Although the appellation “woke”—used by Ricky Gervais to the Hollywood establishment at the Oscars as “insider” language just a few years ago—is eschewed by progressives now that cultural conservatives have fastened onto it and redeployed it as a demeaning epithet, its inception in progressive circles originally indicated a true stance of religious conversion that Christians should recognize.  As the Church year winds to its eschatologically focused close and begins the new year in Advent, both Jesus and John the Baptist exhort us to “wake” up to the reality of our spiritual situation. Such an awakening is at once a combination of intellectual recognition and a posture of preparation for incipient action. “Woke” originally meant to the true believer in progressive ideals much the same thing that “newly illumined” meant to the just baptized in the early Church; it signaled the passing of a liminal threshold and the adoption of such a substantially new interpretation of age-old data points and orientation to the challenges of life as to be only capturable in the proclamation of a new identity.

It is by now not particularly provocative or insightful to interpret the constellation of ideological commitments that goes variously by the names woke, postmodern, poststructuralism, or social justice as a religion, but it is helpful to explore why this is formally rather than merely experientially the case. If religion is defined sociologically as a set of communal behaviors rather than as a set of metaphysical beliefs or commitments (a hopelessly Western definition in any case), this progressive set of beliefs above-labeled clearly functions as a religion for its adherents.

Channeling the work of Émile Durkheim, Jonathan Haidt helpfully identifies the sociological characteristics of a religion. By designating something as “sacred” a group of disparate people can have a sense of unified identity. You know you are in the presence of a thing (or value system) that has been designated by a group as “sacred” when that thing must be defended at all costs from even ridiculous or accidental insults. “Jokes, insults, and utilitarian trade-offs” cannot be tolerated if they impugn the honor of the thing held sacred because they threaten the fundamental social cohesion of the group’s acolytes. When what is at stake is the sacred, blasphemy codes dictate the range of acceptable expression, and such cannot be challenged by rational objections.

In a lecture at Duke University,[1] Haidt identified six groups that are now identified as sacred in the social justice milieu: the “big three” of blacks, women, and LGBTQIA+ along with a secondary group deemed slightly less sacred consisting of Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities, and more recently, Muslims.  Comments or ideas that are deemed less than laudatory of people in these groups or their behavior are met not only with outrage but disgust, an emotional response whose purpose is to get us to avoid things that are potentially poisonous to us—contagions and pathogens.

I spoke in last issue’s article of not permitting the pain of a student in my care—very real pain for which I had genuine empathy and wanted to see healed—to colonize my theology, coming to exercise a controlling influence over it. Viruses colonize their host by hijacking the cell’s DNA reproduction system, turning its very system of replication and renewal to its own purposes. The reason why progressive Christianity quickly ceases to be Christianity at all is that the Church’s ministries of renewal and replication—catechesis and evangelism—are necessarily reemployed in service of the new objects that are, in fact, now deemed sacred.

In the case of progressive Christianity, the aforementioned victim groups replace the orthodox objects of worship (the Triune God, revealed by the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) as the center around which the group’s identity revolves.  In the same way, the holy tasks of pursuing an amorphously defined and ever-mutating sense of justice for these sacred victims replaces the orthodox tasks of preaching the stories of Scripture and celebrating the Sacraments commanded by God’s Sacred Victim, as well as the repentance, conversion, and amendment of life according to the revealed will of God to which these lead. Progressive Christianity quickly ceases to be formally Christian precisely because it holds different things to be sacred than does the Biblical, Apostolic faith. I will have more to say on this in the next issue, but for now it is enough to note that it represents a different religion, not a different way to be Christian.

---

[1] https://youtu.be/Gatn5ameRr8?si=5elvFmZJAPTJyapK

 

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?   

WHAT WILL IT BE NEXT?

There are two things we know for sure about the ELCA.  First, they will always give us plenty to write about.  And second, they will always leave us wondering what will it be next.  Such was the case during the past couple months.

