It started with Holy Communion.  When people ask me to share my experience with leaving the ELCA, the story begins where questions of church fellowship must always begin: the altar.

Following the churchwide votes of 2009, people started using “impaired communion” more frequently to describe the ELCA’s situation.  I particularly recall David Yeago using it to good effect.  To commune is to share something in common, and what the Church shares is Christ.  Not only the 2009 votes, but also the long trajectory of the ELCA’s doctrinal development, made it clear that differing Christs were confessed in the ELCA.

I remember a dedicated revisionist agreeing with me, already in 2003.  “Yes,” he said, “that would be the classical Lutheran understanding of our situation.”  Communion could not proceed as usual.  I realize that many people, including many conservatives, might disagree with that diagnosis.  But that’s where my experience began: the simple recognition that “impaired communion” impairs Communion.  It is there, at the altar, that impaired communion is either repaired, or it is not.

Our first bishop under this new circumstance didn’t like our perspective, especially when we informed him that we would no longer host the Supper at conference or synodical events, but he did not press us to change.  The second bishop was far less sympathetic.  Here I should pause and note that we’ve already encountered two key points about leaving the ELCA.  Having led two congregations out of the ELCA, and counseled and accompanied several others, I’ve seen these points prove valuable time and again.

First, start by asking what your dissatisfaction with the ELCA has to do with doctrine, if anything at all—determine if you disagree on the fundamental question of “Who do you say that I am?”—and distinguish those concerns from other, lesser ones (like, “We’re willing to bet we can get a pastor faster and cheaper somehow else” [unfavorable odds, honestly]).  Then, if you have a doctrinal disagreement, ask yourself how Jesus repairs that sort of thing.  Is it at the conference table, debating constitutions, or at His table, communing or not communing? 

At the very least, that sort of reflection will help clarify your thought.  Constitutions are works; Communion is grace.  Are your problems with the ELCA work problems or grace problems?  If grace is being misunderstood, then the place to begin the remedy (and, potentially, to begin changes in fellowship) is where grace is clarified.  Trying to address a grace problem through a works solution (i.e., trusting a constitutional rearrangement alone) won’t get at it, ever, because the problem is not disagreement about your works, but about the Lord’s gifts. 

Fumbling this distinction continues to hound the various departure movements, I would suggest.   Holy Communion is where Jesus forgives sins.  So, if we now disagree over what sins He forgives, how He forgives them, or who He even is, then we also disagree about what He does at His altar.  Burying that simple problem under layers of constitutional finesse will not clarify the situation to you or to the people whom you serve—and when I say, “the people whom you serve,” I include representatives of your synod, which brings me to the second point.

One bishop is not like another.  Like you and me, each is his or her own little bundle of insecurities, aspirations, and ideas half finished.  If you think it’s hard to be you, being you as an ELCA bishop would be ten times worse for everyone.  I don’t say so out of any animus towards those who hold the office.  We should sympathize with them.  The office as presently constituted is a nightmare, as if someone had found the corpse of a thirteenth-century bishop of Bangor and used an electrical storm to try combining it with Grok, only to find too much personality remained.  The point is: the bishops need your help.

The bishops and their representatives belong to a much larger organization that tries to solve grace problems with work solutions.  “Synod means walking together,” apparently, and each churchwide assembly tries to lock the step, but the differences only widen because they’re trying to heal a flesh wound with a welding torch.  Still, that’s the solution they have, and so the bishops and their representatives will come to you by way of constitution, not Communion.  If your beef is a grace problem, you will need to help them face it, not for the sake of justice or something like it (you’re a Christian, so there’s no room for revenge here), but for the sake of their own souls.  

They will not appreciate this idea.  It won’t be easy.  I call it “playing catch with someone who won’t throw back.”  Here’s how it went for me:

Bishop: “Well, Steve, thank very much for meeting with us today.  I appreciate that your time is valuable.  Why don’t we begin with you explaining to me what your concerns are?” [this starting point can be a trap, but that’s another article]

Me: [Explains my concerns.]

Bishop: [silence]

Me: [shrugs eyebrows]

Bishop: I’m not going to engage you on that topic right now.

Different words could be used. Sometimes no words would be used. There would simply be a long stare, followed by a deep breath and a change of subject.  At other times, there may be honeyed expressions of sympathy followed by continued denials: “That is not the problem.”  Or as one bishop put it to me, “I don’t accept what you’re saying, because I never learned that.”  He said so years ago, and it’s not a horrible answer in some instances.  But it is rather like being asked to play catch, and in good faith tossing the first pitch, only to watch the other person catch the ball, drop it in a bucket, and look back at you.

They won’t engage you on theology.  They don’t think it’s a grace problem.

So if you have a confessional point you want to make, you will need both to confess the truth and to create a situation in which they slow down long enough to a) hear it and b) consider their own confession in light of it.  At its best, the process of leaving the ELCA is an opportunity for everyone to walk away knowing more clearly who they are and why.  There are some synodical leaders who understand this, and if you should encounter some, you’ll feel the difference and be thankful for it.  Either way, remember that what you’re doing is for their sake, not yours, since you are a Christian.  The goal isn’t for you to win, nor is it only for the congregation to leave, but also for the bishop and their representatives to grow in the faith.  They will not necessarily look at it that way—to many of them, you are the problem, and you will be fixed constitutionally—and so you must help them see it.

