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)

 

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. 

 

---

---

In my last article I detailed a way you could tell that “Progressive Christianity” was in fact an alternative to Christianity, namely that it held different things sacrosanct and considered other things blasphemous than Christians have since Apostolic times.  This month I will note another way in which we can see this truth demonstrated—to whom and for whom progressive Christians feel responsible.

In a recent Core Christianity podcast, Pr. Adriel Sanchez detailed an encounter he had with a “progressive Christian” pastor.  According to Pr. Sanchez, this pastor (who goes unnamed in the broadcast) was the author of a book arguing that the Bible does not proscribe homosexual behavior and that the Church had used the classic prooftexts in this regard to abuse same-sex attracted people since its inception.  Since the pastor was a neighbor, Pr. Sanchez had acquired and read the book.  His critical evaluation was that the “way in which he was approaching the Scriptures was incorrect; that rather than just letting them speak for themselves and understanding them in their context, he was twisting them and allowing—essentially—the current cultural social ethic to drive his interpretation of the Bible.”

Nothing too radical here.  This kind of critique of another theologian has characterized necessary dialogue within the Church in every era, from Irenaeus to the present day, on issues as diverse as whether Christians can ethically serve in the military to the nature of Christ’s Deity.  Indeed, though Pr. Sanchez has the advantage of time since the incident and not being engaged in a debate while presenting his story, he shows no non-verbal animosity while presenting his critique.

When he happened to have a chance meeting with this author in a local coffee shop, it seems that the conversation he engaged was handled civilly, if coolly, until Pr. Sanchez challenged the author on an issue core to their identity as pastors rather than mere theologians, pastoral rebuke as an expression of spiritual care.  Pr. Sanchez asked him, “As a pastor, when you have someone in your church whom you believe is doing something that you do think is sinful—maybe they’re abusive to their spouse or maybe they’re stealing or whatever it might be—how do you confront them lovingly as a pastor while challenging the sinful behavior?”  At that point his interlocutor after a moment of apparent shock said, “I can’t believe you asked me that question.  That was an offensive question to ask me, and [essentially] you should be ashamed of yourself.”  When Pr. Sanchez then tried to explain that he really did want to understand the other pastor’s position, the supercilious author declaimed, “No; you need to understand that you are offensive, and you need to accept that… and this conversation is over.”  Upon which he stood up and left.

I do an extensive treatment of this episode in my own podcast, but to summarize my observations, the pastor who walked away from the conversation with Pr. Sanchez clearly did not feel accountable to him as a fellow clergyman or Christian, a member of the “One Holy Catholic [Universal] and Apostolic Church.”  The issue of how to deal with these texts is a lively issue throughout the worldwide Church with most Christians (read: non-Western Christians) siding with Pr. Sanchez, but the other pastor still presumed to speak to him as a person possessing authority over him; “you need to understand… you need to accept.”

In what hierarchy did the author of the book possess more authority than Pr. Sanchez?  Clearly not the hierarchy of the Church. To what community standards did this pastor feel accountable? Whose good opinion did he crave or perhaps fear losing? Again, not those of a Church whose existence preceded him and that will endure until Christ “comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”  Did he by walking away from a conversation with a fellow bearer of the name of Christ show love for him, reason together with him, or even engage him in the sort of loving rebuke Pr. Sanchez queried him about to such great offense?  Did he even from his own point of view show love for the same-sex attracted individuals whom Pr. Sanchez might encounter in the course of his ministry?

No, the community to which and for which this pastor felt accountable was clearly not the “beloved community” of those baptized into Christ, but rather defined in some other way.

Though they were heretics, Arius, Valentinus, and Pelagius knew that their primary accountability was to the Church of Jesus Christ.  Though history has judged them to be in error, they fought for what they seem to have sincerely believed was its good and perhaps even what was necessary for the salvation of its members.  Indeed, they garner the appellation “heretic” only because they so earnestly fought for and remain accountable to the life of the Church Herself—because they are at least erstwhile Christians.

I believe that Progressive Christianity functionally (if not formally) quickly ceases to be Christian in any historically recognizable way precisely because of what this pastor’s behavior demonstrated, that it considers itself—and more importantly, the Church’s proclamation—accountable to standards that originate outside the Church and people whose lives are lived beyond its bounds.