On August 23 the Religious News Service released the story that Nadia Bolz-Weber, the ELCA’s most famous pastor, has been installed as pastor of public witness by the Rocky Mountain Synod.  This is the Nadia Bolz-Weber who was one of the keynote speakers at the 2018 ELCA youth gathering.  She led 31,000 young people in a chant rejecting traditional views of human sexuality as a lie.  (See CORE Voice July 2018).  This is the Nadia Bolz-Weber who is known for her profanity and her bragging about the sex she is having outside of marriage.  I assume it was to accommodate Nadia Bolz-Weber that the ELCA Conference of Bishops recommended and the ELCA Church Council approved a wording in the recently revised document, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” which no longer describes abstinence from sexual intercourse until marriage as an expectation and requirement for pastors and other rostered leaders, but instead only as “the aspirational teaching of this church.”

In the past, when I have expressed concern about the pagan goddess worship at Ebenezer HerChurch in San Francisco, I was told that they do not represent the ELCA.  When I wrote to ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton regarding the “We Are Naked and Unashamed” movement, which wants to eliminate the requirement that pastors be married (by any definition) in order to be sexually active, I was told by her that they are outside of the teachings of “this church” and she does not want to give them attention and credence by commenting on them.

The news story said that the entire Conference of Bishops had to sign off on at least the creation of that position, if not also choosing Nadia Bolz-Weber for that position.  In addition, she was called to that position by the Rocky Mountain Synod and installed in that position by the bishop of that synod, Jim Gonia.  All that tells me that there is no way that the ELCA can say that this is action that does not represent and reflect on the ELCA.

Well, if that is what happened in August, what happened in September?  The ELCA again made the news.  That must be one of their greatest goals – to make the news.  This time they made the news by installing Protestantism’s first transgender bishop, Meghan Rohrer of the Sierra Pacific Synod.  There is much to be said about that action.

Of course there is much that could be said about the ELCA’s even having a transgender pastor who could be elected bishop.  The ELCA fully embraces the LGBTQIA+ agenda, even though the ELCA has never officially taken action to approve the BTQIA+ portion of LGBTQIA+.  (Transgender is the “T” portion of LGBTQIA+.)  The actions taken by the 2009 churchwide assembly only approved the ordination of a certain group of L and G persons – those that are in (PALMS) publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same sex relationships.  Even the recently approved document, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” which I have referenced above, affirms that “this church’s understanding of human sexuality is stated in its authorized social teachings” – the most recent of which is the 2009 “Social Statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”       

Not too long ago I received an email from an ELCA synodical staff person, who is now an ELCA synodical bishop.  She agreed that in 2009 the ELCA did not act to approve the ordination of BTQIA+ persons.  She also said that if the ordination of BTQIA+ persons had been part of the vote, it probably would not have been approved at that time.  But, she said, the Holy Spirit has revealed new things to the church.  What good timing on the part of the Holy Spirit!  To reveal new things to the church after and only after enough traditionally minded people have left that church so that these new things will not only be accepted, but welcomed and embraced.

But there is much more that can be said about the installation service for Bishop Rohrer.  I will start with the wording of the invocation given by ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  The news story said that “congregants were invited to stand as clergy gathered around the orchid-festooned baptismal font, giving thanks as decanters poured water from the Sacramento and Garcia Rivers, Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay as acolytes waved blue streamers overhead.”  And then Bishop Eaton said, “You, oh God: Parent, Child, and Holy Breath.  You are the water we crave. . . .  You, oh God: Rain, Estuary, and Sea.  You are life for us all, now and forever.  Amen.”

I assume all this is intended to be some kind of creative reference to baptism, but what is it actually?  Idolatry.  Notice the parallel sentence structure.  The first “You, oh God:” is followed by five words that identify God – “Parent, Child, and Holy Breath.”  Not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as per the ecumenical creeds and the Lutheran Confessions.  (Interestingly enough, at the ELCA service of ordination for a minister of word and sacrament – the new term for pastor – the candidate is asked, “Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the holy scriptures and these creeds and confessions?”  At the ELCA service of installation of a bishop, the bishop is asked, “Will you carry out this ministry in accordance with the holy scriptures and with the confessions of the Lutheran church?”  But why would we expect the ELCA to expect one of its own pastors and/or bishops to actually do what they said they would do?)