You’ll do so by starting with Communion, not the constitution.

With all that said, there is one particular way that the ELCA constitutions perform a strangely gracious function, though I’ve rarely heard anyone acknowledge it.  By including in its governing documents a method for leaving the ELCA, the ELCA acknowledges that leaving its fellowship is both permissible and potentially good.  Constitutions are works and seek to govern works.  By including among their works the ability to leave the ELCA, the ELCA constitutions confess that it’s a potentially good work to do so.  If you are part of a congregation considering leaving the ELCA, please make that point to your congregation: the ELCA believes it’s okay to do this.

You’d be forgiven for not realizing it.  I do know one bishop who acknowledged that leaving can be a good work, and she didn’t even mean it in a passive aggressive way.  The acknowledgement is rare!  But no matter.  It’s there in print, and no church should pass into law something it thinks is inherently sinful.  If it is—if a church thinks that leaving is inherently wrong—then it needs to take the process right off the page.  But if it stays on the page, and so far it has, then every congregation needs to know that even the ELCA thinks this process is a totally okay thing.  Sure, you’ll sin along the way—watch for it; repent of it—but so it goes for every good work.  Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of a thing does not nullify its use.

Don’t look at the process as your enemy.  It’s a friend if you make it so.  “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15).  You agreed to that process by virtue of being in the ELCA, so follow it.  That’s part of love.  At the same time, you can always read the process closely.   To create a circumstance where you may press the confessional point and help everyone clarify who they are in the light of grace, you may find unexpected, entirely permissible ways to fulfill and participate in the process outlined.  These unexpected ways will surprise others, but just so, they may create, for the Gospel, a forum. 

The cool kids are now calling that sort of thing “interruptive,” and they make it part of their mission statements.  I’d suggest that you just call it “all in day’s work” and not think very much about it.  It can be done politely and kindly enough, even joyfully, the way you’d perform a Baptism or eat soup at a soup supper (yes, Baptisms are very different from soup-eating, but you doing the Baptism, and you sitting with your congregation and eating the soup, are not).  Other, cooler kids will have even more important things for you to consider than what I’ve written here, but this is what I’ve got: start (and end) with Communion, be prepared to play one-sided catch, work hard to create a situation where they at least catch it, and know that the ELCA totally thinks this is an okay thing to do.

Otherwise, it wouldn’t be on the page. 

 

Every year Lent is a time when we give thanks to God for His great love and amazing grace.  How much we need that love and grace.  Every year on the First Sunday in Lent the Gospel reading is the account in one of the synoptics of the temptation of Jesus.  This year the reading is from Luke 4.  The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus resisted the tempter and how He did so.  The author of the letter to the Hebrews expresses so beautifully and powerfully what that can mean to us.  “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4: 15). 

We have a God who can empathize with us.  But more than that, we have a God who paid the penalty for and broke the power of sin and who won the victory over death and the devil.  Therefore, we can “approach the throne of grace with boldness” for it is there that we will “receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4: 16)  Do you see the throne of God as a throne of grace?  Do you know that you can approach it with boldness?  Have you found at the throne of God mercy and grace to help in time of need?

What I would like to do is to go through Luke’s account of the temptation as found in Luke 4: 1-13.  As we do so, we will see what makes God’s throne a throne of grace and why it is possible for us to approach that throne with boldness.

Luke 4: 1-2 tell us that after His baptism “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.”  Matthew and Mark say it a little bit differently.  According to Matthew 4: 1, “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”  Mark 1: 12 says, “The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.”  When have you felt that the Spirit led you while you were in the wilderness?  When have you felt that the Spirit actually led you into the wilderness?  When have you even felt that the Spirit drove you into the wilderness?     

Luke 4: 2 continues, “He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished.”  Note:  The devil attacked Jesus at a point of weakness – at a time of great vulnerability.  Remember: The devil also knows your points of weakness – your times of greatest vulnerability.  And that is exactly where the devil will attack you.    

We find the First Temptation in Luke 4: 3.  “The devil said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.’”  Just a few verses before, in Luke 3: 22, at His baptism, the Father had said to Him, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” 

I can see two possible things going on here.  First, Satan could be saying, “If you truly are who you think you are, then you should be able to turn these stones into loaves of bread.”  But Jesus knew that if He were to do that in order to have the strength to resist the devil, then He would be drawing on a power that would not also be available to us.  A second possibility is that here we see the devil attacking Jesus at His sense of self-identity.  He wanted to get Jesus to question whether He truly is the Son of God.  In the same way the devil will try to get you to question whether you are a child of God.  The devil is jealous of your identity as a child of God, so he will attack you there.  The devil will attack your self-identity, your self-image, your self-confidence. 

We find the Second Temptation in Luke 4: 5-7.  “Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.’” 

The truth is that the devil has no more right to lay claim to all the kingdoms of the world than I would have the right to try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.  The devil could claim that right only as a usurper – a thief.  The devil was also tempting Jesus to choose the easy, less painful way, and to avoid the way of the cross.  When has the devil tempted you to choose the easy, less painful way?  What was the result?  Would the easy, less painful way have worked? 

We find the Third Temptation in Luke 4: 9-11.  “Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,  for it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,” and “On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.”’” 

