Most people would call me a “conservative” Lutheran, although I would prefer to be called orthodox or traditional. Nevertheless, I will accept the label. Therefore, as a conservative Lutheran, it is incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from the conservative Christians who hold views that I reject. So let me say clearly that I reject Christian Zionism.

What is Christian Zionism?  Normally, that term describes a fundamentalist dispensationalist theology that believes the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 was the fulfilment of prophecy.  Furthermore it holds that all the land currently in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza belong to the State of Israel by divine right. As a result, it holds that Israel has the right to annex territory and establish settlements wherever it wishes.  It does not recognize the Palestinians as a people, nor their right to have a state of their own.  Finally, it sees conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as a necessary and unavoidable precursor to the End Times.  Anyone who does not support Israel militarily is therefore considered an enemy of God. (Not everything called Christian Zionism falls under this definition.  See Israel Matters and The New Christian Zionism by Gerald R. McDermott)

I reject Christian Zionism as described above because it is a form of Millennialism, which the Augsburg Confession rejects in Article XVII.  I also reject Christian Zionism because I reject the notion that a person’s rights should be based on their religion or ethnicity.  In other words, I am a “classical liberal”.   I support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, in which Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and people of other religions have equal political and human rights.

Having said that, I would like to ask why some Lutherans of the left refuse to distance themselves from groups that deny the right of Israel to exist, that teach violent Antisemitism, and that use Marxist dualism to justify violence and terrorism? A very concrete example of the refusal to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism occurred at the 2024 Synod Assembly of the Florida-Bahamas Synod, ELCA.  In a resolution entitled Resolution 24-02 Palestinian Advocacy and Dismantling Christian Zionism in Our Churches, the assembly lamented the destruction caused by Israeli attacks in Gaza, saying

Be it Resolved, The Florida Bahamas Synod in Assembly laments both the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, housing, schools and universities, hospitals, and places of worship–and the millions of people who are experiencing displacement, facing malnutrition, and starvation, as a result primarily of Israel’s continuing air strikes and blocking entry of humanitarian aid trucks…

Among other things, it also recommends that congregations learn about the  SUMUD initiative and spend at least three hours of adult education time in the next three months in learning more about the conflict, occupation and Christian Zionism.  Missing is any condemnation of HAMAS for the killing of 1200 people in Israel on October 7, 2023, or of any attribution of responsibility to HAMAS for starting the war that is now devastating Gaza. 

Consider an earlier part of the resolution:

Whereas, The ELCA Presiding Bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, on October 13, 2023 denounced the attacks and hostage-taking on October 7, 2023, by HAMAS and has denounced the subsequent disproportionate death toll among Palestinian civilians; as reported by the United Nations, more than thirty-four thousand civilians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 ; https://elca.org/News-and-Events/8207…

Please notice two things.  First, while the resolution mentions that Bishop Eaton denounced the attacks and hostage taking, it never joins her in that denunciation.  Secondly, while it mentions the number of people killed by Israel in Gaza, it never mentions the number killed by HAMAS on October 7.

Is this an oversight?  Did the resolution simply assume that everyone denounces HAMAS and its ideology?  Sadly, the answer is no.  An amendment was proposed that clarified things by adding the following words:

and emphatically denounce the following Palestinian groups that have been involved in politically motivated violence to include the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of organizations[sic], Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas,

However, the Florida-Bahamas Synod declined. Why? The only answer that I can see is a convergence
of historic Christian Antisemitism and Christian Marxism. The Antisemitism of the Christian left follows
the Marxist practice of dividing all of humanity into oppressor and oppressed. This Marxist dualism sees the oppressor as always evil and the oppressed as always innocent. Furthermore, the oppressed are never really responsible for their actions. Whatever they might do, even if it involves the kind of
atrocities perpetrated on October 7, it is never their fault. The oppressor drove them to it. As Bishop
Eaton said in her letter on October 13, 2023, to which the resolution refers,

We must also call a thing a thing. The power exerted against all Palestinian people — through the occupation, the expansion of settlements and the escalating violence — must be called out as a root cause of what we are witnessing. 

Bp. Eaton

According Bishop Eaton, the root cause of the violent Antisemitism of HAMAS, is Israel. The Florida-
Bahamas Synod Assembly concurs. The refusal to denounce HAMAS and other militant groups is
intentional. So, one would guess, is the refusal to address the Antisemitic rhetoric, intimidation, and
violence at anti-Israel rallies in the U.S.

As a “conservative” Lutheran I am glad to renounce Christian Zionism. Are there any “liberal” or
“progressive” Lutherans who are willing to renounce Christian Marxist Antisemitism?

In my previous two articles, I talked about the dilemma facing De-churched Lutherans.  Some cannot find an orthodox Lutheran parish in their area.  Some have been made to feel unwelcome in their former congregation.  Others belong to a congregation that cannot find a pastor.

I have suggested that there is help for De-churched Lutherans.  There is no reason that a group of Lutherans who have no congregation or who cannot find a pastor should give up.  Lutheran lay people can gather together for prayer and Bible study.  As I have mentioned before, there are services found within Lutheran hymnals that may be led by lay people.  These include the prayer offices of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Compline, along with the Service of the Word.  (Check the Table of Contents in the Lutheran Book of Worship or the Lutheran Service Book.)

This month, however, I want to discuss resources that are available for you from Lutheran CORE. First of all, there are Daily Devotions available for personal use.  Dr. Jeffrey Greene writes Daily Devotions for Lutheran CORE.  Dr. Douglas Schoelles hosts a podcast called The Daily Plunge Bible Study. 

