Scripture 

Mark 6:1-13 

Script 

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

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

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

Pastor: Where are you going, Sammy?  

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

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

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

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

[Allow time for responses]  

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

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

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

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

[Allow the children to retrieve and open the bag]  

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

Sammy: Just two days. 

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

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

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

Sammy: Oh?  

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

Sammy: What?!  

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

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

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

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

Pastor: No snacks.  

Sammy: . . . Baahahaha.  

Pastor: Really, Sammy. No snacks.  

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

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

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

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

Sammy: Bye, everyone!  

Pastor: Bye, Sammy! 

Scripture

Mark 4:35-41

Script

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

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

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

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

 

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

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

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

[Allow time for responses]

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

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

Sammy: I get around, Pastor.

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

Sammy: What happened?

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

Sammy: What’s a stern?

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

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

Pastor: He slept through everything.

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

[Allow time for responses]

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

Sammy: Just like that?

 

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

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

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

 

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

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

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

 

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

 

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

 

“WHY ARE YOU FRIGHTENED?”

The Gospel reading from Luke 24 for April 14, the Third Sunday of Easter, tells of an incident that happened on Easter Sunday evening – after Jesus had spent some time with two of His followers on the road to Emmaus.  According to verses 33-35, after Jesus suddenly disappeared, the Emmaus disciples “got up and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven and their companions gathered together.  They said, ‘The Lord has risen indeed!’  Then they told them what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

I believe that this is the same time as the appearance of Jesus to His disciples recorded in John 20: 19ff (the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Easter), when Thomas was not with them.  Luke 24: 36-38 tell us what happened next.  “Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’  They were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.  He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?’” 

That is a good question for all of us – Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 

We all have many reasons to be frightened and many reasons for doubts to arise in our hearts.

1. Afraid of the future

First, many are afraid of the future.  We all have many reasons to be afraid of the future. 

I have talked with many people who are fearful for the future viability of their congregations.  They see their aging and diminishing membership.  They wonder whether they will be able to continue to afford a pastor, and even if they can afford one, whether they will be able to find one.  Many congregations have been without a pastor for a long time.

I have talked with people who face deep financial insecurities.  Inflation has taken a huge toll and they are fearful of what will happen if their financial resources run out.  They do not like the idea of being dependent upon others, and they wonder if there will be someone to depend upon if they do become dependent upon others.  Many are deeply concerned about health issues – their own health issues and the health issues of those whom they love.   

We all have plenty of reasons to be fearful for our country and our culture when the federal government honors the Transgender Day of Visibility instead of Easter and will not allow any religious symbols in its celebration of Easter.

For those who are afraid of the future Jesus gives unmistakable evidence of His resurrection.  In Luke 24: 39-43 He showed them His hands and His feet and then took a piece of broiled fish and ate it in their presence.  In the words of the one Gospel song, “Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.”

2. Afraid of the past

Second, many are afraid of the past.  We all have many reasons to be afraid of the past. 

For those who are afraid of the past Jesus gives the promise of forgiveness of sins.  In Luke 24: 44-48 He opened their minds to understand the scriptures and then said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.”  Repentance and forgiveness of sins.  Repent is what we need to do.  Forgiveness is what we need to receive. 

In contrast, a friend and colleague from the synod in which I was rostered before I retired shared with me a brilliant theological analysis of critical race theory and DEIA ideology.  As the apostle Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 3:6, “The law kills, but the Spirit gives life.”  The demands of the law will always be relentless.  You can never do enough.  In the same way, no matter how much I grovel and repent of my own racism and the racism of my ancestors and no matter how much I try to compensate for all past offenses, grievances, and injustices, it is never enough. 

Paul also wrote in Romans 7: 24, “O wretched man that I am!  Who can deliver me from this body of death?”   If you are white – or even worse, if you are a white male – or worst of all, if you are an older, heterosexual, cisgender, Christian white male – nothing can deliver you.  You are hopelessly racist.  No matter how hard you may try and no matter what you may do, you will always be racist.  You cannot not be racist.  The systems that privilege and empower you must be dismantled.  All power and privilege must be taken away from you.

I recently attended a memorial service where we sang the hymn, “When Peace like a River.”  I was struck by the words of the third verse –

“He lives – oh, the bliss of this glorious thought;

My sin, not in part, but the whole,

Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more.

Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”

With critical race theory and DEIA ideology, there is no possibility of grace, forgiveness, deliverance, and release.  There is only constant confession, repentance, guilt, failure, not measuring up, not doing enough, and groveling.  With critical race theory and DEIA ideology, you will never be able to say, “It is well with my soul.”

How sad and how serious it is that critical race theory and DEIA ideology sell people out to a taskmaster that will never be satisfied.  They imprison people in a system from which there is no escape.

How much better what Jesus said in Luke 24: 47 – “Repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.”  It is only in and through Jesus that we can and will find hope, grace, peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation.  It is only through Jesus that we can say with the apostle Paul in Romans 7: 25, “Thanks be to God!”    

3. Powerless in the present

Third, many feel powerless in the present.  We all have many reasons to feel powerless in the present.  For those who feel powerless in the present Jesus promises power from on high.

In verse 49 He said to the disciples, “See, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”  Power from on high is what we all need.  And power from on high is exactly what the disciples received on the Day of Pentecost.

In contrast, as I read the resolution that led to the creation of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church as well as minutes of their meetings, it is painfully obvious that they are building a church that is based not upon the Scriptures but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.  The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly – as well as the Commission – are making the main mission of the church not to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission but to dismantle systemic racism.  They are making the main mission of the church not what we have been commanded and empowered to do, but instead they are taking on an impossibly huge task with merely human resources.

How could they feel anything other than overwhelmed and hopeless?  I often wonder, if people’s main mission in life is to dismantle systemic racism, why would they focus their efforts in the church?  No wonder there is and will continue to be a huge shortage of pastors.

Because everything is at stake and in the Name of the One who gives hope for the future, release from the past, and power in the present,  

Dennis D Nelson
Executive Director
dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

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

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

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

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

The Origins of Kin-dom

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

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

---

Professor Bridgett Green

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

Why Erase Kingdom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embracing Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

9.Ibid.

---

Of all the voices in the world calling you to be this or do that with your life, how will you discern God’s call? While God calls persons into full or part time ministry, biblically God’s call has less to do with the job you get paid for and everything to do with the kingdom impact you were born to have on the world. Living in response to God’s call involves trusting the Lord in the midst of the darkness and waiting for the light to dawn. But how are we to discern God’s light, as opposed to the light of our own desires or our need to please others?

Isaiah’s Vision

Consider the prophet Isaiah, whose call story is found in Isaiah Chapter 6. “In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple” (v. 1). The mention of King Uzziah’s death tells us something about Isaiah’s state of mind. Israel prospered under Uzziah when he listened to the Lord, but he eventually ignored God’s commands, and died in isolation as a leper. And Isaiah had reason to be discouraged. The king was dead, a new inexperienced ruler was on the throne, the nation was drifting into idolatry (again), and their enemies were growing stronger. Where was God in all of this?

“Above him [the Lord] stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. ³ And one called to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!’ And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke” (v. 1-4).

God answered Isaiah’s question with a vision of heaven in which it became clear that while weak and sinful earthly rulers may die or be unseated, God reigns eternal. The angels proclaim His holiness, which extends throughout the world. The temple is shaken and filled with the smoke of God’s presence and power, echoing the pillar of cloud at Mt. Sinai, and the cloud of God’s glory that filled the temple (Exodus 13:21-22, 19:18 and I Kings 8:10-12).

Isaiah’s Reaction

In a time of uncertainty, God reveals Himself to Isaiah in His heavenly glory to confirm that He is King and reigns in heaven, regardless of what may be happening on earth. His sovereignty is never in question. This assurance is a prerequisite to hearing God’s call! And what is Isaiah’s reaction? ^“And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (v. 5).

Despite his intelligence, privilege, personal integrity and devout faith, Isaiah sees himself for who he really is, a sinful man among a sinful people. In the light of God’s glory, Isaiah’s sins and failings became evident… and damning. He was before God without a mediator, without any covering or sacrifice. And if the priests could only go into the holy of holies once a year, and only after making sacrifices for themselves and the people so they would not fall dead, there was no chance of survival for Isaiah, who was in God’s presence with zero preparation.

God’s Response

In response to this realization, the Lord acts. “Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for” (v. 6-7). The altar was the place in the temple where the people’s sins were dealt with through animal sacrifice, foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus’ death on Calvary as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  The angel takes a burning coal to purify Isaiah’s lips, which were the source of his sins and the instrument of his impending ministry. As a result of the angel’s action, Isaiah’s guilt is removed, his sins are forgiven, the source of his fear is gone, and he is fit for service.