Again, the devil attacks Jesus by trying to get Him to question His identity as the Son of God.  Here we see that the devil knows the Bible (in this case, Psalm 91: 11-12), though he will misquote and misuse the Bible.  If the devil knows the Bible (and he has had many more centuries than any of us have had to learn the Bible), then we had better get to know the Bible too, so that we will not be led astray. 

Luke concludes his account with these words.  “When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.” (Luke 4: 13)  The devil is like the Terminator, who said, “I’ll be back.”

Again, I can see two things going on here.  First, the devil had finished every test.  The devil has thrown everything he has against Jesus and none of it knocked Him over.  Jesus experienced the full onslaught of evil and none of it worked against Him.  The devil does not need to throw everything he has against us, for we fall early in the process.  Jesus experienced the full severity of temptation in a way that we do not know because the devil does not need to use it all against us.

Second, we can ask the question, When was that “opportune time”?  I believe in the Garden of Gethsemane, where again the devil tried to tempt Jesus to go the easier, less painful way and avoid the way of the cross.

In Luke’s account of the agony in the garden after Jesus prayed, “Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done,” it says that “an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength.”  (Luke 22: 42-43).  Mark’s much more succinct account says, “He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan . . . and the angels waited on him.” (Mark 1: 13)

When have you experienced the ministry of angels after a particularly difficult time in your life, including a time of severe temptation?  When have you offered encouraging and strengthening ministry to someone else after a particularly difficult time in that person’s life, including a time of severe temptation?   My prayer for you during this Lenten season is that you will experience the throne of God as a throne of grace, that you will know that you can approach that throne with boldness, and that coming into God’s presence you will receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. 

 

If your church is following the three year lectionary, Lent begins on Ash Wednesday with 2 Corinthians 5:20b-6:10.  Officially, the pericope begins, “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:20b–5:21, ESV) In light of the fact that he is addressing established Christians, what Paul is obviously driving at here is the ongoing need for even the most committed Christians to realign their lives with the will of God.  “Be reconciled” implies that these already-converted Christian believers are not in a conciliar state with God; in fact, Paul is addressing them for a third time precisely because while claiming Christian identity, they are behaving in ways inimical to God.

At a recent gathering of primarily conservative clergy, I got some hostility but engendered much more fantastic conversation when I brought up the danger of Christianity being coopted by conservative politics. In the end, everyone agreed that Christians need to be on God’s agenda first, offering critique as well as necessarily-conditional support to any ideology, political party or strategy. This is what it means to be “the light of the world” and the “salt of the earth.”

A wise mentor once told me that people’s politics are always influencing their theology, but that the great conversation that is the inner life of the church over time corrects—and when necessary, excises—the errors that people of any given time and place incorporate.  Because of the fractured nature of the Church’s communion and witness, amplified by social media, there is a real danger of these much-needed course corrections being significantly delayed or not even engaged in.

The solution to this is to heed Paul’s words to “be reconciled to God,” which is of course, what the season of Lent is all about. The difference between the orthodox Christian construal of these words and the progressive Christian one is that for the orthodox Christian, the Bible provides the content of what being reconciled to God looks like—a detailed road map for discerning where one’s life is out of sync with the life of the triune God.  Conversely, for the progressive Christian, the Bible provides abstract theological principles, but the content comes from elsewhere, sources deemed more relevant because they are more contemporary, scientific, progressive, or whatever.

The outcome of these two approaches is what yields at least some of the divisions observable in contemporary Christianity, where people united by confessional traditions like Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, etc. have radically different ideas of what makes for faithful Christian living.  While both agree for the need to reconcile ourselves to God, one group sees God as telling us what would constitute alignment with God, the other believes that God is “just” or “forgiving” or “love,” but asserts that what those words mean is not what Christians have traditionally thought they mean, based on the witness of Scripture.

What this means in practice is that the progressive Christian lacks any tool whereby to critique their own politically-influenced positions, for they have no data by which to evaluate them.  As long as the principles they have gleaned from Scripture seem to be met by the ideologies and morays acceptable within their own narrow cultural conditioning, they are living as God intends and no reconciliation is necessary. Conversely, for the orthodox Christian, while perceiving one’s own biases is always notoriously hard, the Scriptures provide actual canons against which to measure cultural assumptions and political prescriptions… and the exhortation to do so.

Paul goes on, “Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” It is important that we not consign the persistent warnings of the New Testament about spiritual disqualification to the dustbin based on our theological principles, no matter how venerable or new. We can receive the grace of God in vain, and only the lifetime of persistent Christian repentance (realignment) that Luther called for in the first article of the 95 Theses can stave off that terrifying reality. So, since we cannot hope to be perfected in theology, holiness, or piety, let us be perfected in repentance, and let the Scriptures dictate to us what that should look like… furthermore, let us start today. “For [God] says, ‘In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.’ Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor 6:1–2, ESV)

 

“MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU”

The first time I began to really understand and value Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians was during my second year of seminary. It was a particularly difficult year for me – one of my most difficult – and I found Paul’s letter speaking to my heart and giving me hope, strength, and encouragement.