For adult education, Lutheran CORE has a Video Ministry that includes Book Reviews and series of videos in theological topics called “CORE Convictions”.  In addition, Pastor Dennis Nelson, records a Weekly Bible Study on the Lectionary Readings each week. 

For those who would like to hold a weekly worship service, Lutheran CORE has a Worship Page.  Pastor Cathy Ammlung has developed Hymn Suggestions and Prayers of the Church for each Sunday of the Church Year.  In addition, she offers Hymns and Liturgy Paraphrases for congregational use which she will be updating after Easter.

Finally, for congregations that are either too small or who have failed to find a pastor, there is hope.  Small congregations and worshipping communities can raise up leaders from within. The Congregational Lay-Led Initiative (CLI) offers training and mentoring for lay leaders.  The intent is not to replace pastors or seminary education but equip lay people for ministry in their own congregations and communities.  If the lay leaders in your congregation need help, or if you would like to form a small worshipping community, Don Brandt would love to talk with you. 

Of course, Lutheran CORE is not the only place you can go for help.  Our ministry partners also have many resources that you can use. In particular, I recommend that you look at two independent Lutheran publishers, SOLA Publishing and ALPB Publicity Bureau.  SOLA Publishing offers weekly worship resources, Sunday School, Confirmation, and adult education curricula in print and on video, and much more.  ALPB publishes books that would be very helpful for adult education worship planning.  Of most interest, however, is the four volume series on daily prayer called For All the Saints.  A congregation that wanted to gather weekly for Morning or Evening Prayer would have all they need to make that happen, excluding hymns and musical settings for the services. 

There is hope for De-churched Lutherans.  Let us know how we can help.

In the September CORE Voice, I reflected on my time as the pastor of a mission congregation.  My question was whether the Lutheran Church is prepared for a time when many, if not most, congregations do not own property.  This month, I want to ask a similar question:  What are we prepared to do to help congregations without pastors?

For at least the last decade, the Lutheran Church has been facing a double crisis.  The first part of that crisis is that there are fewer pastors to fill the needs of congregations.  The second part is that more and more congregations are too small to afford to call a pastor.  What can be done about this crisis?

Two proposals have been discussed in CORE Voice in recent months.  One is to train lay ministers to fill the need.  The other is to change the path to ordination.  Requiring a person to receive a four year master’s degree, as well as acquiring tens of thousands of dollars of debt in the process, is impractical.  Rather than training lay-ministers to serve in congregations, it is argued, we should train people who will be ordained upon receiving a call from a congregation.

That is an important debate, but I don’t want us to be distracted from an option that can be implemented in the meantime.  My proposal is simple, but often overlooked.  That is to encourage lay people in small congregations, or people hoping to form a congregation, to do what lay people are already permitted to do.  Namely, we should encourage them to pray together, gather for Bible study, read the Catechism, visit the sick, care for the hungry, and so forth.

In particular, one question is what to do when there is no pastor to lead corporate worship.  The solution, in my opinion, is found in the hymnal.  Let’s take the venerable Lutheran Book of Worship as an example.  There are at least six services in that hymnal that do not need to be led by an ordained pastor.  They are the Service of the Word, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Compline, Responsive Prayer 1 and Responsive Prayer 2.  All of these may be led by a lay person.  (The Lutheran Service Book has even more options.)

In addition, the three settings for Holy Communion can be altered in such a way that they can be led by one or more lay persons.  First of all, each setting offers an option of omitting the second half of the service, Holy Communion.  The Service of the Word is what remains.  The Greeting and Benediction also need to be altered, but apart from that, the rest of the service remains. 

Since the focus would be on the Word and prayer, full use of the Sunday and the Daily Lectionaries would be ideal.  Congregations would be encouraged to take time to meditate on the lessons, as the hymnal suggests.  Too often, in our rush to finish worship in one hour, we fail to allow enough time for people to do this.  In this case, however, there would be an opportunity to renew that practice.

The next question would have to do with the sermon.  There are so many resources that I cannot name them all.  Instead, I will focus on just two at this time.  The first resource is For All the Saints, published by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau.  The second is the Treasury of Daily Prayer, published by Concordia Publishing House.  For All the Saints follows the two-year daily lectionary found in the Lutheran Book of Worship.  In four volumes, it contains a prayer of the day, an Old Testament, Epistle, and Gospel for each day, plus all 150 Psalms.  In addition, however, there is a Writing for each day that relates to and helps interpret the lessons for the day.  In a prayer service, this Writing could serve as a sermon. 

Finally, what could we do to help?  Imagine a group of de-churched Lutherans wanting to form a congregation.  We could gather used LBWs, or other hymnals, and ship them to the congregation.  Then, through donations, we could purchase a set of For All the Saints, or a copy of Treasury of Daily Prayer, for their use.  Individuals could be encouraged to follow the daily lectionary at home, even purchasing a copy of For All the Saints or Treasury of Daily Prayer if they choose.  (Online and digital resources are also available.)  What would it be like for a group of people to worship together or alone for a year using these wonderful resources?

In 1998, I moved with my wife and my 3 year old son to Pembroke Pines, Florida.  I was sent there to start a new congregation in an area of Broward County that was located between I-75 and the Florida Everglades. 

It was an exciting time, but also a little frightening.  Would I have what it takes to knock on 5000 doors?  Would I really be able to gather enough people to form a worshipping community within six months?  Would this group of people be able to grow enough in numbers and giving to officially organize as a congregation?   

