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?”
Letter from the Director – August 2019
written by Dennis Nelson | September 10, 2019
PLEASE, LORD, BRING FIRE
For
me one of the most challenging parts of writing an article or a letter is
knowing where and how to start. I know
what I want to say. I know what I want
to include. But where and how do I
begin?
That
is the challenge I was facing with my August letter from the director, where I
wanted to write about and review two church gatherings that took place during
the same week – the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Milwaukee and the NALC Theology
Conference, Mission Festival, and Convocation in Indianapolis. I attended the NALC events. Many thanks to ELCA pastor Steve Gjerde, vice
president of our board, who attended the ELCA event and gave us on Facebook an
account of the proceedings as they occurred.
I
wanted to write about those two gatherings and I knew what I wanted to include,
but for several days I could not answer the question, “Where and how do I
begin?” But then, one week after both
events, during a telephone conversation with a pastor colleague, I was reminded
of the Gospel reading for August 18, the second Sunday after both assemblies –
Luke 12: 49-56. In that passage Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already
kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the
earth? No, I tell you, but rather
division!”
During
the days leading up to and even more so since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide
Assembly, we all have grieved over the relationships that have been strained
and even broken, the damage that has been done to congregations, and a church
body that is going off in the wrong direction. The division is even greater – the lines are
now even more sharply drawn – as the ELCA goes further and further away from a
traditional, orthodox understanding of the authority of the Bible, the mission
of the church, and moral values.
Four days after the close of the assembly, on August 14, the ELCA released a summary of actions that were taken by the assembly. A link to that summary can be found here. The opening sentence stated that the voting members made “a number of key decisions to further the mission and ministry of this church.” Those key decisions included naming patriarchy and sexism as sins; calling on the church to take action against gender-based violence, workplace discrimination, and economic inequality; pursuing racial diversity and inclusion; adopting memorials dealing with gun violence, engagement in the Holy Land, and gender identity; affirming the ELCA’s long-standing commitment to migrants and refugees; declaring the ELCA to be a sanctuary church body; committing the ELCA to support a campaign against rape and violence; and condemning white supremacy.
NO MENTION OF JESUS
Did
you notice that there is one thing missing in all these actions? There was no mention of Jesus. And there was only one mention of God, and
that one mention had to do with speaking “boldly about the equal dignity of all
persons in the eyes of God.” I did see
one other mention of God in one of the daily press releases during the
assembly, but that reference had only to do with using gender inclusive and
expansive language for God. With no
mention of Jesus, there is nothing in these actions regarding telling the world
about what Jesus has done (grace).
Instead they are all about what I need to do (works).
Now
some might say that that lack of reference to Jesus and that minimal mention of
God was only true of the summary of actions taken by the assembly. Certainly Jesus must have had a more
important place during the assembly.
You might be able to convince me of that possibility if it had not been for the action taken by the assembly to adopt “A Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment” as “church policy for inter-religious relations.” A link to that declaration can be found here. The Declaration said, “We must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding another religion.” It also stated, “Lutheran tradition has understood the word ‘faith’ to mean trust rather than affirming beliefs. Hence, we also must be careful not to judge our neighbors only on the basis of their religious beliefs. . . . All we know, and all we need to know, is that our neighbors are made in God’s image and that we are called to love and serve them.”
I
do not know how anyone could read the Bible and study church history and say
that “we must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding
another religion.” The prophet Elijah
spared no energy in warning Israel against the worship of Baal. Other Old Testament prophets joined with him
in clearly warning against worshipping the idols of the surrounding
peoples. The apostle Paul warned the
churches to whom he was writing about the other religions of the day. How could we say that the Bible says that we
cannot know God’s judgments regarding other religions? And besides, to argue that faith means trust
rather than affirming certain beliefs does not support the intent of this declaration
because my trust is only as good as the object of my trust. I am not showing love for and I am not
serving my neighbors (which the declaration calls upon me to do) if I do not
warn them that what and/or whom they are placing their trust in is not worthy
of their trust.
We
commend a voting member of the assembly for reminding the assembly that in the
words of Jesus in John 14: 6 we do have “a basis to know God’s views on
religions that do not require faith in Jesus Christ.” This voting member proposed an amendment to
the declaration both prior to and during the assembly. His motion to amend was overwhelmingly
defeated. The policy statement was
adopted with 97.48% voting in favor. How
can we view the fact that the discussion took place in the presence of
thirty-nine ecumenical and inter-religious guests on stage as anything other
than the ELCA’s manipulating and controlling the outcome?