I knew that Paul had a particularly difficult relationship with the Corinthians, especially after his first letter to them. But in 2 Corinthians he also addresses what he had been experiencing in Ephesus. You read Luke’s account in Acts 19 and it sounds like everything is wonderful and going great. The value of the books that were burned by those who had practiced magic but then turned to Christ was fifty thousand denarii (verse 19). “The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed” (verse 20). So many people were becoming followers of Jesus that the silversmiths who made images of Artemis were in danger of going out of business (verse 24-27). And even some of the officials of the province were friendly to Paul and wanted to protect him from the screaming crowd in the theater (verse 31). But then you read a couple statements that Paul made in his letters and you find out how tough that time had actually been for him. He writes in his first letter, “I fought with wild animals at Ephesus” (1 Corinthians 15: 32). And then he adds in his second letter, “We do not want you to be unaware of the affliction we experienced in Asia; we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself” (2 Corinthians 1: 8).

One of the keynote speakers at the recent LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) gathering, Dr. Stephen Witmer, led us in a study of 2 Corinthians. Dr. Witmer is a pastor in Massachusetts and adjunct professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He spoke of how the apostle was very open and honest in revealing his struggles and weaknesses. In chapter 1 Paul tells of how he is now able to console others in their afflictions with the consolation which he himself received from God in his afflictions. Dr. Witmer pointed out that this is far more than Paul’s merely saying that he is now more empathetic towards others in their suffering because of his own suffering. Rather Paul is saying that he is able to pass on to others nothing less than the divine consolation that he himself received from God (2 Corinthians 1: 4). And his afflictions have led him to rely not on himself but on “God who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1: 9). Any God who can raise the dead can also take care of all my other problems as well.

As Dr. Witmer continued to speak, I was reminded of how – during my second year of seminary when I for the first time began to really understand and value this letter – God also spoke to me through the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the letter. In chapter eleven Paul lists several of the severe trials that he has gone through. I especially remember reading in verse 25 “three times I was shipwrecked.” And the shipwreck on the way to Rome, recorded in Acts 27, has not happened yet. I know that for me, if I have already been involved in three shipwrecks, I would have a hard time getting back into a boat.

And then in chapter twelve Paul talks about his thorn in the flesh and how he had pleaded with God three times to remove it (verses 7-8). I remember how at that time in my life there were some things in my life that I really would have liked to have changed. But God’s response to Paul was, “No, I am going to let you keep it – that thorn, weakness, limitation, or struggle – because of what you will learn through it and because of how you will grow and be changed because of it.” God said to Paul what I also needed to hear. “My grace is sufficient for you” (verse 9). Paul learned that God’s power is made perfect in our weakness (verse 9) and that as we have to deal with our own weaknesses, we more and more realize that we are totally dependent upon God’s strength (verse 10).

Dr. Stephen Witmer addressed powerfully the whole issue of weakness, as did the other keynote speaker, Dr. Kyle Fever. Kyle Fever is pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Adair, Iowa (LCMC) and director of academic formation at the Master’s Institute. While Stephen’s presentation was more of a Bible study, Kyle gave a personal testimony where he shared about the pain, struggles, and severe testing of faith that he and his wife endured after their oldest child suffered a severe brain injury from a bad automobile accident. Kyle shared openly and honestly as he spoke to our hearts and lives. Their suffering was great, their pain was overwhelming, but God’s grace saw them through. When Kyle showed a picture of his family on the day that his daughter enrolled in college, everyone erupted into applause. We were all encouraged, blessed, and strengthened.

What an inspiration it was to attend a gathering where the keynote presenters spoke to the real issues of life and strengthened us and helped us prepare for the next chapter of life and ministry. What a contrast to the ELCA’s Rostered Leaders Gathering in July 2023, where I feel that only one speaker expressed care and concern for how we as rostered leaders are doing personally. Everyone else focused on recruiting us for and getting us on board with the ELCA’s agenda.

After flying back to Phoenix and picking up my car at the airport, I started my vehicle. The first song that played on Sirius XM was “Faithfully” by TobyMac. In that song the contemporary Christian artist tells of his struggles after the death of his twenty-one-year-old son Truett from an accidental overdose of fentanyl and amphetamines. He writes –

“But when my world broke into pieces, You were there faithfully.
When I cried out to You, Jesus, You made a way for me.
I may never be the same man,
But I’m a man who still believes.
When I cried out to You, Jesus, You were there faithfully.”

Stephen Witmer, Kyle Fever, TobyMac, and the apostle Paul all encouraged us and helped us by telling us of how they have cried out to Jesus and how they still believe even when their world broke into pieces.

* * * * * * *

BEWARE OF THE LATEST
FROM THE ELCA’S COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

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

A written summary of the Commission’s seventh meeting – held from August 8-10 – can now be found on their website. A link to that website can be found HERE – Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org). There are several items in that written summary that I believe should cause great concern.

Fourth bullet point under August 8 –
The CRLC received updates from the Church Council and a subcommittee on the progress of the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit.

The ELCA continues full speed ahead with the DEIA audit. Please see my article, “A Warning of What Is Coming,” in the March 2024 issue of our newsletter, where I list several of the expectations of congregations from that audit. A link to that article can be found HERE – A Warning of What is Coming – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE) (lutherancore.website).  In that article I raised the question of whether and how congregations will be penalized if they are not DEIA compliant. I also asked pastors and church leaders to consider how the ministry and mission priorities of their congregation will be derailed and the energy of their congregation will be consumed by efforts to become DEIA compliant. If you do not believe what I said in the article, just look at the Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations and the changes in the Model Constitution for Congregations as recommended by the law firm that did the audit. A link to that report can be found HERE – DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf (elca.org).