The first “You, oh God:” is followed by five words that identify that God – “Parent, Child, and Holy Breath.”  So we should be able to assume that the words that follow the second “You, oh God:” also identify God.  And what are those words?  “Rain, Estuary, and Sea.”  What is this?  Idolatry.  Invoking God as Rain, Estuary and Sea, and invoking Rain, Estuary, and Sea as God.  Worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

And who is this said by?  No one less than the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA.  The ELCA could argue that Ebenezer HerChurch does not represent the ELCA, and the agenda and goals of “We Are Naked and Unashamed” are outside the teachings of “this church,” but I assume that what the Presiding Bishop says represents the ELCA and is within the teachings of “this church.”  Does Bishop Eaton actually believe that God is “Rain, Estuary, and Sea” and “Rain, Estuary, and Sea” are God, or is she so careless about saying what she is handed to say at the service for the installation of a synodical bishop? 

What if the prophets of Baal were right and Elijah was wrong and the gods are merely forces of nature?  Certainly rain is a gift, and water is essential for life.  I live in Arizona.  I give thanks for the monsoon rains which fell this past July and August.  The danger of fires is now listed as low or moderate, rather than extreme, and most of Arizona is no longer suffering from extreme or exceptional drought.  But if God were only the forces of nature, and the forces of nature were God, then what do I do about the fact that the forces that can make life possible can also destroy?  If God were only the forces of nature – Rain, Estuary, and Sea – then I would know nothing of a God who loves me as well as created me and who went to great lengths and paid a high price to save me.

Yes, it does matter what we believe.  It does matter how we witness.  It does matter what we say within the context of a worship service – especially one that is so publicly visible.

The final thing that I would want to comment on from the installation service for Bishop Rohrer is the way in which the service began with a “land acknowledgement” – a declaration that “the land where we live and worship in this place is stolen land.”  Participants in the ceremony, which was held in Grace Cathedral – in a historically wealthy neighborhood in San Francisco – were encouraged to “find concrete ways to make reparations to the original stewards of these places and their descendants.”

It is interesting.  For the ELCA the worst of sins are the ones that they are proud that they are not guilty of – white supremacy, racism, male dominance, and sexism.  They feel free to blast and criticize those awful white settlers who stole the land from indigenous persons, not realizing that they are doing the very same thing when they send in “woke” pastors who decimate congregations.  These congregations then close, their buildings are sold, and from the proceeds synods and ELCA churchwide finance their agenda. 

For example, I wrote in my June letter from the director about the online synod assembly for the ELCA synod in which I was rostered before I retired.   The proposed spending plan for the 2022-2023 fiscal year included income of $899,000, but expenses of over $1.2 million.  The assembly rejected the budget, not because it was not balanced, but instead because it did not provide funding for all of the favored ministries.  The attitude of the assembly was, We need to sell more buildings from closed congregations, and we need to use more of the dollars already obtained from already selling buildings from closed congregations.

The hypocrisy is amazing.  Encouraging the participants in the installation service of an ELCA synodical bishop to “find concrete ways to make reparations to the original stewards of these places and their descendants” while showing neither respect, consideration, appreciation, nor regard for the people who built and paid for the buildings which they are now selling in order to fund their agendas, values, and priorities.  

* * * * * * *

IN SHARP CONTRAST

In sharp contrast was the LCMC gathering in early October, which I had the privilege of attending on behalf of Lutheran CORE.  In the second reading for October 10 – in Hebrews 4:14 – the author of this letter urges his readers, “Let us hold fast to our confession.”  The people at this gathering were not afraid to hold fast to their confession.  They were not afraid to call God Father, believe in the authority of the Bible, see the Lutheran Confessions as an accurate statement of Scriptural teachings and relevant for us today (even though they were written by white males), and view the mission of the Church as proclaiming Christ and helping people grow as disciples of Christ.

* * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEW – “WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED”

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to Bill Decker for giving us a review of Erwin Lutzer’s book, We Will Not Be Silenced: Responding Courageously to Our Culture’s Assault on Christianity.  This is a book for all who are concerned about how they can and will live out their Christian convictions against a growing tide of hostility in our contemporary culture.  Picking up on the words of Jesus to the church in Sardis in Revelation 3: 2 to “strengthen what remains,” this book is written with the ardent hope that the U. S. church will wake up and “strengthen what remains.” 