 

April 2022

Dear Friends –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giving thanks for the cross and the empty tomb,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Visit our website www.lutherancore.org

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

Like us on Facebook www.facebook.com/LutheranCORE

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

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

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

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.”

A recent discussion in Lutheran CORE’s private and visible Facebook group had to do with whether it is appropriate to refer to the Bible as the Word of God.

The question was raised regarding Lutheran CORE’s position on that issue.

We are fully aware of the fact that 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 radical LGBTQIA+ agenda all result from rejecting the inspiration, reliability, and authority of the Bible. 

Here is a link to Lutheran CORE’s 2007 statement, which is entitled “A Lutheran Statement on the Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Church.”  Although it was written within the context of the ELCA’s Book of Faith Initiative, it clearly states that “the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who has revealed himself most fully and completely in Jesus Christ.”  This document can be found on the About section of our website.  Click on About, and then on Historical Documents.

I have a soft spot in my heart for small congregations, congregations of any size in transition, and churches whose isolation and resources make it difficult to field an “emergency fill-in” pastor, much less an interim or called pastor. That’s one reason I compile hymn suggestions and write intercessory prayers, even though they are widely used by congregations of all sizes and staffing. Churches without a regular pastoral presence have enough to do without crafting prayers, selecting hymns to go with the appointed tests… or figuring out how the Word will be faithfully preached every week. That’s what I want to talk about now.

Yes, there are sermon resources online. They’re hit and miss. They may have great illustrations but lack theological “meat”. They may be unorthodox, at odds with classic Lutheran doctrine, or overly pedantic. The Board of Lutheran CORE hopes to provide a data base of solid, biblically faithful, and doctrinally orthodox sermons for congregations to download when the need arises. Maybe they’re house churches or are facing a long vacancy with few prospects for interim pastoral leadership. Don Brandt and his brilliant Congregations in Transition (CiT) initiative helps address some of the challenges such churches face. Or maybe the pastor took ill on a Saturday night and a supply preacher isn’t available. It’d be a blessing for them to have one place to search for good sermons to use: by Scripture, day in the church year, or topic.

So this is a call for pastors to help out congregations in such situations. I want your sermons! Please email them to [email protected].

  Here are some basic criteria:

1. When you submit a sermon, make a note at the beginning as to the main Scripture(s) referenced; the day in the church year/lectionary for which it is appropriate; and, if applicable, the general topic. That way we can cross reference sermons so they can be searched in several ways.
2. Select sermons that you’d entrust to a layperson in your own congregation to preach if you couldn’t be there.
3. No “First-person” sermons. They’re too unique to you.
4. Similarly, be careful about mentioning situations or people that may be specific to your own congregation and difficult to modify to be of more general use. If a person’s situation, however, may be more universally shared, please change names to protect the innocent!
5. Avoid using sermons that feature time-sensitive topics or express specific personal political beliefs. They don’t transport (or age) well.
6. Sermons should be full manuscripts, not notes, lists, or talking points. Please check for, and correct, errors in grammar and spelling!
7. If possible, sermons should take under 15 minutes to preach. Someone else will be using your words, style, and thoughts. That’s harder (mentally and physically), than using their own.
8. I will edit very lightly: Grammar, spelling, factual errors, or the stray name of a parishioner (for privacy’s sake). If I think any other edits need to be made, I will ask your permission.
9. Please don’t have your feelings hurt if a sermon doesn’t appear online. It may be a time factor and it’ll show up later. If I think a sermon is simply not suitable for use as per the criteria I’ve listed, I may ask you to either modify it or withdraw it. It does not mean I think it’s a bad sermon or you’re a bad preacher!

This is going to take some time to compile, organize, and put online. You can be selecting and submitting topical sermons immediately, as well as sermons from later in Cycle B (2^nd half of Pentecost, year of Mark). But also start setting aside, editing, and submitting sermons that can be used in Cycle C (Year of Luke). I will try to give folks a heads-up when more contributions are needed. Again, please send stuff as Word documents to [email protected].

Thank you!

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.

I was tasked by the Board of Lutheran CORE to formulate a response to the
ELCA draft social statement, “Women and Justice.” These are my own impressions and thoughts,
however, and ought not to be construed as The Official Stance of Lutheran CORE
on this statement.