Some people have said that they see DEIA as very compatible with the Gospel. My response is that it is the exact opposite of the Gospel. DEIA is legalism at its worst and pure Marxism. Its demands are insatiable, it can never offer forgiveness, and it cannot provide deliverance. No matter how much you repent of and grovel because of your own oppressive behavior as well as the oppressive behavior of your ancestors and others of your race, it is never enough. You cannot do enough. You will always fall short. You cannot be forgiven, because if you are forgiven, then those who claim that you are oppressing them lose their power over you. And it cannot provide deliverance. If you are white, male, straight, and/or a member of any of the other privileged, oppressive people groups, then you cannot not be an oppressor. Rather the systems that privilege and empower you must be dismantled.

Third bullet point under August 9 –
The Who We Are Committee led the CRLC in a discussion about constitutional language updates.

Nothing specific – which raises the question, Why is there nothing specific? The natural concern is that the new constitutional language will make the ELCA more hierarchical and reduce congregational autonomy. If that is not the case, why are the Commission and ELCA leadership doing nothing to recognize and alleviate those concerns?

Fourth bullet point under August 9 –
The How Are We Governed Committee . . . began discussion . . . of matters relating to accountability, autonomy versus uniformity, and the need for structural flexibility.

Again, nothing specific. And again, congregations have every reason to fear that they will lose autonomy and be forced into greater uniformity. And congregations with traditional views are certainly not going to be the ones who will be blessed with structural flexibility.

Second bullet point under August 10 –
The How Are We Governed Committee presented draft proposals of possible changes to governance structures.

Again, nothing specific. And again, congregations have every reason to fear that the changes to governance structures will increase and further empower hierarchy and decrease and further disempower congregational autonomy.

The written summary does say under the fourth bullet point under August 10 –
The Communications Committee . . . presented an update on how the final CRLC report can be shared with the wider ELCA community.

Again, nothing specific. It does not say when or at what point in the process the final report will be revealed, but pastors, lay leaders, and congregations with traditional views have every reason to fear that by then it will be too late. And if the net result of the work of the commission, the DEIA audit, and the reconsideration of bound conscience in the human sexuality social statement is not to tighten the squeeze on those with traditional views, then why is the ELCA not acknowledging and not showing any concern whatsoever for the fears and concerns of those with traditional views?

We will keep you posted.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“JOINING JESUS ON HIS MISSION” BY GREG FINKE

Many thanks to Aaron Heilman for his review of “Joining Jesus on His Mission” by Greg Finke. Aaron is currently serving as worship leader at Pointe of Hope Lutheran Church (LCMS) while pursuing a BA in Christian Ministry at Spurgeon College. A link to Aaron’s video book review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains over fifty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Mission. Outreach. Evangelism. As a Lutheran, do you feel a twinge of anxiety when you hear these words? These are big and scary concepts to the average churchgoer. The past few decades, we have struggled with these concepts and the fruit, or lack thereof, is painfully evident. Thankfully, God has provided a resource to help us get comfortable with the thought of engaging in mission, outreach, and evangelism.

Greg Finke has blessed us with a great book, “Joining Jesus on His Mission: How to Be an Everyday Missionary.” There are many books written on these topics but many of them are overly process based and seemingly complicated, to the point where they become overwhelming. Greg Finke has recognized this and provided an approach that works for anyone at any comfort level with mission, outreach, and evangelism.

With a down-to-earth, common sense attitude, Finke will make you feel like you can, in fact, join Jesus on His mission in this world. The book reads well with a conversational tone. Each chapter has questions for reflection and discussion which makes this great for small groups. This book is highly recommended and commended.

* * * * * * *

As we once again give thanks to God for His working powerfully through the lives and efforts of His people to bring about the Reformation, let us recommit ourselves to preserving and sharing a faith that is based on the authority of Scripture and the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith. And let us recommit ourselves to fulfilling the Great Commission and living according to the Great Commandment.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Scripture 

Mark 6:1-13 

Script 

Props: You will need a duffle bag or suitcase filled with items for the beach or for a vacation to the beach. Suggestions: beach toys, sunglasses, a towel, a book, clothes, a swimsuit, snacks) 

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

Sammy: Good morning, everyone! Pastor, I am going on a trip.  

Pastor: Where are you going, Sammy?  

Sammy: It’s summer, and I am going to the beach!  

Pastor: Have you ever been to the beach before, Sammy?  

Sammy: Nope! It’s my first time going to the beach. I am looking forward to traveling and relaxing.  

Pastor: Sammy, I think you should talk to the boys and girls about the beach. There’s some things that you need to know about it. Boys and girls, what can you tell Sammy about the beach? 

[Allow time for responses]  

Sammy: The beach sounds great! I cannot wait to go.  

Pastor: Sammy, did you pack a bag for the beach?  

Sammy: I did! I left it on the floor in the front of the church.  

Pastor: Boys and girls, do you see Sammy’s bag?  

[Allow the children to retrieve and open the bag]  

Pastor: Sammy, this bag is big—you must have a lot of items packed for the beach. How many days are you going to stay at the beach? 

Sammy: Just two days. 