Mr. Decker is an ELCA rostered lay leader who has done editorial and grant writing work for the ELCA.  Erwin Lutzer is a student of Martin Luther and pastor emeritus of Moody Church in Chicago. 

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

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Several weeks ago there was considerable discussion in Lutheran CORE’s Facebook group in response to a person who questioned whether it is appropriate to call the Bible the Word of God. 

As part of that process, we posted our Statement on Scripture, which was written in 2007.

Because that statement was responding specifically to comments made by former ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hansen and to the ELCA’s Book of Faith initiative, we felt that the document should be updated to reflect our current situation and without reference to that initiative.

We are very grateful to NALC pastor Ken Kimball, who, along with Bishop Paull Spring, wrote the original statement.  Pastor Kimball graciously accepted our request to update the statement.  We are also very grateful to Dr. Mark Mattes of Grand View University for reviewing the statement. 

At its most recent meeting the board of Lutheran CORE unanimously voted to approve the statement.  You can find the full text of that document here. 

As we said in the July 2021 issue of CORE Voice, the real issue behind the issue is more often than not the authority of Scripture.  Refusing to call God Father, rejecting evangelism as part of the mission of the church, seeing faith in Christ as only one out of many ways to God, and embracing the full, radical LGBTQIA+ agenda all result from rejecting the inspiration, reliability, and authority of the Bible.  Therefore, we are glad to be able to share with you this newly updated Statement on Scripture.    

In the words of a hymn that has been set to the tune of “A Mighty Fortress” –

“God’s Word is our great heritage and shall be ours forever.

To spread its light from age to age shall be our chief endeavor.

Through life it guides our way; in death it is our stay.

Lord, grant while time shall last your Church may hold it fast

Throughout all generations.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s Note: In this article, author David Charlton thoughtfully critiques Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, a commentary on Scripture. It was written by Reconciling Works which 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.” While independent, Reconciling Works is closely affiliated with the ELCA. 

Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans begins by listing four “common metrics for scriptural interpretation” taken from the writings of Martin Luther.  The list includes:  a) the Law/Gospel Dialectic, b) the Plain Reading of Scripture, c) Scripture Interprets Scripture, and d) Scripture as the Manger that Holds Christ.[1] These are indeed common Lutheran principles for interpreting Scripture.  One principle that I would expect to find, but did not, is was Christum treibt, or “whatever teaches Christ.”   However, I have no objection to the four mentioned.

In general, the description of each is sound.  However, I do have a question regarding the Plain Reading metric.  It seems anachronistic to include the modern historical critical method as part of that principle.  That method would not be developed and standardized for several centuries after Luther’s time.  It is more likely that Luther had in mind what some call the historical grammatical method.  Luther used the best in contemporary textual criticism, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and knowledge of history.  What would Luther know about source, form, redaction, or narrative criticism?  What would he know of the several quests for the historical Jesus?

The real difficulty with these “common metrics” are how they are applied in interpreting two kinds of texts, labeled “Passages Used to Exclude” and “Passages Used to Welcome.”  I will address each section separately, giving examples of how all four metrics are applied to both kinds of passages.

Passages Used to Exclude

There are eight Biblical texts described as “passages used to exclude.”  The intent is to demonstrate how the four Lutheran metrics clear up confusion about the meaning of these texts.  The question for us is whether the Lutheran metrics are applied correctly, and whether they succeed in the purpose for which they are used.

The Law/Gospel principle is used to address Genesis 1:26-29 and Romans 1:22-27.  In the three pages dedicated to Genesis 1:26-29, there is only one reference to Law, and one to Gospel.  The authors make the dubious claim that the phrase “male and female he created them” cannot be taken as Law because it is not grammatically in the form of a command.[2]  They certainly know better than that.  Lutherans have never limited Law to grammatical commands.  The Law is understood more broadly than that.  While including grammatical commands, it also includes anything that is taken as normative, makes demands, accuses or condemns.  The authors undermine this argument three paragraphs later when they refer to “the Gospel in this passage.”[3]  They do not cite a grammatical promise that serves as Gospel.  Instead, they infer a Gospel promise from the descriptive passage in verse 27, which says that humankind was created in the image of God.  If Gospel can be inferred, then so can Law.  On the other hand, if absent a grammatical command, no Law can be inferred, then absent a grammatical promise, no Gospel can be inferred. 

