one to pray?  Does prayer change things?  Why pray if God already knows everything?  As I watched, I thought to myself, “It’s too bad the Lutheran tradition doesn’t have a simple but profound explanation of the meaning of prayer; or even better an explanation of the Lord’s Prayer.”  At one point, the character finds a link to an article on St. Benedict.  She decides to download his daily prayer schedule to her calendar, only to be shocked by the notion that it calls for prayer seven times a day.  Again, I found myself thinking, “Too bad Luther didn’t simplify the seven hours of prayer on behalf of the laity, reducing them to two or three times a day.”   At another point, the character does a search for the Ten Commandments, hoping that there is something there about prayer.  She concludes that the Ten Commandments are no help, since prayer is not mentioned.  As one knows, however, Luther’s interpretation of the Second Commandment has a lot to say about prayer. 

Unanswered Questions

After reflecting on this curriculum, I am left with a final question.  Is the failure to use the catholic and Lutheran tradition a bug or a feature of T.B.D.?  In other words, do the developers of T.B.D. assume that teachers and facilitators will make use of the Great Tradition and the Lutheran Confessions?  Have they simply forgotten to explicitly remind facilitators of these resources?  Or is the intent to encourage students to utilize the widest possible resources, from St. Benedict to Richard Dawkins, to formulate their own system of beliefs?  If so, the result will not be formation in the Christian faith, but instead in an eclectic post-Christian form of spirituality. 

Ironically, I can remember a time when Augsburg Fortress was criticized for being too Lutheran, too Confessional, too heavy in doctrine.  Other publishers, like Group Publishing and Youth Specialties, were preferred because they were more user friendly, more engaging, and more broadly Evangelical.  To see a curriculum that makes such sparse use of the Catechism and the Lutheran Confessions is surprising, and not an improvement. 

After reading two recent communications from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, the only conclusion I can come to is this.  She just does not get it.

The first communication is dated September 3, 2021 and is entitled, “We Are the Body of Christ.”  A link to that communication can be found here. In that letter Bishop Eaton writes about the great, long-standing animosity between Jews and Gentiles, and about how in the early church, these two groups of people were able to be brought together.  She refers to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as well as to the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and to how “the dispute between the two groups was healed.”  She said that this healing “went to the very core of what it meant to be part of the church.”  She then said, “They were one body.  We are one body. . . . Yes, we have significant disagreement about very important issues, but our cultural and political differences cannot dissolve this bond.”  I was absolutely floored by what she wrote next.  “We can take heart from the example of the early church.  If, by the Spirit’s power, they could set aside their differences – which were far greater than any of ours – then we, too, by the power of the Sprit, can live into the unity that already exists in Christ.”

She just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans today who hold to the authority of the Bible and who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are a reliable interpretation of the Bible and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.  For example –

No one in the early church led the young people of that church in denouncing the views of the more traditional folks as a lie from Satan that needs to be renounced – unlike what happened at the 2018 ELCA youth gathering. 

The apostles did not ignore, dismiss, minimize, or marginalize the Hellenists when they expressed their concern that their widows were being neglected (Acts 6).  Instead, they appointed seven deacons to resolve the matter.  In contrast, those with traditional views are usually totally ignored when they express their concerns to those in positions of power.    

Heresies in the early church were dealt with (for example, see Colossians 2) rather than just accepted or even celebrated as culturally sensitive ways to contextualize the Gospel.

After the early church made their decision in Acts 15 as to how uncircumcised Gentiles could be a part of the church, they did not then a few years later claim to have decided something else.  Their honesty and integrity in holding to what they had decided stands in sharp contrast with the way in which the ELCA has expanded and re-interpreted what was actually voted on and approved in 2009 so that they are now able to embrace the full LGBTQIA+ agenda. 

The apostles did not break promises and ignore commitments as the ELCA has done by its not giving a place of honor and respect to traditional views and those who hold them.  I have heard of white male seminarians with traditional views being told to put tape over their mouths and not speak.  I also know of people whose ordination candidacy process was cancelled or who were denied entrance into the candidacy process because of their traditional views.   

Yes, Bishop Eaton just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.

Even more out of touch with reality is what Bishop Eaton wrote in the second communication, which is dated October 20, 2021, and is entitled, “A pastoral letter from the ELCA presiding bishop regarding the actions of the Reformed Church in America General Synod 2021.”  A link to that communication can be found here.  In that letter she told about one of the ELCA’s full communion partners, which had recently met in General Synod.  The final Vision 2020 Report was presented to the assembly, with its recommendations for the future of the denomination “with regard to staying together . . . and grace-filled separation.”  Bishop Eaton commended that church body for “adopting regulations to provide an unobstructed pathway for those local churches that will depart the denomination.”  She praised their actions, which she says “reflect the RCA’s commitment to walking together, respecting differences, and affirming common mission and ministry.”  She described the spirit of the synod as “conciliatory and hope-filled, as delegates shared their disagreements in the bond of peace.” 

What she then says in the next paragraph is totally out of touch with reality.  She talked about how the ELCA has “traveled this same road.”  She uses language from the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” when she says, “It is possible, by the grace of God, to be a church that makes an active choice to live with the disagreement among us, and ‘to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and respect.”  How out of touch can you get?  There may have been those who – back in 2009 – were deceived into buying that line so that they were willing to vote in favor of the human sexuality social statement and the changes in ministry policies.  But I do not know anyone today who continues to believe that the ELCA has any plans to “honor bound conscience.”

I know that there are ELCA bishops and synod councils who have been gracious in their dealings with congregations who were voting to disaffiliate from the ELCA.   But I have also heard many stories of bullying, intimidating, threats to take property, and efforts to get as many dollars as possible from congregations who wish to leave.  I know of retired ELCA pastors who were told by their synods that they would be removed from the ELCA clergy roster if they did not leave a congregation that has voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  I know of a seminarian who was no longer welcome at an ELCA seminary once the congregation that she was affiliated with began the process of leaving the ELCA. 

Too many ELCA congregations have not experienced a “grace-filled separation.”  Too many ELCA congregations did not find “an unobstructed pathway” when they began the process of voting to leave the ELCA. I am certain that what Bishop Eaton wrote in her October 20 communication is something that she wishes were true and that she desires to be true.  But why does she not know that it is not true?  Does she really think that people will believe what she wrote?