Pastor: Let’s see what Sammy packed. [Have the children help unpack Sammy’s bag. Name the items as they come out.] There’s a lot of stuff in here, Sammy.  

Sammy: Baa-haha. I have to be prepared, Pastor.  

Pastor: You know, Sammy, I know a lot about being prepared and making sure you have what you need, but a lot of this stuff isn’t important or necessary for the beach.  

Sammy: Oh?  

Pastor: You know, in our gospel reading for today, Jesus sent out his disciples on a trip. He told them not to take anything with them.  

Sammy: What?!  

Pastor: They were only to take a staff and the clothes they were wearing.   

Sammy: And their wallets so they could buy whatever they needed.   

Pastor: No, Jesus told them not to take any money with them.  

Sammy: Okay, so then they packed a lot of snacks.  

Pastor: No snacks.  

Sammy: . . . Baahahaha.  

Pastor: Really, Sammy. No snacks.  

Sammy: But how did they survive? What did they eat? What did they wear?  

Pastor: That’s the whole point, Sammy. Jesus wanted them to trust that God would always provide for them, no matter what. The disciples did incredible miracles in the name of Jesus and God took care of them every step of the way.  

Sammy: You know, Pastor, I think that you can take that bag with you. I’ll trust God to provide for me on my trip to the beach.   

Pastor: That’s the spirit, Sammy. Boys and girls, can we please fold our hands and bow our heads? Dear Jesus, thank you for calling us to trust you. Thank you for sending us into the world to serve. Thank you for providing for us. Amen.  

Sammy: Bye, everyone!  

Pastor: Bye, Sammy! 

Scripture

Mark 4:35-41

Script

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

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

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

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

 

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

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

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

[Allow time for responses]

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

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

Sammy: I get around, Pastor.

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

Sammy: What happened?

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

Sammy: What’s a stern?

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

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

Pastor: He slept through everything.

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

[Allow time for responses]

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

Sammy: Just like that?

 

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

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

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

 

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

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

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

 

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

 

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

 

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? –Mark 4:30

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness* with our spirit that we are children of God. –Romans 8:15-16

The first time I read the phrase “kin-dom of God,” I rolled my eyes. It looked to be another attempt to make Christian terminology politically correct—something I have a personal aversion to. So, when I was asked to write a piece on this particular phrase and its usage, particularly amongst progressive Christian circles, I thought I now had an opportunity to academically hammer the phrase.

However, after research, I have become a little more sympathetic to the term. Although, as the title indicates, there is no “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God. Explanation is in order.

The Origins of Kin-dom

Multiple sources trace the origin of “kin-dom” to Georgene Wilson, a Franciscan nun, who spoke it to her friend, mujerista theologian, Ada María Isasi-Díaz.¹ Isasi-Díaz then incorporated it into her theological framework and wrote about it in her work “Kin-dom of God: A Mujerista Proposal.”² Unfortunately, I was unable to find this primary work online, so I am dependent upon a lengthy article by Bridgett Green, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Austin Presbyterian Seminary for insight into Isasi-Díaz’s thoughts.³

For Isasi-Diaz, “kindom” better reflects Jesus’s familial understandings of the community of disciples. Jesus envisioned an extended family with God as father. He announces that all who hear the word of God and do it are his family (Luke 8:21; cf. Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50). Further, Jesus links discipleship to membership in the family of God, saying that any who have left their blood relatives for the sake of the good news will receive back hundredfold in relationships and resources now and in the coming age (Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30, and Matthew 19:29). Jesus creates and grounds his community of disciples in the principles of kinship—and kinship with God comes not through blood relations but through participation in the duties and responsibilities proclaimed in the Torah and by the Prophets. “Kindom” evokes these values in horizontal relationships among all God’s beloved children, calling disciple communities to live into familial ideals of inclusion, mutual support, and sharing of resources.⁴

---

Professor Bridgett Green

I am quite sympathetic to this understanding of how disciples of Jesus interact with each other. St. Paul is emphatic that when we trust in Christ, we are adopted sons and daughters of God. Paul incorporates familial language throughout his letters, in the same vein Isasi-Díaz highlights. If highlighting this aspect of Christian thought was all that was going on, I don’t think there would be much of an issue with using the terminology of “kin-dom” as it would simply be an emphasis of the language of family used throughout the New Testament. However, there are proponents of this terminology who want to get rid of kingdom language totally and replace it with kin-dom. I find this problematic.

Why Erase Kingdom?

According to proponents of “kin-dom,” the language of kingdom presents multiple problems. It has been used by the church to make itself an earthly kingdom with earthly power and might.⁵ It tends towards exclusivity and can foster competition between kingdoms sometimes leading to violence.⁶ It is patriarchal in nature.⁷ And it “includes the specter of humiliation, subordination, punishment, exile, colonialization, sickness, poverty, as well as social, political, economic, and spiritual death.”⁸

In their view, “kin-dom” represents a much better understanding of what Jesus taught about God’s overall rule and what Jesus’ parables lead us toward.

Let’s work through a few of these things and offer some critique. First, I think we must separate the intent of Jesus’ teachings on God’s Kingdom (and the vision of how it works when God rules) from how sinful human beings have appropriated it. Many of the critiques of kingdom language resonate with the experience of human history, and one needs only pick up a history book to see the truth of what is being said. However, does human failing nullify biblical intent and understanding? Hardly.