The discussion of Romans 1:22-27 also fails to apply the Law/Gospel principle correctly.  However, it does so in a different way.  It misconstrues Paul’s use of Law and Gospel in a serious way.  Romans 1:22-27 is part of a longer argument extending from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3.  It culminates in the conclusion that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  (3.23)  And yet the authors assert that Paul is not describing the Romans themselves, in 1:22-27, but instead describing a sinful and “unnamed people who are set up as a foil.”[4]  He is doing this, it is alleged, to set up his main argument, that “salvation is based entirely on Christ, and not on our own ability to do good works and follow the Law.”[5]  This is a non-sequitur.  That Paul’s ultimate goal is to show the impossibility of salvation by the works of the Law, does not mean that he doesn’t consider the activities he describes to be sinful.  It would make no sense to use things that are not sinful to convict people of sin.  Nor does it mean that Paul doesn’t consider some in Rome to be guilty of those sins at one time or another.  He seems to assume that as Christians, they no longer engage in those activities.  This does not imply that they never engaged in those activities before they came to faith in Christ. 

The Metaphor of the Manger, is used in interpreting Genesis 2:22-24, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Its application to these texts is puzzling.  My understanding of that metaphor is that it teaches us to ask, “Where is Christ in this passage?”  It calls for a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. The problem is that in the discussion of Genesis 2:22-24, this principle is never mentioned.  No attempt is made to show how a Christological interpretation helps us interpret those texts.  Instead the argument relies entirely on a discussion of the meaning of “one flesh.”[6] 

In addressing the texts from Leviticus, only one mention is made of the Metaphor of the Manger.  We are asked to compare these texts with what we know of Christ, to see whether they correspond to him, or whether they are straw.[7]  Is this really what the Metaphor of the Manger teaches us to do?  In fact, in his Preface to the Old Testament, Luther tells us not to despise or be offended by the Old Testament.  It is as precious as the manger that held the infant Christ.[8]  Nowhere in that writing does Luther refer to the Old Testament as straw.  The authors seem to be conflating Luther’s view on the Book of James, found in his Preface to the New Testament[9], with his words about the Old Testament. 

The principle of Scripture Interpreting Scripture is used to interpret Genesis 19 and Deuteronomy 23:1.  They make a good use of this principle in discussing Genesis 19, using multiple references to Sodom in the Old and New Testament to show that homosexuality was not the primary focus when the sin of Sodom was discussed.  In a similar manner, they show that the attitude toward eunuchs changes as we move through Scripture, so that Deuteronomy’s exclusion must be balanced with the inclusion found in other places.  I agree that neither of these texts can be used by themselves to exclude homosexuals or eunuchs.

As for the Plain Reading of Scripture principle, I have the objection that I mentioned earlier.  I think it tends to be anachronistic, as if Luther had the historical critical method in mind.  On the other hand, lexical objections to traditional interpretations seem to be more in line with the tools that Luther had in mind.  In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, the authors raise appropriate questions about the proper translation of key words.  We should not assume that modern notions of homosexuality or transgenderism are what the original reader would have had in mind. 

Passages Used to Include

The authors use the Metaphor of the Manger to interpret the story of Ruth (1:16-17) and Psalm 139:13-14.  In both cases they interpret the text Christologically.  In Ruth they find a foreshadowing of Jesus’ welcoming of outsiders.  They also imply a connection between Ruth’s loyalty and God’s faithfulness in Christ.  In interpreting Psalm 139 Christologically, they lift up the Incarnation itself, reminding us that God embraces our humanity fully, not just in part.  They rightly highlight the importance of recognizing the many ways that loyalty can be expressed in human relationships, the importance of welcoming and including the marginalized, and of embracing people as they are, following the example of Jesus.