The Call to Ministry

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, “Here I am. Send me!” (v. 8). God revealed Himself to Isaiah for the purpose of preparing him for ministry. Prior to his cleansing, Isaiah heard only the angels proclaiming God’s holiness, and of course, the accusing voice of his own conscience. But now he can hear the voice of the Triune God speaking to the council of angels, asking, “Who will be the messenger to my people? Who will go for us?” And this time Isaiah answers without hesitation or reluctance, “Here Am I. Send me.” The assurance of God’s absolution and a clear conscience are evident in Isaiah’s desire to answer the call. And from his experience we can draw three conclusions.

1. Worship precedes service – humbly seeking the Lord in worship is the first step in determining the what, where, when, why, and how of God’s calling in a particular season of your life. In Scripture, God’s call sometimes came through a vision, dream, or some other supernatural phenomenon. But most experience an urging of the Holy Spirit to serve in a particular way or to use a particular gift of the Spirit for the common good.

2. Self-awareness precedes action – understanding one’s current condition and circumstances will clarify what you lack that God must provide before he can use you for his intended purpose.

3. Formation precedes confirmation – formation refers to the process of preparation one undergoes in order to carry out their ministry/calling. But formation is not the same as confirmation. Some think that if you have a Bible college or seminary degree or if you have a special skill in service or leadership, you automatically qualify for a particular ministry. But no one in the church is self-appointed. God always uses the Church to confirm a person to ministry after a time of formational preparation, whether lay or ordained.

I pray that in this season of life, as you seek the Lord, His call to you will become clear, as it did for Isaiah. And that you will respond as he did, “Here am I. send me!”

Pr. Jeff Morlock is on the staff of the North American Lutheran Church and is Director of Vocational Discernment for the North American Lutheran Seminary. He may be reached at
jmorlock@thenals.org

In my Summer Letter from the Director I told in great detail the disturbing story of how Bishop Yehiel Curry of the ELCA’s Metropolitan Chicago Synod threatened, intimidated, bullied, and abused power in order to gain control of a CORE-friendly congregation that was doing its best to reach out to its bi-lingual and Spanish speaking neighborhood with the love of Jesus.  A link to that letter can be found here.  That bishop and synod council used chapter S13.24 in the Model Constitution for Synods as a way to move in and take over the congregation. 

I recently become aware of another situation where the synod council of another ELCA synod – Southwest California – used the same constitutional provision to seize the property of a congregation.  As a former ALC congregation, according to the ELCA constitution, Faith Lutheran Church of San Dimas, California should have had no problem keeping their property as they voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and join another Lutheran church body.  But that synod council used chapter S13.24 of the Model Constitution for Synods, along with rejecting the legitimacy of LCMC as a recognized Lutheran church body, to claim to have the right to the congregation’s property.  My concern has only grown greater as I wonder whether these are two isolated incidents or is this a pattern – an intentional strategy – that we will see continue to unfold throughout the ELCA.

In part the relevant constitutional chapter reads as follows –

Six years ago Faith Lutheran Church in San Dimas, California, was a thriving congregation led by a very gifted, hardworking, faithful, committed, and orthodox pastor.  I would say he was one of the best.  After his retirement the congregation struggled as it had an extremely difficult time finding another pastor who would be appropriate for them.  Attendance and involvement dropped and the preschool had to close during the COVID pandemic.  Finally, after two years, they did find a pastor, but that pastor turned out to be a disaster.  Later they discovered that that pastor had embezzled funds from a former congregation.  (That information was shared as public information during the discussion at the synod assembly.)  Attendance dropped even further, many of the positions on the congregation council remained vacant, and the congregation had to request forbearance on the loan for their beautiful new sanctuary. 

Needing help with their situation, the congregation entered into a Synodical Administration arrangement with the synod.  This arrangement is described in S13.25. of the Model Constitution for Synods, which says, “This synod may temporarily assume administration of a congregation upon its request or with its concurrence.  Such synod administration shall continue only so long as necessary to complete the purposes for which it was requested by the congregation or until the congregation withdraws consent to continued administration.”  Three local ELCA pastors were assigned to the congregation to help them through their difficult times.