The answer to each of those questions was yes!  We held our first worship six months after I arrived in Pembroke Pines.  There were over 100 people there on the first Sunday.  Two years later, we voted to become a congregation, with over 100 members.  Not only that, but our congregation was multi-cultural, reflecting the area in which we were located.  Finally, we had lots of children and families.  Each week, over a third of the congregation was under the age of 18.

Everything was going as planned except for one thing.  We had been unable to purchase property on which to build a place to worship, hold Sunday School, adult Bible studies, and have an office.  On three occasions, we almost made it, but something fell through.  To this day, 25 years later, that congregation still has to rent space every Sunday to hold worship and Sunday School.

Why was it so difficult?  There were several factors.  Broward County was running out of land.  The cities had reached the edge of the Everglades and could go no further. What land remained was at a premium.  In addition, all of the land that remained was covered in muck.  To develop a piece of property, you had to “de-muck”, which means to scrape off all of the muck until you reached limestone. Then you had to re-fill the land with suitable soil for building.  At the same time, you had to set aside a third or more of the property for wetlands mitigation.

However, that’s not the primary reason it was so hard for a congregation to buy property.  The real reason that it was difficult was that the local municipalities, along with the county government, did not want any more churches.  You heard that right.  Churches were not wanted because they didn’t add to the tax base.  Furthermore, I suspect they were seen to be sectarian and divisive in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious community.  All of the things normally done by churches and synagogues could be done just as well by the schools, libraries and public parks, it was thought.

Why do I drag up the past?  Because I thought at the time, and still think today, that what happened to my congregation 25 years ago may be a preview of what will happen to many congregations in the 21^st Century.  As church attendance drops, as more people identify as having no religious affiliation, and as the Church is seen more and more to be regressive and hateful, I expect government to seek to limit the freedom of the Church. One way to do that, among others, is through zoning and land use laws.  That’s what was used in Broward County.  Keep congregations from buying property and building facilities, and you limit their influence.

A further reason that I think this might be the future for many congregations is the growing denominational conflict which many of us have already experienced.  Over the past 25 years, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists, among others, have learned again and again that they may have to choose between faithfulness to the Word of God and owning property.   Sometimes, when that happens, there are enough people who have been “de-churched” to form a worshipping community.  Often, however, all that remains are Christians who have no church.  I have spoken to faithful Lutherans, who on being de-churched cannot find an orthodox Lutheran congregation within a reasonable driving distance. 

Unless we have a model of how to “do Church” without property and buildings, many faithful Lutherans will remain de-churched.  When I first faced this problem 25 years ago, there wasn’t a model available to me for doing mission without property and a building.  I had to do the best I could. 

At the end of the 20^th Century, there were two primary models with which I was familiar.  The first was the pastor centered model.  The second was the program centered model.  Both of those depend on a congregation owning property and facilities.  In the pastor centered model, the congregation gathered each week for worship and fellowship.  The pastor did ministry to and for the members in the building owned by the congregation.  (Evangelism consisted of the pastor visiting individuals in the community.)

The program centered model also required property and facilities, but more than what was owned by a pastoral centered congregation.  It was through the varied programs that the congregation did ministry to its members and reached out to the unchurched.  The better the programs and the more varied, the more people could be reached.  More than one called pastor and multiple lay ministers were required to run the programs of the congregation.  In order for all of this to happen, however, adequate facilities were a must.

When I was a pastor developer, property was key to the viability of a new church.  Generally speaking, the pastor developer was expected to locate more than 5 acres for purchase.  That’s because the goal was for new congregations to grow beyond the pastor centered model to the program centered model.  You’ll need more than 5 acres to build the facilities to sustain a program centered congregation.  On more than one occasion, I heard of a mission congregation that was shut down because it couldn’t find enough land.  In spite of what was said about “the Church is not a building”, buildings were considered essential.

I fear that if the Lutheran Church in the 21^st Century follows that model, it will be difficult to plant enough new congregations to reach the thousands of un-churched Lutherans in North America.  Even less will it be adequate to do the kind of mission that is required in our post-Christian society.   What models do we have for starting new congregations today?  What models do we have for a time when there are not enough pastors?  Not enough land?  Not enough facilities?  Do we simply say, “Starting a new congregation here is not a viable option?” 

Of equal importance is the question of how to grow a congregation.  What alternatives are there to the traditional Sunday School model, with accompanying Children’s and Youth programs?  Can a program model of ministry be replaced by a disciple making model?  Are there creative ways to raise up pastors and lay ministers in places where a pastor can’t be afforded?  We need answers to those questions if we want to do mission in the 21^st Century. 

Does doctrine matter?  That is a question that has been asked again and again in the Church.  Sometimes, the question is asked because doctrine seems so dry and boring.  It seems so much like academic hair splitting.   A second reason is because doctrine divides.   During the 17^th Century, central Europe endured the 30 Years War, leading to the death of up to one-third of the population of Germany.  That war was driven by doctrinal differences between Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed. 

When the war was over, a movement arose called Pietism.  Many saw it as a Second Reformation.  Pietism emphasized many things that have become part of our common heritage as Christians.  The man considered the founder of Pietism, Philip Jacob Spener, made six proposals to improve the life of the Church.  One of them was this:

We must beware how we conduct ourselves in religious controversies.

Being at war with one another, either literally or verbally, does little to spread the Gospel.  Non-believers are turned away from the Church when they see how divided we are.  In particular, when they perceive that Christians are lacking in love for one another, they wonder about the truth of the Gospel.  After all, didn’t Jesus teach that the greatest commandment was to love God and one another?