The Plain Reading principle is used to interpret Isaiah 56:3-5 and Acts 10 and 11.  They use the plain meaning of each text to illustrate the way that God breaks down walls of ritual purity that exclude those who were considered unclean because of sexual or gender status, diet, or nationality.  They rightly conclude that such categories no longer apply in the Church.  One is justified and therefore included in God’s family by faith in Christ, not by any outward status or action.  Whether one is circumcised or not, follows dietary laws or not, is male or female, Jew or Gentile, eunuch or not, is not relevant. One is acceptable to God by faith alone.

The sections on Scripture Interpreting Scripture focus on Galatians 3:26-29 and Matthew 22: 34-40.  In both cases, the principle is able to raise questions, but not able to provide answers.  Does the dual commandment of love of God and neighbor help us interpret passages like those in Leviticus 18 and 20?  To some degree. Does Galatian 3:26-29 help us determine which Old Testament laws are no longer relevant in the eschatological community of the Church?  In part.  What complicates things is the fact that the Lutheran confessions put the laws of the Old Testament in three categories, 1) religious or ceremonial law, 2) the civil law of the nation of Israel, and 3) the moral law that applies at all times and places.  Many laws that applied in ancient Israel no longer apply to us today, but some of them do.

This leads us to the final category, Law and Gospel.  This is where things tend to get complicated.  In their discussion of Acts 8 and 1 Corinthians 12, the authors are not careful to distinguish the many ways that Lutherans speak of the Law.  As I mentioned above, Lutherans have distinguished between different kinds of Old Testament laws.  The proper distinction between Law and Gospel does render Old Testament religious or ceremonial laws obsolete.  The laws that once distinguished between clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile, are no longer in effect in the Church.  The same is true for civil laws that applied to the nation of Israel in the era of Moses, the judges, the kings, or the Second Temple. 

However, the moral law, as described in Romans 1:19-20, still applies today.  It has a twofold function, the so called civil use and theological use of the Law.  In its civil use, the Law defines the boundaries that are necessary for any healthy community.  The Law in its civil use finds many forms of expression, but some things remain the same.  Murder, adultery, theft, lying and envy are universally detrimental to community. 

The theological use of the Law is to expose sin and reveal the wrath of God.  In doing this, the Law reveals that all fall short of the glory of God.  It undercuts all attempts to justify oneself through works.  In doing so it drives a person to Christ, who through the Gospel grants forgiveness to all who have faith. 

Clearly, the Law that declared the Ethiopian unclean because he was a Gentile and a eunuch no longer applies today.  He was justified and made part of the Church by baptism and faith, as all Christians are.  In a similar manner, Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that membership in the Body of Christ is not based on which gifts a person has been given, but on the confession that Christ is Lord, i.e. faith.   This faith, in turn, is a gift of one and the same Spirit.  Anyone who confesses Christ as Lord is already part of the Body of Christ, through the power of the Spirit. 

The question remains whether the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage is part of the obsolete ceremonial and civil law of ancient Israel, or whether it is part of the moral law, which remains valid today.  If it is part of the ceremonial law, it is no longer mandatory for Christians.  If it is part of the civil law of ancient Israel only, then it need not apply to us today.  However, if it is part of the moral law inscribed in the human heart, then it still applies in both its civil and theological uses. 

If so, then there are two implications.  First, the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage remains the standard for leaders in the Christian community. (civil use)  Secondly, it still accuses those who violate that prohibition. In that case, the proper response of the Church is not to abolish the Law, but to preach the forgiveness of sin for Jesus’ sake to those who sin.

Where Are We?

I do believe that Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans makes a convincing case that Old Testament rules of exclusion and punishment need not apply today.  They made a good case that distinctions between clean and unclean no longer apply.  Their Christological interpretation of Scripture is convincing in its argument that all people should be welcomed, and that all people should be treated as whole persons created in God’s image.  No person should be unwelcome in the Church or excluded as recipients of its ministry.