But the real turnaround for the congregation occurred when they invited a non-Lutheran new church start to begin meeting on their property.  With the presence of the other congregation and the dynamic, outreach-oriented leadership of the young, evangelical pastor, new energy came to the place.  The synod continued to be unable to provide the congregation with a suitable pastor to call – or even a supply pastor or an interim pastor that would be appropriate for them.  I understand from a former member of the executive committee of the synod council of that synod, that of the approximately one hundred congregations in that synod, forty-two of them are without a pastor.  Because the synod could not provide a pastor, the ELCA congregation asked the young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented pastor of the new, non-Lutheran church start to provide them with pastoral care and leadership.  The non-Lutheran pastor would lead the ELCA congregation’s traditional, liturgical service at 9 AM and then the new church start’s contemporary service at 11 AM.  The ELCA synodical bishop, seeing how the Lord was blessing the ministry, agreed to the arrangement. 

The problem came when the congregation voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and join LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ).  As a former ALC congregation, they should have had no problem keeping their property.  But the synod council accused them of joining LCMC only as a way of getting out of the ELCA with the intent of then joining this non-Lutheran group.  The young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented, evangelical pastor of the non-Lutheran church start offered to take courses in Lutheran theology so that he would be better equipped to provide pastoral care and leadership for the Lutheran congregation, and he was also mentored by a retired ELCA pastor, but that was not sufficient.  The synod council said that the congregation can leave the ELCA, the congregation and the non-Lutheran new church start can rent the church building from the ELCA, but the congregation must surrender the deed to the property to the synod.  The congregation appealed the decision to the synod assembly which is how I became aware.  The appeal was decisively denied. 

During the discussion at the synod assembly it was revealed that after the congregation voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA, the synod council changed their relationship with the congregation from Synodical Administration (S13.25), which is voluntary and temporary, to Synodical Preservation (S13.24), which is involuntary and permanent.  (It is interesting that the president of the congregation said that they did not know that the synod had taken that action and changed the terms of the relationship until six months after the change had been made.)

The synod council used chapter S13.24 of the synod’s constitution to argue that demanding the deed to the property was something they needed to do and had the right to do in order to “protect and preserve the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration.”  But the congregation’s property was not in danger of “waste and deterioration.”  Energy had returned, attendance was up, the preschool had reopened, the congregation was able to resume payments on the loan, and people were again involved in ministry and willing to serve in positions of leadership.  The synod misused this provision in the constitution because they did not like the fact that the congregation was moving in a different direction – and in a direction which was working out better for them.  In fact, a pastor who is a member of the executive committee of the synod council argued in front of the assembly that the synod needed to invoke S13.24 and seize the property in order to keep the property “from deterioration into a non-ELCA entity.” 

The synod council also argued that LCMC was not really a valid church body, so in joining LCMC the congregation had not met constitutional requirements in order to be able to keep their property.  For me one of the most alarming parts of the discussion was when Synodical Bishop Brenda Bos said in her initial presentation that LCMC is “a very, very loosely affiliated Lutheran denomination” and then suggested that “LCMC may have been created for exactly this constitutional clause so that congregations that do not want to be Lutheran anymore can go into that system and keep their property.”  During the discussion the member of the executive committee mentioned above quoted from the LCMC website which says, “We’re not a denomination, we’re a movement” and then said about LCMC, “They are imposters.”  (It makes me wonder how often the same line of argument has been used or will be used against other former ALC congregations that will vote to leave the ELCA and join LCMC.) 

As I watched and listened to the discussion in the You Tube recording of the second day of the synod assembly, there were two images that came to mind.  The first is the old proverb, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his whole body will soon follow.”  Once the congregation invited the synod to come in and administer the congregation (under S13.25), it was very easy for the synod to remain, take over, and seize the property (under S13.24).

The second are the words near the beginning of the book of Exodus – “Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8).  Bishop Bos of the Southwest California Synod obviously did not know – nor did she bother to find out about – the actual issues that led to the formation of LCMC.  It was not to give churches who did not want to be Lutheran anymore a chance to get out of the ELCA and keep their property.  Rather the precipitating event was the ELCA’s approving the Called to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church.  In that agreement a certain structure – the Episcopal version of the Historic Episcopate – became mandated.  The founders of LCMC argued – on the basis of Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession – that “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”  Therefore, no particular human, governmental structure is necessary in order for the church to be the church.  LCMC was formed in 2001.  Since then the organization has grown to be an international movement of around one thousand congregations, including around eight hundred congregations here in the United States.  Many of those congregations are former ALC congregations who voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and kept their property as they then affiliated with LCMC.  Precedence strongly supports former ALC congregations’ being able to leave the ELCA, join LCMC, and not have any problem keeping their property.  As time passes more and more synodical bishops and other ELCA leaders are not going to have been a part of the issues and struggles that led to the formation of LCMC and the NALC.  They are simply not going to be aware of them, let alone understand and appreciate them. 