IN SHARP CONTRAST
In
Luke 12 Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.” “I came to bring division.” Contrast the actions and priorities of the
ELCA Churchwide Assembly and its de-emphasis upon Jesus with the clear
statements from the Rev. Dr. Daniel Selbo, who was elected to be the new bishop
of the NALC (North American Lutheran Church).
In answer to the question, “What hopes do you have for the mission of
the NALC?” he wrote, “As a Christ Centered church body my hope is that we will
continue to grow in our relationship with Jesus as our Savior and Lord. I hope each member of the NALC will become
stronger in their own personal faith-walk with Christ. I hope our preaching and teaching will lift
up the name of Jesus. . . . My hope is that Christ will be seen in us because
we have fallen in love with Him and we have no greater purpose in life than to
live for Him. . . . Because ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,’
we must be tireless in our efforts to increase the number of people who come to
know Him as Lord.”
I AM DEEPLY DISTURBED AND
CONCERNED
I
am deeply disturbed by the actions taken, the resolutions approved, and the
memorials adopted by the 2019 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. I am even more concerned when I consider the
percentages of the votes.
The
“Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment,” which we discussed above, was
approved by a vote of over 97%. The
social statement, “Faith, Sexism, and Justice,” was approved by a vote of
97%. Elizabeth Eaton was re-elected on
the first ballot by a vote of over 81%.
She is the first ELCA presiding bishop to win re-election on the first
ballot. How could we expect her to view her
re-election as anything other than a clear mandate to continue leading the
church in the direction in which she has been leading it?
What
is the significance of all of these nearly unanimous or high percentage votes? (Every photo I saw of voting members’ voting
by ballot showed everyone holding up their green cards.) I can think of several probable outcomes from
the ELCA’s leadership and chief decision-making body becoming almost completely
of one mind.
An increasingly intolerant attitude towards and eventual suppression of any dissenting position. They are well on their way to eliminating anything other than the preferred view. If they are already at 97%, and there were about nine hundred voting members, they only have to eliminate twenty-seven people in order to be at 100%. Why would they even bother to pretend to honor bound conscience and listen to and give a place for traditional views if the prevalence of revisionist views is so strong? Even though the ELCA leadership and makeup of the churchwide assemblies will be increasingly out of synch with the majority of congregation members sitting in the pews and supporting the work of the church, those in power will fully be able to implement their agenda and priorities.
An even stronger trend to promote only the official ELCA values and views at the ELCA seminaries. While we are very thankful for every orthodox ELCA pastor serving in an ELCA congregation and as Lutheran CORE want to do everything we can to support them, it is only a matter of time until every ELCA rostered leader will have attended and graduated from seminary post 2009. Orthodox churches who are blessed to have an orthodox pastor and who believe that all of this cannot and will not affect them are in for a rude awakening.
An even easier path for positions that a few years ago would have been unthinkable to become acceptable, mainstream, and even preferred. For example, there is 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. With the churchwide assembly being so strongly of one mind, what is to prevent an even further erosion of Biblical views and values from taking place?
TRUSTWORTHY SERVANTS
In the July 2019 issue of CORE Voice we wrote about the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” which was written in order to express what the ELCA expects of its rostered leaders. A link to that article can be found here. As we mentioned, the document was recommended to the ELCA Church Council by the ELCA Conference of Bishops. But after hearing from many who objected to it, the ELCA Church Council declined to consider it and instead referred it back to the Domestic Mission Unit, who had originally written it, for review and revision. In our opinion it was rejected because it was just too traditional and conservative. We believe that the review and rewriting process will continue until it is exactly what the LGBTQIA+ agenda and community want it to be.
There was a very interesting email that was sent out
to some ELCA rostered leaders on August 3, in which Pastor Phil Hirsch,
executive director of the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit, asked for input. He said that the review and rewriting
committee wanted to hear from “various communities,” including “the
confessionally conservative” and “those from all four convictions identified in
the social statement ‘Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.’”
On the one hand, we are encouraged by the possibility
that an ELCA task force might actually want to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and those who hold to more traditional views. But then we wonder whether traditional views
will actually be taken seriously and whether this is only a way so that they
will be able to say, “We heard from all sides.”
We are reminded of how strongly some people objected even to Lutheran
CORE’s presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly. Some people said that even our presence made
them feel unsafe, to say nothing about the willingness on the part of the
leadership of the assembly to announce our evening hospitality gathering twice. One person asked, “Who will they allow to be
here next? The Taliban?”
If even our presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly
was so strongly objected to, how much more of an outcry will there be against
the review and rewriting committee’s wanting to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and from those who hold to positions one and two as identified in
the human sexuality social statement?