What the authors failed to do was to show that the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture were able to solve the key question.  Is the prohibition of sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage a part of the obsolete ceremonial or civil law of ancient Israel, or a continuing part of the Law which even today continues in its civil and theological uses?   In the end, we are right where we began.  The ELCA decided in 2009 that it could not decide which was the case.  Instead, it identified four possible conclusions and chose to allow congregations to choose the answer that suited them.  Meanwhile, it called on people to respect the “bound consciences” of others.   

The authors were not able, on the basis of the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture, to resolve this dispute.  More importantly, they have failed to show why pastors, seminarians and congregations should be required to abandon the traditional position of the catholic Church. 

Final Thoughts

One further Lutheran metric that I believe applies to the question is what I would call the metric or principle of Scriptural Authority.  The principle here is twofold and is related to the understanding of God’s Word as Law and Gospel   The Church may only command what God commands in the Word.  It may only bless that which God blesses in the Word. 

In the Large Catechism, Luther makes the case for clerical marriage based on the fact that throughout Scripture God both gives commands that protect marriage and promises blessings to those who enter into marriage.  Meanwhile, God never commands men and women to take vows of celibacy, to become monks or nuns, or enter monasteries.  Neither does God promise to bless those who do.  The Church does not have the authority to prohibit marriage, nor to require people to keep monastic vows.  

The same is true today.  The Church has no power to require people to enter same sex marriage, or to perform same sex marriages.  It has no authority to bless such unions, nor the authority to require its pastors to bless such unions.  The Church has no authority to exalt a man-made institution, whether celibacy or same sex marriage, to the level of an institution that has both God’s command and blessing.

Pastors, congregations and seminarians who adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage have not violated Lutheran metrics for Scriptural interpretation.  They have not violated their ordination vows or the Confession of Faith of the ELCA.  They should be under no pressure to adopt the position of Reconciling Works on same sex marriage or be under the threat of retribution for failing to do so.

---

[1] See Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, pp. 9-11.

[2] Reconciling Scripture. p. 16.

[3] Ibid, p. 17.

[4] Ibid. p. 23.

[5] Ibid, p. 23.

[6] Ibid, p. 19-20.

[7] Ibid, p. 24.

[8] Lull, Timothy F. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (p. 98). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

[9] Ibid, p. 96.

There
is a question I have asked several times, but I have been unable to get an
answer.  The question is this –

How can the ELCA say that 2019 is the tenth anniversary of LGBTQIA+ persons’ being able to serve freely in the church when what was actually voted on and approved at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly was only the ordination of persons in publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationships?

Recently
I was sitting at a table during lunch with several pastors from the synod in
which I have been rostered since retiring. 
When I realized that one of the persons at the table was a member of the
synod council, I figured this was an opportunity to ask my question.  So I did. 
His reply was, “I am new to the synod council.”  He then added, “That sounds like a question
for the bishop.”  To which I responded,
“I have asked the bishop, but I did not get an answer.” 

I
then asked another person at the table, who told me, “I was hoping that you
could answer that question.”

I asked a third person.  His immediate response was, “Cognitive dissonance!”  I answered, “I do not see how this could be cognitive dissonance, and who are you saying is having cognitive dissonance?  The ELCA in its making a claim about a tenth anniversary?  L, G, B, T, Q, I, A, or plus persons, who are now able to serve freely?  Or people like me who are asking the question?”

He
never replied.  Instead he said, “The
world has changed since 2009.”  I said
that I agreed that the world has changed since 2009, but that does not change
what was voted on and approved in 2009. 
He then argued, “Same sex marriage has become legal across the country
since 2009.”  Again, I said that I agreed
that that has happened, but, again, I made the point that that did not change
what was actually voted on and approved in 2009.

He then said, “LGBTQIA+ persons’ being able to serve freely is the logical next step to what was approved in 2009.”  To which I replied, “There were many back in 2009 who were concerned – and who were belittled for being concerned – that if the ordination of people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationships was approved, then that would lead to the approval of the ordination of other persons who were not eligible for ordination prior to 2009.”  I then added, “There are many who believe that they were deceived.  The vote was purposefully defined as being only about persons in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationships in order to get enough votes to get the resolution approved.  And then once the resolution was approved, then the description of who would now be eligible for ordination would be expanded.”  He replied, “That would be an example of the hermeneutics of suspicion.”  To which I agreed that, yes, many people were suspicious about what was being said back in 2009 versus what was intended for the future.