But a third thing that completely floored me was when Bishop Bos, at the end of her presentation, called upon the assembly to “deeply consider the legacy of the Lutherans that came before.”  During the discussion leading up to the vote which denied the congregation’s appeal, the argument was made that for over sixty years faithful Lutherans had been working and giving to start and support a Lutheran presence and ministry in the city of San Dimas.  Therefore, the assembly should not break trust with six decades of faithful Lutherans and allow a schismatic group to now take the property and give it to a non-Lutheran ministry.  I was absolutely astounded hearing this line of argument.  I realize that the young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented, evangelical pastor of the new church start does not have a sacramental view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but I truly believe that his view of the Scriptures, moral values, and the mission of the church is far closer to that of the founders of that congregation than the ELCA is today.  And since when does the ELCA care about not breaking trust with faithful Lutherans of the past? 

The 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly is approaching, when voting members will consider a plan to reconstitute the church, review the 2009 human sexuality social statement, and possibly (probably?) eliminate the provision for bound conscience.   Bound conscience is the language that the 2009 human sexuality social statement uses to declare that a variety of views on same sex relationships – including traditional views – do exist within the ELCA and will be viewed as valid, and those who hold them will be treated with honor and respect.  I assume the ELCA knows that there may well be another wave of congregations wanting to leave the ELCA, so are they taking steps now to make it as difficult as possible for congregations to leave with their properties?  As congregations continue to decline and congregational, synodical, and churchwide income continues to drop, will the ELCA grab as many properties as possible and make it as difficult as they can for congregations (even former ALC congregations) to leave with their property?  Please let me know if you know of other examples of this dynamic. 

One final thought.  The August 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly overwhelmingly approved a Land Back Memorial, in which they supported a resolution which called upon the ELCA to “support creative programs of restorative justice in partnership with Indigenous people, including, but not limited to, whenever considering a transfer or sale of real property, including returning land (and any structures built on it) after satisfying any financial obligations, to the appropriate Native nations, and when direct return is not feasible or not desired by the Indigenous people, to return the proceeds from the sale of the land to the ELCA Native American Ministry Fund or other local Indigenous led ministries or organizations.”  Will the Southwest California Synod, in order to not be complicit in something that they are so concerned about – the stealing of land from Indigenous people – follow through with and make good their concern and give the newly acquired property – or the value of that property – to Indigenous people? 

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find both our Video Book Reviews as well as our CORE Convictions Videos on various topics related to Biblical teaching, Lutheran theology, and Christian living.  You will find these videos in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  This month we want to feature a CORE Convictions video by NALC pastor Tim Hubert.

“INTERIM MINISTRY” BY PASTOR TIMOTHY HUBERT

Many thanks to NALC pastor Tim Hubert for his very wise and insightful video on interim ministry.  A link to his video can be found here.

Pastor Hubert has been ordained for forty years.  For twenty-five years he served in regular calls; for fifteen years he has served various interim assignments.  He has seen and experienced both kinds of situations – when a very beloved pastor leaves as well as when a pastor in a very troubled situation leaves.

Tim describes three questions that congregations will have regarding the new interim pastor –

1. Can we trust the interim pastor?  Including, Can we trust the interim pastor to love us in the way our former pastor loved us?
2. Will the interim pastor stay long enough – until we are ready to call a new pastor?  Church councils want a seamless transition in ministry.
3. Will the congregation allow itself to love the interim pastor, knowing that the interim pastor will be with them only for a short time?

He also lists three expectations that interim pastors have –

1.  To be treated fairly and honorably.  The congregation needs to remember that the interim pastor did not cause the former pastor to leave.
2. To be paid a fair and honorable salary.  While some congregations will try to save money at the expense of the interim pastor, Pastor Hubert believes that the interim should be paid the same as the previous pastor.  Otherwise, the congregation could be in for a real shock when they learn that they may need to pay their next pastor more than they had paid the previous pastor.   
3. That the congregation will trust the process.

Losing a pastor is a grief process – both when the former pastor was loved and when it was a troubled situation.  All change creates pain.  Even good grief can take up to two years to heal.