And will it be even easier for the objecting voices to prevail given
that the votes at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly were so close to being unanimous?
Still, if you have received one of those emails from
the Domestic Mission Unit, asking for your input, we urge you to respond.
IS
THERE ANY HOPE?
Many
times I have been asked by people, “Is there any hope that the ELCA will turn
around?” I always tell them, “It would
take a major intervention on the part of God.
It would take a powerful working of the Holy Spirit.” Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the
earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have
come to bring peace to the earth? No, I
tell you, but rather division!”
We
pray for a sending of the power and fire of the Holy Spirit, to convict us of
error and to bring us back to Biblical truth.
We pray that we will not be comfortable and at peace until the church
returns to recognizing Jesus rather than a social activist agenda as its
Lord. We pray that the church will be
united under the authority of God’s Word, which is living and active, sharper
than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4: 12), and able to pierce and divide truth
from error, true worship from idolatry, true values from misplaced
priorities.
Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.”
Jesus, we need Your fire. We need
Your fire to reform, renew, reorient, and redirect Your church. Please, Lord, bring Your fire. How we wish it were already kindled!
This is Lutheran CORE’s response, dated April 2017, to the “Naked and Unashamed” movement, which has come out of the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. CORE is doubly concerned because it is unaware of any response from the administration and faculty of the seminary, the ELCA Council of Bishops, and Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton rejecting or distancing the ELCA from this movement.
RESPONSE TO “NAKED AND UNASHAMED”
ELCA PASTORS AND SEMINARIANS NOT ASHAMED
TO REVEAL BLATANT AGENDA
In 2009 the ELCA Churchwide Assembly rejected as normative the traditional, Biblical definition of marriage as it approved changes to policy and practice which allowed for the endorsing of and ordaining persons in publicly accountable, “lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships.” There is now a movement within the ELCA which would reject any definition of marriage as normative for sexual relationships.
Known as “Naked and Unashamed,” this movement was started by seminarians at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago and since then has been reaching out to other pastors, leaders, and seminary students in the ELCA who share their beliefs and values. Their purpose and agenda are clearly revealed on their website, www.wearenakedandunashamed.org, which contains such statements as the following in regard to current ELCA policy and practice –
“The limited and hierarchical focus on marriage and family life over alternative forms of relationality is oppressive, preferential, manipulative, and culturally irrelevant to the variety of healthy sexual, emotional, contractual, and/or romantic expressions that could be part of an appropriate Christian lifestyle.”
“Life and liberty are being oppressed in the pressure for church leaders to be in marital relationships, or otherwise abstain from all sexual intimacy.”
“Marriage is not the only healthy relationship model within which sexuality can be safely enjoyed.”
As seminarians and pastors who have recently been ordained, they are objecting to “overt policies and direct questioning during the ELCA candidacy process that disallow sexual intimacy, cohabitation, and committed relationality outside of civil marriage.”
What can those who hold to the traditional, Biblical view of marriage as a life-long, committed relationship between one man and one woman, and even those who hold to what was approved in August 2009, which allowed for the ordaining of persons in publicly accountable, “lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships,” now expect? Based upon experience of what happened before, we can only expect that those who wish to reject marriage altogether are going to pursue their agenda relentlessly until they achieve their goals, and once they do so, then all conversation is to stop and anyone who still advocates for the traditional view, and even the approved-in-2009 view, will be criticized for being disruptive, divisive, schismatic, and trouble-making. That is what happened during the time leading up to and since the August 2009 decisions. Why should we expect it to be any different this time?
Never is there any Biblical basis given for this group’s thinking. And why would we expect that there would be? Just as the documents that were approved by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2009 were based not upon the Bible, but upon psychology, sociology, and the dynamics that build trust between and among people, so this group is arguing for their desired changes on the basis of such vague reasons as “the common good,” the fact that they are “healthy” and “life giving,” “the plethora of stories we hear,” and “our values and lived experience.”
Even in their use of the phrase, “Naked and Unashamed,” this group is turning its back on the Bible’s description of God’s judgment and mercy. Adam and Eve were described as “naked and unashamed” before their distrust of God’s word and their disobedience. Their transgression caused them to be ashamed, to hide, to clothe themselves in fig leaves. Their self-justification was their primary clothing. When God sent them out of Eden, He gave them something better. He did not send them into the world “naked and unashamed” to make a “fresh start” of things. Rather He clothed them even more fully – with the skins of animals who died in their place, as a forerunner of Jesus who would die in our place and whose blood would be shed to cover our sins.