That is all true, but it’s not so easy to dismiss doctrine.  In the Lutheran Church of the 17^th Century there was another movement that emphasized doctrine.  It is known today as Lutheran Orthodoxy.  They spent a great amount of time disputing with Catholics and the Reformed over proper theology.  At its best, Orthodoxy was not obsessed with doctrine for its own sake, as if one is saved by having the right answers to abstract theological questions.  Rather, Orthodoxy understood that the purpose of doctrine is to preserve the pure preaching of God’s Word and the proper administration of the Sacraments. 

Why does this matter?  Because it is through the Word and the Sacraments that God gives us forgiveness, life and salvation.  For instance, there is the question, “Is the Bible the Word of God?”  You might be surprised to hear that question.  Both the Pietists and the Orthodox held the Bible in high regard.  In fact, Jacob Spener’s complaint was that there wasn’t enough Bible reading in the Church, particularly among the laity.  Meanwhile, Catholics, the Reformed, and Lutherans all agreed that the Bible was the Word of God.  They only disagreed on how it should be interpreted.

That is not the case today.  In the past year, I have heard an ELCA pastor declare that the Bible is not the Word of God.  Instead, he said that Jesus is the only Word of God.  The Bible, he said, is a Word about God, but it is not the Word of God.  The reason he did this is that he finds parts of the Bible to be offensive, outmoded, and oppressive. Rather than turning to the Bible on questions of faith and life, he would prefer that we ask ourselves what we think the “real Jesus” would do.  In doing this, he drives a wedge between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus that we supposedly “know in our hearts.”

What does Lutheran doctrine teach?  It certainly does teach that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God.  However, it also teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  It is in and through the Written Word that we encounter the Incarnate Word.  In fact, Lutheran doctrine teaches that the Word of God comes to us in three forms:  1) the Incarnate Word, 2) the Written Word, and finally 3) the Preached and Sacramental Word. 

This is where doctrine becomes practical, and not only practical, but a matter of life and death.  Think of the question of the forgiveness of sins.  If your sins are forgiven, you have life and salvation.  If your sins are not forgiven, you will be condemned eternally.  So, how do you know your sins are forgiven?   How can you be sure?  The answer that Lutheran doctrine gives is that you will know for sure when a Preacher announces to you, “Your sins are forgiven.”  You will also know for sure when you are Baptized and when you receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. 

“But wait a second,” you might say, “how do I know that Preaching, Baptism and Communion do these things?”  The answer is very important.  You know because it says so in the Bible.  Can a human preacher really announce the forgiveness of my sins?  Yes! Go read John 20: 22-23 and Matthew 16:18.   Does Baptism really save me?  Yes!  Go read Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21.  Do I really receive forgiveness, life and salvation in Holy Communion?  Yes!  Go read Matthew 26:27-28. 

It all depends on what we believe about the Bible.  If it is God’s Word, then we can be comforted with the knowledge that our sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake.  If it is only a human word, we are left to figure it out for ourselves.  Lutheran doctrine tells you that you can be confident that the Bible is GOD’S WORD.  As the beloved children’s songs says:

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the BIBLE tells me so.

May God give all of us the childlike faith to believe those simple words.

In Christ,

Pastor David Charlton

One of the familiar clichés within Lutheranism is that making the right distinctions is the key to doing good theology.  Admittedly, clichés are dangerous, as Robert Jenson warned in the book Lutheran Slogans: Use and Abuse. [1]   However, I still believe that making distinctions serves the Lutheran Church well.  Among those that I find helpful are the distinctions between Law and Gospel, and between the first, second and third articles of the Creed.

These distinctions are helpful in evaluating one of the recent declarations made on behalf of the ELCA by its leaders.   The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) met from March 31 to April 2 of this year.  At that meeting, the Church Council adopted A Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community.[2]   Like most of the declarations made on behalf of the ELCA, there are strengths and weaknesses.   Here’s where the distinctions come in.

When it comes to the distinction between Law and Gospel, Lutherans recognize that knowledge of the Law is not limited to the Christian faith.  The Law is accessible to all people, but not without distortions due to sin.  People of other religions, and people with no particular religious faith, have some knowledge of the Law.  Furthermore, we recognize that the Law impacts people in several ways.  We refer to this impact as the “uses of the Law”, but we should remember that we don’t really use the Law.  God does.   There are at least two uses of the Law.  A third use is debated among Lutherans.  However, in this article, I want to focus only on the first use of the Law. 

The first use of the Law is often called its civil use.  This is when the Law gives order to society, restrains evil, and rewards virtue.  No human society can function without some form of law, and regardless of the vast differences between religions and cultures, there are strong similarities as well.  While religions and cultures differ greatly on what is the proper way to worship God or the gods, they have large areas of agreement when it comes to how we ought to relate to fellow human beings.  Respect for elders, prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, lying and warnings against the danger of envy are pervasive.  As a result, the civil use of the law provides common ground between Christians, people of other religions, and with people in civil society.

Another helpful distinction has to do with the Apostles’ Creed.  Following Luther’s Catechisms, we identify three articles in the Creed, one on Creation, Redemption and Sanctification respectively.  It is under the article on Creation that Lutherans find the most in common with people of other faiths.  In particular, Jews and Muslims share similar beliefs with us, including the belief that there is only one God, that God is the creator of heaven and earth, that we are to love God and love our neighbors, and that God has revealed his will to human beings.  The article on Creation is the basis for our understanding of the civil use of the Law. 