I
then asked him, “If the ELCA is now allowing LGBTQIA+ persons to serve freely
in the church, what is the standard by which the ELCA will decide what new
sexual identities, expressions, and behaviors – now identified by the “+” part
of LGBTQIA+ – would be approved and what would not be approved for ordination?”  He did not have an answer, nor did he even seem
to feel that there was a reason to be concerned about and ask such a question.  Rather what he said next was, “Where are you
from?”  I was perceptive enough to
realize that the conversation was over.

Unfortunately,
this has become a regular part of our monthly communications – our asking the
question, “What Will It Be Next?,” as we find the ELCA slipping further and
further away from the historic, orthodox Christian faith, a traditional view of
the mission of the church, and Biblical morals and moral values. 

Relentless LGBTQIA+ Agenda

In
the July issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, I asked the question, “What Will
It Be Next?”, in response to the fact that the ELCA Church Council declined to
act upon the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” even though
it had been recommended to them by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  Instead they sent it back to the Domestic
Mission Unit for revision.  You can be
sure that the process for writing and rewriting and revising this statement of
what the ELCA expects of its rostered ministers will continue until it fully
conforms with everything desired and demanded by the relentless LGBTQIA+
agenda.

Polyamory

In the August letter from the director I wrote of a video in which Bishop Elect Leila Ortiz of the ELCA’s Metro Washington D. C. Synod speaks favorably of polyamory (a relationship in which there are three or more partners).  A link to that video can be found here.

Songs for the Holy Other?

This month’s “What Will It Be Next?” is my response to an August 20 communication from ELCA Worship.  This email included in its list of resources a new hymnal entitled, Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community.  This hymn collection was introduced at the recent annual conference of the Hymn Society of the United States and Canada.  According to the society’s website, TheHymnSociety.org, the volume is intended to be “a toolbox of hymns by and for those who identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, nonbinary, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, aromantic, two-spirit, and other sexual/gender minority (LGBTQIA2S+) community and their allies.”  As explanation for their choosing the name, Songs for the Holy Other, they write, “We continue to be othered for our identities, relationship-styles, dis/abilities, race, economic status, and more.”  So the title is “a self-conscious claiming of otherness as holy and beloved of God. We who have been labeled as ‘wholly other’ are claiming our holiness, and reclaiming our otherness as a prophetic witness to the church.”

The
first thing I noticed is that here once again the ELCA is promoting letters far
beyond what was actually approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  That gathering only addressed the issue of
publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous same gender relationships (L and
G relationships held to a very high standard). 
It said nothing about the issue of B, T, Q, I, A, and +
relationships.  And yet here we are –
only ten years later – and the ELCA feels free to promote a wide variety of
sexual identities and expressions far beyond what actually was addressed and
approved.  “What will it be next?”

New Symbols

The
second thing I noticed is that there was a number and a letter which I had
never seen before in the series of letters – 2S.  Doing some research, I found that 2S stands
for “Two Spirit,” which I discovered is “a term used by some indigenous North
Americans to describe certain people in their communities who fulfill a
traditional third-gender (or other gender-variant) ceremonial role in their
cultures.”  Realizing that the ELCA is
now promoting a new hymnal affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ community, all I could
think of was to again ask the question, “What Will It Be Next?”  What letter/letters will be added next?  

The ELCA document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” says, “Those who serve as pastors and deacons reflect a variety of sexual orientations and diverse gender identities.” (page 11, lines 233-234)  If a document which has been rejected because it is too conservative makes a statement like that, what will be said in the document which finally is accepted because it finally is acceptable to the LGBTQIA+ community?  And if, for the ELCA, the clear teachings of the Bible are not the basis for understanding human sexuality, how is the ELCA going to decide whether to endorse and promote all of the letters and numbers which are going to be continually added to the sequence, LGBTQIA2S+?  The plus sign allows for any and all possibilities.  “What will it be next?”