Several years ago, I attended a mandatory boundary training in my synod. We were cautioned and steered away from using familial language to describe the church. The reason? Because families are places where abuse takes place; where neglect happens; where harm and pain are caused. It was not until a day or two afterwards that it hit me: not a single good thing was shared about what happens in families. No one spoke about parents who lovingly raise and sacrifice for their kids. No one said a word about how spouses care for each other and build one another up. No one spoke about the emotional support and foundations that are laid to help us cope with things that happen in life. No one said a thing about how the vast majority of parents feed, clothe, shelter, and spend hours upon hours of time with their children raising them to be productive citizens of society. All of the focus was on the bad, and not a single thing was said about the good. Do we abandon the metaphor because there are times of failure? Absolutely not!! Especially when the biblical witness emphasizes the metaphor so much.

I believe the same application is warranted here. Yes, there are, but the vision set forth in the Gospels, epistles, the book of Revelation, and even in the Old Testament lead us to use kingdom language. Why? To emphasize the goodness of God’s rule, and to show that there is a future hope which is a corrective to the failings of humankind.

Second, the kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, and I do not think this is something we as Christians should feel shame about. Paul is explicit in his writings that a person is either “in Christ” or “in Adam.” There is a strong line of demarcation, and the only way to go from one side to the other is through the cross. Essentially, a person either trusts in Christ’s work for salvation (in Christ), or they trust in themselves (in Adam). Either one trusts in grace for one’s righteousness, or one trusts in one’s works. There is no middle ground.

When you trust in Christ and His works, you shift your allegiance. No longer do you live for self: for self-indulgence; for self-affirmation; for self-preservation. Instead, you live for Christ. You live for God. No longer do you lay claim to the throne, but the rightful, righteous ruler is now seated upon the throne of your heart. You now serve a new master. (Romans 6) This is at the heart of the Christian creed, “Jesus is Lord.” You are announcing that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. You no longer rule over your life. Jesus does. And when He is king of your life, you enter into the Kingdom of God.

If you do not trust in Christ’s work, then you are not in the Kingdom of God. You are consumed by other hungers. You are on the outside looking in. In this fashion, the Kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, but, this does not lead to violence and conflict. It is self-righteousness which leads to such things, and a person who knows God’s grace is not self-righteous. They know they have no righteousness of their own. They know their sin. They know their dependence upon God and Christ’s grace. They also know they are commissioned to make disciples of all nations. They know the great command to love their neighbors as themselves. They do not seek to impose the faith or the Kingdom by imposition, but rather by invitation. The doorway to the Kingdom of God is always open, and the desire is to welcome all. Even though it is exclusive, it seeks the inclusion of all. This is not something to be ashamed of in the least.

A final word about patriarchy. Please know that I am using the following definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. The Kingdom of God is a patriarchy since God is our Father. As such, this is a rather neutral understanding.

However, there is another definition of patriarchy which oftentimes gets applied. “A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” The Kingdom of God was never meant to be such a thing. One would garner that self-evidently from Jesus’ own teachings on the Kingdom as well as St. Paul’s baptismal theology. However, living this ideal out on earth has proven to be quite difficult, and the Church has fallen very short of the ideal.

But again, the question must be asked: do we abandon the language because the ideal has not been met? No. There is no justification for that. You cannot change reality just by changing language.

Embracing Kingdom

And the reality of the Christian faith is this: you cannot have the “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God.

As I hinted at previously, our Christian faith begins with God’s great grace poured out through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This grace captures and changes our hearts so that our allegiance shifts from ourselves and the desires of the flesh to allegiance to God and the desires of the Spirit. This is a vertical relationship, and it is primary. It must take place first. For through it, we actually fulfill the first and greatest commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Everything starts with this vertical relationship.

Then, it moves to the horizontal. Then, it moves into our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Then, it moves to the second great command to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is where “kin-dom” language can come into play, but again, we must be careful.

Our neighbors may not share the same allegiance that we do. Our neighbors may not have Jesus as their King. They may still be “in Adam.” They still may belong to the kingdom of the world.

I was struck by a paragraph in Professor Green’s article:

This is the expansive sense of family to which Bishop Oscar Romero appealed when he exhorted the soldiers in El Salvador in 1980 before his assassination. He reminded them of Jesus’s vision of kinship, reminded them that we are all children of God, that we are connected through an honor code that values all, that provides security and a foundation for each person to be able to extend themselves into the community without losing their identity and sense of self.⁹

---

Bishop Romero appealed to the idea of “kin-dom” with the soldiers of El Salvador, but they still assassinated him. Why? Because they were serving a different master. They were serving a different king. They were not serving the King of kings and Lord of lords. Their hearts had not experienced the grace of God which would lead them away from committing such a heinous crime. The vertical relationship must always come first, and the Church’s primary job in the world is the proclamation of the Gospel which makes disciples of all nations–which calls our neighbors to have the same allegiance as we do.

To erase kingdom and replace with “kin-dom” means to place the second commandment above the first. It seeks to establish the kingdom without the King. That is not an option within the Christian faith, and it ultimately leads to failure. You simply cannot have the “kin-dom” without the Kingdom.