Tim recommends that a congregation have an interim for one to two years.  In situations where there has been significant conflict, it can take longer to begin the process of healing.  It is a good sign of healing when members are returning to worship and are becoming involved once again.

Tim’s closing advice is –

Pray for interim pastors – there are fewer and fewer of them.

Thank the Lord when He provides you with an interim pastor.

Thank the Lord that He already knows and has chosen your next pastor.

Remember that the Lord is in charge.  As Jesus said in Luke 12: 32, “Fear not, little flock; it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.”

In my letter from the director for December 2022 I wrote about several concerns that arose in my mind as I read a November 16 news release from the ELCA about the November 10-13 meeting of the ELCA Church Council.  A link to that letter can be found here.  In that letter I said that I would be writing to Imran Siddiqui, vice president of the ELCA, who also serves as chair of the church council.  I would be asking him how it was decided that a representative from ReconcilingWorks would become an advisory member of the church council and whether any consideration would or had been given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as an advisory member of the church council.  Here is the letter which I sent him the morning of December 13.  Please note that I also expressed my concern that the ELCA would be committing a massive breach of trust if in the revised human sexuality social statement traditional views on same sex relationships were no longer seen as valid and legitimate and having a place of respect within the ELCA.  

Dear Mr. Siddiqui –

Congratulations on your election and thank you for your ministry of leadership within the ELCA. I believe that Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was absolutely correct – as was described in the November 16 ELCA news release – when she drew attention to the “substantial work charged to the (ELCA Church Council) by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly” and when she said that the work done by the Council now will “have a significant effect on this church.”

I am writing because of my deep concern over two of the bullet points under the section entitled “In other actions” in the November 16 news release regarding the recent meeting of the Church Council.

Under the second bullet point it says that the Church Council has “scheduled for 2024 the initiation of a task force for reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

I know that this process, as directed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, will include a reconsideration of the whole concept of bound conscience.  I realize that those who all along have been driving for the elimination of bound conscience were correct in determining that the time had come when they would have more than enough support to pass this kind of a motion, but still, if this action is taken and the provision for bound conscience is eliminated, it will be nothing less than a massive breach of trust on the part of the ELCA against those within its community who hold traditional views.  It will call into question whether the ELCA can be trusted on anything if it cannot be trusted to keep this promise to honor traditional views and those who hold them.  This is a promise the ELCA made in order to gather enough support to get the social statement approved.  Eliminating bound conscience will call into question the ELCA’s claim to have the moral integrity and authority to criticize other organizational entities for not keeping their promises – such as the way the ELCA criticizes the U. S. government for not keeping its promises to Indigenous persons – if the ELCA does not keep its promises. 

And then under the sixth bullet point it says that the Council “adopted a continuing resolution establishing council advisory members to include . . . a representative of Reconciling Works.”

As I understand it, until and unless it is revised and/or replaced, the 2009 Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust social statement still represents the ELCA’s official position and policy on same sex relationships.  This document describes four positions, which people within the ELCA hold “with conviction and integrity” (p. 20).  It states, “This church, on the basis of ‘the bound conscience,’ will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world” (p. 19).

At this time traditional views on same sex relationships are still recognized as legitimate and valid and having a place within the ELCA.  Therefore, why is there not also consideration being given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as one of the advisory members of the Church Council?

If the Church Council were to say that there are just too few people remaining within the ELCA who hold traditional views to have an advisory member with traditional views, then I would see the Council as doing two things.  First, it is totally discounting a significant percentage of the actual membership of ELCA congregations.  Second, it is ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing those whom it sees as too small and/or too weak and insignificant a minority, and it is doing so even as the ELCA is constantly and sharply criticizing those whom it accuses of ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing vulnerable, oppressed minorities.   

I also wonder how it was decided that the Church Council would have advisory members, what will be the role and limitations of the role of advisory members, and how it was decided that a representative of Reconciling Works would be one of the advisory members. 

I deeply appreciated the response you gave in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when someone claimed that you had said that Robert’s Rules are oppressive and racist.  Because of your response in that situation, I have great hope that you will be a voice for fairness, reason, good sense, and balance.

I look forward to your response.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Retired ELCA Pastor – rostered in the Grand Canyon Synod

That evening I received his response.