Observations

I begin with two editorial observations. First: For a statement that is
centered on justice, and which mentions the word justice several hundred times,
it’d have been helpful to put the definition right up front at the beginning,
not simply hyperlinked to the glossary entry. After the first few dozen
repetitions, “justice” becomes a blur-word.

Second: The brief section on immigration touches on timely concerns but
is almost perfunctory.

Next, I have a few observations that don’t fit neatly in the categories
I’ll use shortly.

Interchangeable
or Not?

The document rightly complains that female bodies and physiology were
often ignored in medical studies. But transgenderism, which it supports as a related
“justice category,” posits an almost ontological change, as if male and female
bodies are interchangeable. The document wants to have it both ways. If
women are assumed to be “just like men” but that doesn’t fit a narrative, it is
a sign of sin and injustice. If women are discerned to be “not just like men”
but that doesn’t fit a narrative, it’s also a sign of sin and injustice.

Next: Although “justice” becomes a blur-word, there are a few
exceptions.  In lines 999-1025, the
discussion of “gender justice” speaks of living out our faith in God by love
for neighbor, with God’s grace healing and covering all our brokenness.
Similarly, in lines 522-530 there’s a reasonable description of “neighbor
justice.”  (Although how this differs
from the Golden Rule, aside from trendier language, is unclear). It’s hard,
though, to see in this draft how God’s revealed Word is greater than the sum of
feminist, intersectional, and “gender/sexual justice” language. It’s as if the
ELCA is trying to improve on what God SHOULD have said and commanded, if he’d
just been as “woke” as the This Church.

Explicit
Silence?

In the list of sins and injustices committed primarily against women, sex
trafficking and sexual abuse are rightly condemned. Oddly, neither prostitution
nor pornography are explicitly mentioned. Granted, they are specific examples
of the objectification, abuse, and commodification of women’s bodies, but they
are also the most lucrative, widespread, and pernicious examples thereof.
Perhaps the drafters wrestled with how they might have to treat a pronouncement
of This Church’s “public theologian,” Nadia Bolz-Weber, who recently opined
that there is such a thing as “ethically sourced porn” which can be enjoyed and
commended.

Scriptural
Imposition

The draft statement names real evils that injure real people. Lines
1013-1014 properly state, “Being freed in Christ involves being freed from all
that tries to replace Jesus Christ as Lord in our lives….” The document then
names “systems of patriarchy,” apparently all of them, as examples of sinful
bondage. It lifts up, as an example of the justifying freedom in Christ, being
“freed to recognize God’s work in creation through… human expression through
gender. We are enabled to see that humans are not simply gender-based opposites
and that we are not created in a hierarchy.” Elsewhere (Section 3) the document
states: “We believe God creates humanity in diversity, encompassing a wide
variety of experiences, identities, and expressions, including sex and
gender” (emphasis added). “Contemporary science” and “neurological
research” are trotted out to debunk “idolatrous” distortions of Scripture,
especially a binary interpretation of “male and female He created them.” There
is no citation from Scripture explaining how “God’s diversity in creation”
includes multiple sexual orientations or gender identities. This notion is
being imposed on Scripture for ideological purposes.

Stand
Under Scripture

This leads to the final section of this essay: more “thematic”
critiques. A fine theologian and churchman (can I still say that?), the late
Lou Smith, warned of the perils of simply trying to understand Scripture,
rather than to “stand under” it. The former puts us in control, using
our own criteria for dissecting, analyzing and judging Scripture. We treat it
as a “dead letter,” or as a merely human document, subject to our standards for
approval, critique, and judgment. The latter reminds us that Scripture
is God’s Word, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing heart and soul, mind
and flesh, revealing our sinfulness and God’s remedy. It’s therefore something
that has authority over us, whether we approve of it or not.

“Women and Justice” belongs firmly in the former camp.

Problems
within the Scriptures?

Section 16 states: “While God’s Word of Law and Gospel speaks through the
Scriptures, there are words and images, social patterns, and moral beliefs in
them that reflect the patriarchal values of the cultures and societies in which
they arose. Their continued misuse contributes to maintaining hierarchies and
patterns of inequity and harm.… Our tradition’s complicity in patriarchy and
sexism is connected to such biblical interpretation and to the nature and focus
of some of the Lutheran theological tradition. We confess that there are
problems within the Scriptures themselves and that our theological
tradition has led to a theological understanding of humankind that is overly
male-identified. These problems even become idolatrous as deeply rooted but
false beliefs” (emphasis added).