According to the Lutheran understanding of the Bible, God gives us a “fresh start” in baptism. Spiritually we go into the water naked. Our old, sinful, deathly self is drowned in Jesus’ own death for our sake. And when we rise in the power of His resurrection, we are immediately clothed in white robes that signify that we are more fully clothed in the righteousness, purity, and holiness of Jesus Himself. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5: 4, in our redemption in Christ we are not unclothed. We are more fully clothed!
This group’s website claims that the ELCA’s teaching, expectations, and documents surrounding sexuality are “heteronormative, white-centric, economically oppressive, and non-Lutheran.” Standards of monogamy, commitment, and chastity are deemed oppressive and demeaning. Ideals of faithfulness and purity are rejected. Biblical norms of “life together” are dismissed as the invention of elite, wealthy, and white Europeans. This group asserts that other cultures have different understandings of sexual good. In so doing, they are not only ignoring the very staunch standards for sexuality of our African fellow Lutherans, they are also ignoring the stringent sexual ethics of the Old and New Testaments, which certainly are neither elite, wealthy, white, nor European.
Those who thought and hoped that the decisions of August 2009 to accept same gender relationships if they are publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous would be enough, would satisfy those who were pressing for changes, and would be as far as this issue would go, should be alarmed to read on this group’s website that they reject those decisions because of the way in which those standards define what is a “decent and acceptable marriage in the ELCA.” They reject the 2009 decisions because they say that “acceptable same-gender relationships must look the same as acceptable heterosexual relationships.”
The documents of this group even give a place for advocating for polyamory (multiple partners), as evidenced in these statements.
“This is what we are pushing back on: the idea that one person in your life must be the one whom you trust the most, and with whom you simultaneously work together financially, domestically, sexually, emotionally, and parentally.”
“There exists in the ELCA multiple positions on (several different relational patterns are listed, including polyamory). We lift this multiplicity up and demand that its full diversity be recognized within the Christian lifestyle in our church.”
There is no sense of marriage as based upon our creation as male and female, and as given its most perfect expression in the model of God’s faithful and permanent love for His people and Jesus the bridegroom’s love for the Church, His bride. Rather this group says that “understanding and practices of marriage, relationality, and sexuality also change over time, and must be understood as contextual.” There are “many possible forms of ‘Christian’ relationality, just as we see diverse forms of Christian worship.” To see different expressions of sexuality as no more significant than the difference between traditional and contemporary worship would be absurd if it were not so alarming.
This group makes absolutely no mention of the long-standing and profound Biblical linkage between sexual sin and idolatry. At the risk of being gross and offensive, I would refer you to an article entitled, “My clitoris keeps my faith alive,” posted on the “Stories” page of the “Naked and Unashamed” website. A seminary Ph. D. student writes, “My clitoris became a gateway to the mystery of God’s presence. . . . My clitoris became more than an organ of pleasure, but a piece of heaven within me.”
How is this different from the pagan sexuality and fertility cults of the Canaanites, which the Bible clearly condemns? This is idolatry, making a god out of part of my own body. This is what the apostle Paul described in Romans 1: 25 as he talked about those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”
Any faithful member of the ELCA should be absolutely alarmed to see this kind of thinking coming out of one of the ELCA seminaries. Our concern for the future should be in overdrive, as we realize that our future pastors are being exposed to this kind of thinking during their seminary training. Since this group is focusing especially on sexual ethics for pastoral candidates, are they saying that if a pastor or pastoral candidate has sex with a prostitute, it is okay, as long as s/he is respected as a sex worker? Are they implying that if a congregation is not able to pay within guidelines, then a pastor or pastoral candidate is free to sell sexual favors to supplement income – again, as long as it is done in a healthy, life-giving, respectful, and mutually beneficial fashion?
This past February we were all reading and hearing with great alarm about the Oroville Dam in northern California. Because of unusually heavy rains, the dam’s main and emergency spillways were significantly damaged, prompting the evacuation of more than 180, 000 people living downstream. Those who oversee the Oroville Dam would be grossly irresponsible if they were to not take any and all necessary measures to repair the damage and ensure the future integrity of the dam. Will the leadership of the ELCA – the Presiding Bishop, the Church Council, the Council of Bishops, those who oversee the ELCA’s seminaries – say, “Enough is enough; this has gone too far; this is not what was voted on and approved at the Churchwide Assembly in 2009”? Or will they allow the damage and the erosion of Biblical values to continue – at probably an ever increasing rate?
Dennis D. Nelson
President of the Board and Director of Lutheran CORE