When A Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community speaks from the standpoint of the first article of the Creed and the civil use of the Law it does well.  Lutherans should find common ground with other Christians, with Muslims, and with all people, in rejecting “subtle and not-so-subtle acts of aggression and violence, including vandalism against [Muslim] community centers and masjids (mosques).”  We should “assure our Muslim neighbors of our love and respect and reaffirm our commitment to working together in our shared communities for the common good.”  As Christians we are to “pray for our neighbors of other religions and worldviews; to seek understanding; and to stand in solidarity” with our neighbors. 

It is also right to admit and lament the fact that Lutherans have often failed to recognize that the protections of God’s Law extend to all people and not just to fellow Christians.  Jesus clearly taught that our neighbor includes all people, not just those who share our religion, nationality, or language.  (Luke 10:25-37)  Not only violence, but harsh rhetoric and “crude polemics” are a violation of the Law, namely the 8^th Commandment.  Therefore, it is correct to reject the harsh polemics of the past, even when they come from Martin Luther himself. 

Perhaps this is one place where Lutheran clichés have been abused.  We are to distinguish Law from Gospel, and Creation from Redemption and Sanctification.  However, we are not to separate them.  It is possible to become so focused on preaching the Gospel of salvation and the need for redemption that we forget that we still live within this world.  We have no right to abandon the Law in its first use, to fail to care for Creation, to neglect our families, communities, nations and world.  Instead, we are called to do good works that benefit our neighbors in our various vocations within the world.  In the words of the second offertory prayer in the LBW, we are to “dedicate our lives to the care and redemption of all that [God has] made,” not merely to the redemption of all things.  Just as the separation of Old and New Testaments has led to many evils within the Church, the same can be said about the separation of Law and Gospel and the separation of the article on Creation from those of Redemption and Sanctification.  We are not “Unitarians of the Second Article.”  We are Trinitarians. We cannot neglect the Law and the First Article. 

The greatest problem with the Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community comes about when it attempts to talk about repentance and the Gospel.  For instance, in the first paragraph the Declaration says:

As people who know that we live by the grace and in the sight of the one, almighty and merciful God, we have confidence that our engagement will result in mutual learning, growth, and enrichment.

That is a vague statement at best.  What is this grace about which the Declaration speaks?  Is it the grace of creation or the grace of redemption in Jesus Christ?   It’s important for us to know.  To which God does the Declaration refer?  A Muslim might suspect that the ELCA is attempting to get him to affirm the Trinity and salvation in Christ by sleight of hand.  On the other hand, a Christian might conclude that the ELCA is avoiding a clear confession of its faith in Jesus Christ in order not to cause offense.  She might further wonder whether such an avoidance actually constitutes a denial of salvation through Christ alone. 

Later, in the fifth chapter, the Declaration promises to:

“confess when our words or deeds (or lack thereof) cause offense, harm, or violence to our neighbors” and to “repent and seek forgiveness from God and reconciliation with our neighbors.”

The same problem arises as above.  Is this a subtle attempt to coopt our Muslim neighbors into a confession of repentance and forgiveness in Jesus Christ?  Is it a subtle denial that forgiveness from God and true reconciliation with our neighbors is available only through Jesus Christ?  This ambivalence can easily cause offense to Muslims and Christians. 

What’s missing, in other words, is any attempt to address the Elephant in the Room.  Christians and Muslims are divided over the question of who Jesus of Nazareth is.  They are also divided over the doctrine of the Trinity.  Christians can find common ground with Muslims under the first use of the Law and under the article on Creation.  It is the Gospel and the Second and Third Articles that divide us.  How do we live together in a way that asks neither Christians nor Muslims to sacrifice the integrity of their faiths?  Neither orthodox Christians, nor orthodox Muslims, are willing to settle for a vague universalism.  My hope is that the ELCA is not willing to settle for that either.  Doing a better job of making important distinctions (but not separations) would have helped this Declaration a great deal.

[1] Jenson, Robert W. Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse.  American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 2011

[2] “A Declaration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to the Muslim Community” 

It is always a joy when you go to a Pastors’ conference and leave with a sense of energy and enthusiasm for ministry.  Over my twenty-eight years of ministry, I have been to my share of such events.   They have been a mixed bag.  To quote Forrest Gump, they “are like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you’ll get.”  Some are definitely worth your time.  Others are mediocre, but since you have the chance to see old friends, you don’t mind.  Others leave you positively frustrated.  Of all the conferences I have attended, good, bad and indifferent, I must say that the NALC Pastors’ Conference held in Orlando, Florida, from February 15 to 18, was one of the best. 

Although I am not a pastor in the NALC, I was able to attend as a representative of Lutheran CORE.  The theme of the conference was: “Always Be Ready: Apologetics in Real Life,” based on 1 Peter 3:15.  The keynote address was given by the Rev. Dr. Mark Mattes, with plenary addresses by Rev. Dr. Maurice Lee, Rev. Dr. Dennis DiMauro, and Rev. Dr. Thomas Jacobson.  Each speaker addressed the topic of apologetics from a different perspective.  Rather than giving a full synopsis of every presentation, I will mention what were the highlights for me.

Mark Mattes identified one of the major mistakes that Christians made in the second half of the 20^th Century.  This was to adopt the world view of unbelievers and skeptics, in an attempt to show that the Christian faith can be made to fit into those worldviews.  Instead of arguing against people from the point of view of modernity or post-modernity, we should argue with them from the point of view of the Christian faith.  Our goal should be to help people see what difference it would make if the Christian worldview were true.