The statement comes perilously close to declaring much of Scripture to be
sinful, or at least to aiding and abetting the sins of idolatry and
patriarchalism. It doesn’t quite cross the line, as it identifies sinful
material as the product (and hobby-horse) of misogynistic males, intent on
preserving their privilege and thereby contaminating, obscuring, or defying
God’s intent.

Scriptural
Authority

This does considerable violence, though, to any notion of Scriptural
authority. Section 16 continues: “The Word of God is first and foremost Jesus
Christ, God incarnate. Secondarily, we encounter the Word as Law and Gospel in
preaching and teaching. The Canonical Scriptures are the written Word of God,
which proclaims God’s grace and sustains faith in Jesus Christ…. The Word of
God is living and active, and we take the written form of the Word of God as
the authoritative source and norm for faith. In its use as Law, it provides
guidance and reveals human brokenness. In its use as Gospel, it reveals God’s
love and promise.”

Jiggering
the Parameters

Once again, the statement tries to have it both ways. Yes, Scripture is
held “within the ELCA” as authoritative. But apparently the only way to discern
“authoritative Scripture” is to jigger the parameters. God’s Word speaks
through Scripture. Law is contrasted with Gospel love. “Guidance” softens
“God’s will.” Sin is recast as “brokenness.” In this diminished and muted
framework, the Gospel is reduced from “forgiveness of sin, and life from
death” to “God’s love and promise.” The upshot is that the social
statement jettisons anything that a feminist/intersectional arbiter might
declare to be offensive, misogynistic chaff from the “real” Word of God. This
is Marcionism for the Woke Generation.

Shockingly
Incurious

There is another problem with the philosophical and theological
underpinnings of this social statement. The drafters are shockingly incurious.
They show no interest in asking, “If patriarchy is universally evil, why did
God routinely work within it? God explicitly condemned many evil
practices. Why not this one?” They do not wonder if at times, patriarchy might
be “the best of a bad lot” of options for sinful and broken human beings to
live as a community of men, women, and children.

They insist the scandal of Jesus’ particularity as a male has no bearing
on his work. They do not ponder why Jesus routinely used “Father” language.
There is no engagement with any rationale for “male images” for God the Father,
except to warn of abuse and misuse by those who are so inbondage to the sins of
patriarchy and sexism that they clearly think of God the Father as literally
male: genitalia, patriarchal privilege, and all: “When Christians rely almost
exclusively on male images and language for God, the images and language become
literal understandings of God. This is poor theology because God always exceeds
human understanding. Taking male images of God literally can also lead to
idolatry, meaning we idolize or hold onto only the male ima-ges” (lines
966-973).

God
is Opposed to Idolatry

There is no discussion of how God’s self-revelation in Scripture
repudiates the blatantly sexual, copulating deities of surrounding cultures, or
of how the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” stands adamantly opposed to the idolatry,
fertility cults, and sacred prostitution that were rampant in the Middle East
and entirely too seductive to the people of Israel.

No one examines how relationships within the Trinity help us learn right
relationships with others, male or female. There is no discussion of the
nuptial imagery used for the relationship between God and Israel, or Christ and
the Church, except to tie it to oppression, sexism, and patriarchy. The
possibility that this divine/human intimate relationship could challenge,
purify, and be a model for marriage and family life is not on This Church’s
radar.

Victimhood
Instead of Justice?

There is no exploration of how Father language for God might transform
the sinful ways human fatherhood and masculinity are sometimes expressed. No
thought is spared for how matriarchies might foster other, equally harmful
pathologies, or how intersectional feminism might be a form of idolatry,
detrimental to women and men. No one seems to wonder whether intersectionality perpetuates victimhood instead of promoting justice.

Still
Idolatry

There is no interest in exploring why sexual sins in Scripture are
deemed real, even deadly sins. In the Bible, rape, incest, fornication,
adultery, homosexual activity, and prostitution are flatly condemned. They are
linked to idolatry. Why? Surely this is not simply another instance of male
hegemony!