Pastor Nelson,

Thank you for your email and expressing your views and concerns. Please allow me to respond to each of your two concerns in order. Regarding the reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. The vote of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly was overwhelmingly in support of reconsideration of the social statement. The Church Council is the interim legislative body of the Church between Churchwide Assemblies and is mandated to carry out the wishes of the Churchwide Assembly. The task force would be charged with bringing recommendations on the basis of the approved assembly actions to a future Churchwide Assembly. At that time, that Churchwide Assembly may approve or reject those recommendations. At the November 2022 meeting, the Church Council received the proposal for an editorial reconsideration to be considered first for the human sexuality social statement and then the task force would consider the bound conscience question.

Regarding Church Council Advisory Members, the advisory members were intended to give voice to those who have been historically marginalized within the Church. This allows those groups to have voice, but not vote, in Church Council decisions. This is especially necessary in actions that affect those who have been historically marginalized in our Church. For that reason representatives from ELCA Ethnic Specific Associations and a representative from Reconciling Works were named as Advisory Members to Church Council. 

Thank you again for sharing your concerns,

Imran Siddiqui

Vice President

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  

* * * * * * * *    

I can think of four things to say in response to his response.

First, I did receive a response, and in a very timely way – within just few hours.

Second, the ELCA feels totally empowered to do what it is doing. 

Third, the ELCA sees itself as having no reason to do anything other than what it is doing and no reason to consider any other views.

Fourth, the ELCA is only concerned for those whom it describes as “historically marginalized.”  It has absolutely no concern for those who are currently being marginalized.  And that total lack of concern is in spite of all that the “currently marginalized” have done in the life of the ELCA and its predecessor church bodies.   

IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE

It should not surprise anyone that a movement is developing to get the ELCA to commit a massive breach of trust and to eliminate any provision for traditional views and those who hold them.

In my August letter from the director I told about some of the more significant actions that were taken by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  One of the most alarming was the overwhelming approval of a resolution “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” which “reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience.”  (These four positions can be found on pages 19-21 of the 2009 social statement.  They provide a way for there to be a place of respect for traditional views and those who hold them.  A link to the document can be found here.)

At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still it should be obvious to all that the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

In my August letter I wrote that I am certain that the ELCA actually never intended to honor traditional views.  The language regarding bound conscience and the four positions was placed within the 2009 social statement only to obtain enough votes to get the social statement approved, and even then it was barely approved.  One needs to look no further than the ELCA’s total embrace of ReconcilingWorks and its choice of keynote speakers for the 2018 youth gathering to realize that confessional Lutherans with traditional views are not welcome.

But how will it happen?  A recent statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries (ELM) suggests a possible path.  This organization describes its mission in this way.

“Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries organizes queer seminarians and rostered ministers, confronts barriers and systemic oppression, and activates queer ideas and movements within the Lutheran Church.”    

On September 7 this organization released a document entitled “ELM Churchwide Assembly and Bound Conscience Statement.”  A link to the full statement can be found here.

In this document they say, “The ELCA must address our sins of racism and ‘bound conscience.’”  It then says, “As Lutherans, we confess our participation in these systems, yet we continually fall short in the ways to overcome these systems of oppression.”  “Sin” and part of the “systems of oppression” – that is what Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is challenging the ELCA to join with them in calling traditional views of human sexuality. 

I am sure that no one who had been paying attention thought that bound conscience was anything more than temporary.  In some places it was ignored right from the beginning.  What is new here is explicit language with which bound conscience might be repudiated and the means by which it might be done – through a public apology by the Churchwide Assembly and the Presiding Bishop.

The statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries describes recent times when the ELCA has made a formal apology.

• “In 2019, the Churchwide Assembly adopted a formal letter of repentance to commit to examine the church’s complicity in slavery, and to acknowledge ‘the ELCA’s perpetuation of racism.’”

• Also in 2019 the ELCA made a formal apology to the African Descent community.

• “At the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, Bishop Eaton formally apologized to the worshipping community of Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina for both individual and institutional racist harm done to the congregation & the Latine community.”

And now Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is calling upon the ELCA to make a similar apology to the LGBTQ+ community.  Their document states, “Queer people in the ELCA deserve an apology and behavior consistent with repentance for the harm caused by ‘bound conscience’ and policies like ‘Visions and Expectations.’”  “Vision and Expectations” is a document that was approved by the ELCA Church Council in 1990 to describe what the church expected of its leaders but then removed from use by the ELCA Church Council in March 2020 because its more traditional views and expectations were “a source of great pain for many in the ELCA.”