Maurice Lee reminded us of the approach taken by Justin Martyr.  As his name indicates, Justin Martyr was not only an apologist, but died as a martyr.  Justin sought to refute false rumors about Christianity and engaged with pagan philosophers like Socrates and Plato.  However, he had a third strategy.  This was to describe what happens in the liturgy of the Eucharist.  In addition to saying what Christianity is not, we need a picture of what it is.  There is no better place to find this than weekly Sunday worship.  The same is true in 2022.

Dennis DiMauro recounted an experience he had while doing door to door evangelism.  A young man whom he met shocked him.  He wasn’t interested in general information about Christ, or the Church.  What he wanted to know was what had happened in Pastor DiMauro’s own life to make him believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He reminded us that while there are intellectual arguments and rhetorical strategies that can be helpful, what is most important is being able “to give an account for the faith that is in us.”  Lutherans tend to shy away from the term testimony.  Nevertheless, we need to be able to testify to what God has done for us.

Thomas Jacobson reminded us of the class differences that need to be taken into account in reaching the unchurched.  Lutherans have tended to follow Schleiermacher by focusing on the “cultured despisers” of Christianity.  The problem is that the largest group of un-churched people in America today are not the cultured people of the upper middle-class.  They are the blue collar and the poor.  In recent decades, church attendance remained fairly stable among the successful and well to do.  Meanwhile, among the poorer classes, the bottom has fallen out.   We need to find a way to speak to them too. 

While at the NALC Pastors’ Conference, I was also able to attend two break-out sessions.  The first was led by Rev. Doctor Russell Lackey of Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa.   He spoke about the NEXUS Institute, a summer theological institute for high school youth, which is held each summer at Grand View.  (This summer it will be held on June 12-18.)  Pastor Lackey shared information about research that has been done on such summer theological institutes.  This research was cross-denominational, cross-cultural, and multi-faith.  It indicated that summer theological institutes are very effective.  As many as 25% of young people who attend these summer theological institutes end up entering the ministry in their respective religious communities.  With the growing shortage of ministers in the Lutheran Church today, institutes like NEXUS are extremely valuable.

In the summer of 2022, there are twenty-five spots for young people at NEXUS.  Bishop Dan Selbo challenged the pastors at the conference to make sure that there will be fifty attending NEXUS in 2023.  I was so impressed that I rushed home and nominated a young person from my congregation for this year’s institute.

The second break-out session that I attended featured Pastor Dave Keener.  It was an introduction to the newest phase of the Life-to-Life Discipleship.  I was excited to hear that the NALC is developing its own resources for Discipleship ministry.  These resources will be tailored specifically for Lutheran congregations. The first will be a 24 week-long introductory curriculum on discipleship.  Those resources are meant to be available on the NALC website in the near future.

Of course, like most conferences, there was good fellowship.  I was able to reconnect with old friends and make new friends.  I also enjoyed visiting my hometown of Orlando, where I was born in 1964.  As I returned home, I was grateful for the six insights that I shared above.  They either confirmed what I am already doing or gave me new areas of ministry to explore.  If you have never been to the NALC Pastors’ Conference before, I encourage you to attend next year.  I also encourage you to get in touch with the speakers above if you want to learn more about what they shared.

Rev. David Charlton

Vice-President, Lutheran CORE

A concerned member of the ELCA contacted me, asking me to do a review of a new curriculum from Augsburg Fortress’s Sparkhouse. That curriculum is entitled T.B.D.: Think. Believe. Do.  Sparkhouse touts it as their newest youth curriculum.  A blogpost describes T.B.D.

as a new small group series that gives students the tools to articulate, investigate, and test out their beliefs on a broad range of topics that connect to their daily lives. However, the goal isn’t to come away from each series with a settled idea about the topic. Although they might feel more settled than they did before. Instead. T.B.D. focuses on how students think, not just what they think.

https://blog.wearesparkhouse.org/youth-faith-process

Currently, T.B.D. offers six topical courses on Prayer, Sin, Mission, Salvation, and Bible, broken up into four sessions each.  Each session begins with a “Provocative Statement” before moving through three major sections: Think, Believe and Do.  After answering a series of thought provoking questions in their journals, students watch a video and reflect on two Bible Passages.  Following this, they come up with an honest statement of what they believe as individuals and as a group.  Finally, the group brainstorms a low risk way to test out that belief in the following week. 

The Video

In the videos that accompany each session, a young person wrestles with questions about the topic of the session.  This is very interesting.  Like many people today, both young and old, the character in each video turns to the internet, searching for an answer.  As you would expect, answers come from all quarters.  The internet search yields many quotes from the Bible.  Quotes are also given by Luther, Augustine, Calvin, Bonhoeffer, St. Benedict, and other Christian teachers.  Others come from more dubious places, like Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins.  This is what you would expect from an internet search.   The character in the video is left with more questions than answers as a result.  Pastors and catechists are very familiar with the kind of idiosyncratic views that people develop from their use of the internet. 

Values Clarification

The question is where to turn.  The answer is more than a little surprising.  After pondering challenging statements, watching the video, and looking up two Bible verses, the students are immediately asked to formulate their own responses to the questions.  The result is something very similar to the kind of “values clarification” that was practiced decades ago.  It’s almost as if the students are told, “You’re on your own.  The Bible is unclear and unreliable.  The Christian tradition is too varied and contradictory.  Who’s to say what is true.  You need to chart your own path.”