In lines 570-575, we read, “We must continue the task of embracing our
unity and diversity so we welcome and uplift people of every sex and
gender—indeed, every body—in our work together as the Body of Christ in the
world. God’s love feeds the Body of Christ so that it might live in love.” No
one questions whether gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction should ever be
considered anything other than God’s intention and good gifts, to be celebrated
and incorporated into the Body of Christ without comment except “it’s all good.”
No one wrestles with the possibility that “God’s love” be more than sheer
affirmation and welcome, with no dying to self, repentance, forgiveness, or
transformation involved (except for the sins of male privilege and the failure
to rejoice in the marvelous diversity of sexes and genders in God’s wondrous
creation). I ask what, apparently, none of the drafters or leadership in the
ELCA has asked: what if This Church has gotten this all wrong?

“De-privileged”
Scripture

It may be a lack of curiosity. Or it may be the determined resolve to
brand such questions as dangerous manifestations of patriarchal privilege.
There’s certainly no attempt to wrestle with difficult passages of Scripture,
much less to consider whether any of them might reflect the will of God.
They’re merely “de-privileged.”

Egregious
Examples

Additionally, only egregious examples of sexism are cited as entirely
representative of most of the early church fathers. Church history, liturgy,
and ministry are seemingly unrelieved by non-misogynistic practices and
pronouncements. “The Christian Church as an institution, including the Lutheran
tradition, has been complicit in these sins” (lines 440-441). Even the
classically Lutheran notion of the “theology of the cross” is deemed
problematic because it might be perceived as abusive, demanding subservience
and suffering – especially by women.

Blanket
Condemnation

As far as I can tell, there is not one “positive” citation from the early
church fathers, the history of the Western church, the theological “Great
Tradition” that encompasses orthodox Christian thought, or much of Lutheranism
(except for the somewhat convoluted parsing of Law and Gospel, and of
justification by grace through faith, mentioned earlier). Even with qualifying
phrases (“continued misuse;” “can also lead to”), it’s not hard to read the
statement as a thoroughgoing condemnation of Scripture and Tradition from the
earliest stories of the Old Testament until the #metoo moment.

Contradictions

This leads to some genuinely contradictory statements. For example, in
lines 367-372, a perfectly fine observation is made: “The differentiation of
humankind into male and female, expressed in Genesis 2, communicates the joy
found in humans having true partners, true peers: “This at last is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23a). God creates community and family,
not a hierarchy…”

 Dishonesty

But then it goes awry: … “not a hierarchy based on race and ethnicity,
ability, social or economic status, or sex (what our bodies look like biologically)
or gender (how people express themselves)” (emphasis added). The document
rightly states that the very possibility of family is grounded in God-given
sexual differentiation between peers. But didn’t the writers remember that
they’d identified science as the proper arbiter of sexual and gender identity
and insisted that both are fluid human constructs? God’s Word, or science:
which is given precedence? And is it not simplistic and misleading – to the
point of intellectual and scientific dishonesty – to state that sex is defined
as “what our bodies look like” and gender as “how people express
themselves?”

Additionally, there are two sidebar graphics (see lines 727-747 and
1048-1060), illustrating how societal attitudes, religious beliefs, and laws,
policies and practices lead either to gender injustice or justice. It’s
presupposed that societal attitudes precede and shape religious beliefs.
Together, they shape unjust or just laws and polities which create communities
of injustice or justice for women and sexual minorities. Referring to lines
1048-1060, on forming a just society: “Working together, we can begin to
transform the circle of injustice…. Individuals and groups can challenge
harmful social attitudes and practices, reject sexist religious beliefs, and
work to change laws and policies that justify and reinforce patriarchy.”

The
Obvious Question

Nobody seems interested in what to me was an obvious question: If we
believe that God’s Word truly is “lively and active,” the “source and norm of
faith and life,” as this document states, then why is the revelation of
God’s word never considered the starting point for transformation of society? Why
is “religious belief” always secondary?How does all This Church’s
earnest language about Scripture as foundational allow the Word of God to COME
FIRST to challenge, forgive, and transform sinful human attitudes, and then to
change unjust laws and create a just community?

Let me conclude with this: If the Draft Social Statement on Women and
Justice is approved by the ELCA, then This Church neither understands, nor
stands under Scripture. And the tragedy is, it seems incurious and unconcerned
about what that means for the very real women and men it purports to care
about, and for.