---

1. Florer-Bixler, Melissa. “The Kin-dom of Christ.” Sojourners. Nov. 20, 2018. https://sojo.net/articles/kin-dom-christ,

Green, Bridget. “On Kingdom and Kindom: The Promise and the Peril.” Issuu. Fall 2021. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

Butler Bass, Diana. “The Kin-dom of God.” Red Letter Christians. Dec.15, 2021 https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

2.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid.

5.Butler Bass. https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

6.PCUSA. “Bible study at GA223 will Explore ‘kin-dom’ versus ‘kingdom.’” Feb.12, 2018

https://www.pcusa.org/news/2018/2/12/bible-study-ga223-will-explore-kin-dom-versus-king/?fbclid=IwAR2fVkwtu41Zps66Wvxa_QdQfqVUiMrPeb96vhyHxKSNYAwPCFDQLv4dJuc

7.Montgomery, Herb. “A Kingless Kingdom.” Renewed Heart Ministries: eSights and Articles. May 31, 2019. https://renewedheartministries.com/Esights/05-31-2019/

8.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

9.Ibid.

---

Part 1: A Gift of Restoration, Resilience, and Prophetic Perspective

Dear Friends—

We were in the middle of our first vacation ‘Out West’, somewhere between Colorado Springs, CO, and Yellowstone Park, WY, when my wife asked in a surprisingly calm voice, “So, what does happen when the pop-up mechanism of a pop-up trailer doesn’t pop?” Just minutes before I had explained that there was a high degree of probability that the lifting system on our trailer had broken. All I can say is that it was a most fascinating time with five kids. I only wish we had brought the dog and a couple of cats to make it more magical! Anyway, it was wonderful but not necessarily restful. You’ve probably had at least one of those vacations in your lifetime; you return home in desperate need of rest.

I’d like to address the topic of ‘rest’ in light of Jesus’ gracious appeal in Matthew 11 and how we can more fluidly incorporate rest into our lives. Why is rest (aside from sleeping) an essential but often missing ingredient in our daily schedules? I would say that without it—REST—we are much less effective in how we go about the work of ministry.

Are you presently resting from a place of work, or working from a place of rest? Perhaps we are relying more on our own efforts, programs, and plans than spending much-needed and regular time in the quiet place of abiding and rest. Clearly, Jesus’ ministry was rooted in and flowed from a place of silence and solitude, thus being still in seeking His Father’s directive (cf. Matthew 4:1-11, 14:23, 16:36-46, 17:1-9; Mark 6:31; Luke 5:16,6:12; and many more scriptural references). Jesus’ daily ‘schedule’ reflected a pattern of rest/retreat … and then an advance with the work of ministry/the Kingdom. I know there have been many occasions when, thankfully, dear ones (i.e., my wife, etc.) have lovingly challenged me to stop striving with my own agenda and energy and just rest.   

Jesus provides interesting insight on this topic of rest and the power it holds: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Mt. 11:28-30) Although this is one of the most familiar texts in the New Testament and there are two references to rest in these verses alone, it seems that we are hesitant to embrace Jesus’ very tender and attractive words! We all know that statistics will clearly expose this reality, but who needs statistics when we experience it first-hand?

Yet, ironically, rest may be the very thing that Jesus desires for His listeners—and that through rest many blessings will come. It is a gift. But, like Paul, we find ourselves torn and often caught in our own humanity, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Romans 7:15)

Part of the blessings of rest, and what I desire to leave with you, is both invitation and challenge. Please know that I do this as a sometimes weary but hopeful brother and colleague in Christ. The invitation is to simply embrace Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:28-30 … and rest … knowing that His rest will bring you many unexpected graces, including the gift of restoration of your soul, resilience for the long-haul, and prophetic perspective in discerning the ‘spirit of the age’ (Ephesians 2:1-3). The challenge is to incorporate a regular pattern of rest—and Sabbath-taking—in our restless, relentless, and demanding worlds!

If we can integrate daily encounters with rest into our schedules, and thereby establish rest as a predictable pattern in our daily routine, then will we not hear God more easily and trust His leading more readily? Doesn’t this become an intentional act of resting our faith on His Grace, being released of so much work (which can become works/law; Romans 4:16 & 5:2)?

Out of this wellspring of Rest, Inc., may you experience an early springtime of the soul! When the care of your own life is established in rest, then the privileged work of ministry (i.e., disciple-making, missional outreach, etc.) will flourish. I hope to address this in Part II of Rest, Inc.

In Christ,

K. Craig Moorman

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. 

“Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about. His lightnings lit up the world; The earth saw and trembled.” (Psalm 97:3-4)

 

Moderns discount the Lord as if He were a play toy. The Lord is the One who made everything and the earth listens to His voice. Come into His presence and know the One who was before all things. Fear the Lord but do not be frightened. Know that the God of all creation has called you into His loving presence. He desires that you be with Him now and always, and know His goodness.

Lord, help me through the malaise of this world which is forever shouting all kinds of contradictory things. Lead me to humbly hold fast to the goodness You have made possible that I would now and always live into the life to which You have called me through Your Word. Guide me, O Lord, in the way I should live that I may not be as those in this age who scoff at You.

Lord Jesus, apart from Your grace it would not be possible. You have come into the world to lead the way for as many as would believe that together we can stand in Your presence eternally. Lift me up and teach me respect, honor and humility that I may learn to become as You are. Guide me through Your Word that I would learn each day things that are useful in this walk. Amen.