As a person who grew up in the 1970s, I am quite familiar with this way of teaching.  I learned to ask open ended questions and to accept the challenge to decide for myself.  Fortunately for me, I had pastors and college professors who pointed me to the answers.  (I attended a Lutheran college.) Otherwise, I would have been lost.  During my senior year of college, the process of asking open questions and deciding for myself overwhelmed me.  I realized that I was drowning in a sea of meaninglessness and purposelessness.  In the midst of this, I became acutely aware of my sinfulness.  It was then that I turned to the things I had learned from my pastors and professors.  In particular, I remembered what I had learned about the Cross and the Resurrection.  If I had been left entirely to my own resources, I don’t know where I would be.

A Third Resource?

In T.B.D., youth are presented with two resources with which to interpret the Bible: 1) the confusing diversity of answers given by the internet and 2) their own wisdom and the wisdom of their peers.   It’s too bad that a third resource is not introduced into the discussion, namely, the wisdom of the Creedal and Lutheran tradition of interpreting the Bible. If the person teaching this curriculum is a pastor or a well catechized lay person, T.B.D. might not be harmful.  The same would be true if it was used with well catechized youth.  As one reads the lesson book and watches the video, it is easy to identify answers to the questions that are raised. 

For instance, in the unit on Prayer, the video character, a young woman, wrestles with the meaning and purpose of prayer.  What does the Bible teach?  How is one to pray?  Does prayer change things?  Why pray if God already knows everything?  As I watched, I thought to myself, “It’s too bad the Lutheran tradition doesn’t have a simple but profound explanation of the meaning of prayer; or even better an explanation of the Lord’s Prayer.”  At one point, the character finds a link to an article on St. Benedict.  She decides to download his daily prayer schedule to her calendar, only to be shocked by the notion that it calls for prayer seven times a day.  Again, I found myself thinking, “Too bad Luther didn’t simplify the seven hours of prayer on behalf of the laity, reducing them to two or three times a day.”   At another point, the character does a search for the Ten Commandments, hoping that there is something there about prayer.  She concludes that the Ten Commandments are no help, since prayer is not mentioned.  As one knows, however, Luther’s interpretation of the Second Commandment has a lot to say about prayer. 

Unanswered Questions

After reflecting on this curriculum, I am left with a final question.  Is the failure to use the catholic and Lutheran tradition a bug or a feature of T.B.D.?  In other words, do the developers of T.B.D. assume that teachers and facilitators will make use of the Great Tradition and the Lutheran Confessions?  Have they simply forgotten to explicitly remind facilitators of these resources?  Or is the intent to encourage students to utilize the widest possible resources, from St. Benedict to Richard Dawkins, to formulate their own system of beliefs?  If so, the result will not be formation in the Christian faith, but instead in an eclectic post-Christian form of spirituality. 

Ironically, I can remember a time when Augsburg Fortress was criticized for being too Lutheran, too Confessional, too heavy in doctrine.  Other publishers, like Group Publishing and Youth Specialties, were preferred because they were more user friendly, more engaging, and more broadly Evangelical.  To see a curriculum that makes such sparse use of the Catechism and the Lutheran Confessions is surprising, and not an improvement. 

Several years ago, I sent an email to Bishop Eaton sharing a concern that I had about seminarians with traditional views on human sexuality and marriage.  Earlier that year, there had been a crisis at United Lutheran Seminary, when it was discovered that the seminary president had once considered homosexuality to be sinful. What was worse, she had belonged to an organization that advocated conversion therapy.  The student body, along with ReconcilingWorks, demanded that she either resign or be fired.  In addition, ReconcilingWorks withdrew its endorsement of ULS as an RIC (Reconciling in Christ) seminary.  After the president’s resignation, ULS worked diligently to regain that endorsement. 

Given that a formerly traditional president was deemed unacceptable, I was concerned that ReconcilingWorks also considered traditional professors and students to be unacceptable.  Therefore, I wrote to Bishop Eaton to ask whether traditional students were still welcome at ELCA seminaries.  Bishop Eaton reassured me that they were indeed welcome.  After all, she said, the goal of ReconcilingWorks was inclusivity.  They wanted to make sure that all people were welcome in the ELCA.  They were also committed to the notion that we could live together in spite of our differences. 

I decided to find out if this was the case.  I contacted my synod’s branch of ReconcilingWorks.  I told them that my congregation had traditional values on sex and marriage, but was committed to living together in spite of our differences.  Could we become a RIC congregation?  The answer was “No.”  Only congregations that are committed to the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people could be RIC congregations. 

Since this contradicted what Bishop Eaton told me, I asked what ReconcilingWorks’ expectations were for synods and seminaries.  I was referred to the national office of ReconcilingWorks.  They confirmed what I had been told about their expectations for congregations.  When I asked about their expectations for synods and seminaries, I was told that they were different.  I asked them to be more specific.  Did ReconcilingWorks expect synods to weed out traditional pastors in the call process?  Did they expect candidacy committees to weed out traditional candidates for ordination or rostered ministry?  Furthermore, did they expect seminaries to refuse to hire professors who held traditional views, or refuse to accept applications from students with traditional views?  The spokesperson for ReconcilingWorks declined to answer those questions in writing.  She offered to discuss it further by phone.  Thinking that was a waste of time, I did not call her. 