Bound conscience and traditional views are now a sin – on the same level as racism and other forms of systemic oppression.  What should alarm every Lutheran with traditional views is the fact that Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries always gets what it wants.  They wanted the ELCA to remove the word “chastity” from its revised version of Definitions and Guidelines so that ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber would be able to remain on the clergy roster while bragging about her sex life with her boyfriend (to whom she is not married), and they got what they wanted.  If Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries gets its way (which they always do) sooner or later – maybe in 2025, maybe in 2028 – the ELCA will officially repent and apologize for permitting pastors and congregations to teach and live according to what the Church has been teaching for two thousand years.

But while the ELCA grovels and repents as Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries tells them to, do not expect them to repent for breaking their promises to honor and provide a place for traditional views and those who hold them. 

In my August letter I also wrote about another resolution that was approved by the Churchwide Assembly which should cause great alarm for confessional, traditionally minded Lutherans.  The assembly voted to direct the Church Council “to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” 

The question naturally arises, Who will develop this revised version of the 2009 human sexuality social statement and possible reconsideration (rejection) of the four positions of bound conscience?  Also, who will be appointed to this “Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church”?  You can be sure that those who have been driving the process to get things to where they are today have been busy, working to make themselves the dominant factor in the process.  Many of these people have said that they do not believe that any “white male over the age of sixty” should be allowed to have anything to do with the process, and the Statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries urges “the committee tasked with reconsidering ‘bound conscience’ to include ‘new, young, and diverse’ voices and those that have been most harmed by ‘bound conscience.’”  The ELCA has made it very clear that high on its list of priorities for the coming years is to reach “one million new, young, and diverse people.”

The ELCA Church Council is scheduled to meet November 10-13.  We assume that among the actions taken will be the appointment of people to the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and the task force to review and revise the human sexuality social statement.  We all know that once you know who is on the committee, you know the outcome.  We will keep you posted. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Each month we feature two videos – the most recent addition to our video book reviews, and a recent addition to our CORE Convictions videos.  The CORE Convictions series is being designed particularly for those who wish to grow in their knowledge of Biblical teaching and Christian living as well as for those who want to know more about how Lutherans understand the Bible. We also want to provide this resource for those who do not have the opportunity or the option of attending a church where the preaching and teaching is Biblical, orthodox, and confessional.

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find recordings from both sets of videos – in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  We now have five videos in our CORE Convictions series.  Many thanks to retired AALC pastor James Hoefer for his video on “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.”  His video will be featured in December.

This month we want to feature a video book review by Pastor Chris Johnson and a CORE Convictions video by Pastor James Lehmann.    

“LIVES AND WRITINGS OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH”

Many thanks to Chris Johnson, LCMC pastor and secretary of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his review of this book, which is edited by Timothy Schmeling and Robert Kolb.  A link to his video can be found here.

Pastor Johnson begins by reminding us of the phrase, “If we can see farther, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.”  He sees this statement as true in many areas of life, including theology, and as well illustrated in the biographies and writings of twenty-one theologians who came after Luther from the 1550’s to the late 1600’s.

Some of these men were educators, some were brilliant systematic theologians, some were preachers.  Some were known for their poetry, their hymnody, or their devotional literature.  They served in many different ways, but they were all very gifted and dedicated to the Christian faith as understood by the Lutheran Confessions.   

Some were known for their polemical style, which is quite understandable since they lived during tumultuous times.  They faced many challenges and endured great suffering, such as during the Thirty Years War and from the plague.  Many experienced deep pain and sorrow from the death of several family members. 

They fought hard battles, were attacked on many sides, and suffered great losses.  They lived during a period of Lutheran history that we often ignore.  But according to Pastor Johnson, it is a great gift to us to get to know them and what they did.  They were men of faith who were dedicated to the Lutheran Confessions.  We would do well to learn from them as to how they persevered and remained true to the faith no matter what. 

TEACHING THE FAITH TO CHILDREN OF ALL AGES 

Many thanks to NALC pastor Jim Lehmann for his video, a link to which can be found here.  According to Pastor Lehmann, teaching the faith to children of all ages “may be easier than you think.  It does take discipline to make disciples.  It starts before a person can understand the language of faith and continues when language may be lost.  Join me for some ideas.”

The temperatures are cooler here in Arizona, and the Sonoran desert is lush and green from the summer rains.  No wonder the Snowbirds are returning.  We are constantly being reminded of God’s goodness.  May you also experience His blessings.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

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