However, in 2021, I decided to try again.  I contacted the same spokesperson and received the same reply.  She was unwilling to answer my questions in writing, but was willing to discuss it on the phone.  Unfortunately, when I called, there was no answer.  I left a message asking her to return my call, but she did not.  After further attempts, I gave up. 

What I have concluded from all of this is that ReconcilingWorks is not committed to the inclusion of all people despite their views on sexuality and marriage.  Instead, they are committed to the gradual conversion of all congregations, synods, and seminaries to their position.  It isn’t surprising that this is the goal of ReconcilingWorks, but at the least, we should expect them to be honest about it.  More importantly, since the ELCA endorses ReconcilingWorks as a ministry partner, and consults them before making any important decision, it should be honest about the true agenda of ReconcilingWorks.

Earlier this year, I noticed that ELCA Advocacy had given the Equality Act its full and unqualified endorsement.   It also encouraged members of the ELCA to write their Senators, calling upon them to support the legislation.  In doing so, the ELCA made reference to the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (HSGT). 

I wrote to Presiding Bishop Eaton, saying:

The ELCA has declared its support of the Equality Act.  It is also urging its members to write to their Senators in support of the Equality Act. What I am wondering is whether the ELCA has given any thought to how the Equality Act will affect those congregations who choose not to call partnered homosexual pastors, or who choose not to perform same-sex weddings.  

As you know, there is debate about whether the act will remove religious freedom protections from congregations and pastors.  Has the ELCA considered this question?  Is the ELCA prepared to defend the right of its congregations and pastors to act in accordance with their “bound consciences” as was promised in 2009

The response came not from Presiding Bishop Eaton, but from Rev. Amy Reumann, Senior Director, Witnessing in Society, ELCA.  She assured me that the ELCA is aware of the “implications with respect to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”  She further stated that the ELCA is “reviewing that language in consultation with a number of our full communion partners and ELCA legal staff.”  Finally, she said that the ELCA hopes “to work with these Senate offices in discerning legislative language that achieves a bi-partisan and fair bill for protecting equal rights and religious integrity.”

I was very pleased to hear this and I had only two requests.  I asked if the ELCA would be willing to reiterate what Rev. Reumann told me in a public statement to ELCA congregations and whether I could share her reply.  She said yes to the latter.  In regard to the former, she asked what kind of public message would be helpful in my context.

It is at this point that our conversation began to go awry.  I gave her a fairly detailed response, clearly stating what I would like the ELCA to reaffirm.  Essentially, I asked that the ELCA publicly restate that choosing not to call a partnered homosexual and not to perform same sex weddings, and teaching in accord with positions 1, 2, or 3 of HSGT are still permitted and encouraged by this church.  Secondly, I asked that the ELCA publicly state its opposition to any language in the Equality Act that would or might punish ELCA congregations for these approved practices.

From that point forward, I received several replies reiterating ELCA policy, along with historical documents that detailed the Ministry Policy Resolutions adopted in 2009.  However, the question about whether the ELCA would publicly reiterate its commitment to those documents and to religious freedom protections for its congregations was not answered.  Finally, after a full week and another e-mail to Presiding Bishop Eaton, I received an e-mail telling me that my concerns would be addressed in ELCA Advocacy materials that would come out in April.

In April, ELCA Advocacy did in fact include the following words in its message:

Some U.S Senators support the intent of the Equality Act but have broader concerns about religious exemptions. There may be amendments proposed responding to these concerns.

As in the Senate, in the ELCA there is a diversity of beliefs and debates about possible impacts of this legislation on religious exemptions.

In an April 13 “guest blog” on ELCA Advocacy Blog, ELCA General Counsel, Thomas Cunniff, wrote:

We urge the adoption of legislation that ensures the full rights of LGBTQ+ persons without infringing on religious liberty or permitting improper government interference in the ecclesiastical activities of religious organizations. Blanket exemptions for anyone claiming a religious motive are too broad and would eviscerate necessary civil rights protections for historically marginalized groups. Not providing space in which dissenting religious groups can practice their beliefs free from government interference, however, would gravely damage freedom of conscience. Moreover, fully exempting statutes from RFRA sets a dangerous precedent of permitting the government to forcibly impose the views of the majority on minority religions, a precedent which could easily be weaponized by a future Congress and President. For these reasons, the ELCA is committed to continue working with others, including full communion partners, to find a solution that fully protects the civil rights of our LGBTQ+ siblings while at the same time protecting the free exercise and conscience rights of religious objectors.

That was not the last word on the matter, however.  On April 16, ELCA Advocacy sent an Action Alert with the following apology:

Issuance of the Action Alert related to the Equality Act on April 13 elicited strong reaction communicated through social media and other channels. Anger, deception, confusion, and contribution to a deepening of harm already part of the lives of many LGBTQIA+ members and other siblings surfaced, along with questioning advocacy process and accountability in the ELCA. For presenting a lack of care on these deep-felt issues, we apologize.  [alert]

It further stated that:

The blog post, “Equal Rights and Religious Freedom,” remains public on our ELCA advocacy blog not for prescriptive purposes but as background on “a false choice between equal rights and religious freedom.” Anticipated is a guest blog post that will provide further perspectives.

This seems to indicate that Mr. Cunniff’s blog post does not express the opinion of the ELCA and in no way indicates how the ELCA will proceed in relation to the Equality Act.  So we are left with a deeply ambiguous and equivocal statement of ELCA policy regarding “bound conscience” and religious freedom.  

Sadly, this leaves us where we began.  Any congregation with a commitment to traditional views on marriage and ordination is left uncertain about the future.