ELCA leaders must have heard enough about the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network that the ELCA Office of the Secretary has prepared a document entitled “Myths and Facts About Congregational Governance.”  Here is a link to that document – LINK # 1. 

The document contains a link to the proposed changes to the ELCA Constitutions for Churchwide, Synods, and Congregations that will be coming from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  The Assembly will be held from July 28 through August 2 in Phoenix.  Here is a link to the proposed changes – LINK # 2.  The document also contains a link to the Rationale for the proposed changes.  This notification is in line with the requirement that the Church Council must act on proposed changes and transmit them to the synods at least six months prior to the Churchwide Assembly.

According to the document –

• There is nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate, or even reduce, congregational autonomy and self-governance.
• The proposed changes to the “Model Constitution for Congregations” are minimal and do not reduce congregational autonomy in any way.
• The proposed changes do not affect congregational property ownership.
• There are no changes to the provisions related to synod administration or preservation of congregational property.
• There are no proposed changes to the disaffiliation process.

Synod preservation is the name for the process described in S.13.24 in the “Model Constitution for Synods” by which synods can move in and take over the property and functioning of a congregation if – in the eyes of the synod – the congregation has become too scattered and/or diminished and/or is no longer able to fulfill its function.  We have previously written about how two synods have used that provision against congregations – Metro Chicago and Southwest California.    

The document also states that recommendations from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church have been incorporated in some of the proposed changes, and even though the report of the Commission is not yet complete, none of the Commission’s recommendations advanced to date would do any of the things mentioned in the bullet points above.

I have read, studied, and analyzed the twenty-one pages of proposed changes and the ten pages of rationale.  Here is my response.

1.  Why would the ELCA have spent who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and on hiring a law firm to do a DEIA audit of its governing documents if the results are no more than the constitutional changes that are currently being proposed?

2.  Do we really think that those who worked for the creation of the Commission are going to be satisfied if it accomplishes no more in advancing their goals – including the dismantling of racism – than what is included in the proposed changes?

3.  How can anyone imagine that the proposed changes call for something as major, involved, and expensive as a separate, reconstituting convention?  And will those who worked for the creation of the Commission be satisfied if there is no such convention?    

4.  We do not yet have the final report from the Commission.  The written summaries of each of their eleven meetings to date are very general and communicate very little.  And we do not know what will be included in their final report, which could very well contain recommendations that are more significant than what is included in the proposed changes.  But as we will see under the discussion of the amendments to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide,” the Commission has certainly prepared the way for the possibility (probability?) of their making and fast-tracking additional and more-far-reaching recommendations.     

My overall impression is this.  The ELCA does not value trust and does not know how to build trust.

1.   When the results of the DEIA audit were posted, which contained extensive recommendations for congregations which would consume the time and energy of any congregation that would try to meet them, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council came out with a statement regarding the status, implications, and/or ramifications of the audit. 

2.  Even though lack of communication creates fear and distrust, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council did anything to get the Commission to be more informative in their reporting. 

3.  The Presiding Bishop, Vice President, and Chairperson of the Conference of Bishops all totally ignored the communication from me regarding the bullying and abuse of power behavior on the part of the Metro Chicago Synod Bishop and Council in their using S.13.24 (synodical preservation) to take over and close a congregation.

4.  Nobody has stepped in and intervened when a synod (such as Southwest California) fights a war of attrition against a congregation.  Because of their closing congregations and selling properties, synods have the resources to fight long, protracted, legal battles against congregations, while individual congregations can only keep going for so long to try to protect themselves. 

With all of these dynamics, I do not understand why the Church Council and Conference of Bishops do not realize that there has been a crying need for greater communication all along.

Having shared these overall impressions, I would now like to highlight several specifics from the proposed changes and rationale which illustrate what I am saying.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND RATIONALE

The proposed amendments to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include the addition of several references to participants in Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs) to “expand inclusion and leadership opportunities.”  SWACs consist largely of community outreach and social justice-oriented groups.  Because they are established by synods and their ongoing existence is dependent upon synodical approval, they would not be able to resist synodical influence as a congregation could, if it so chooses.

Changes to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include one being recommended by the Candidacy Working Group of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church –

7.31.03.  This amendment is intended to produce a more flexible, competency-based discernment and formation process for candidates for the ministry of word and sacrament.  As stated in the Rationale, “By moving certain bylaws to the policy level in the Candidacy Manual, which can be approved by the Church Council after consultation with the Conference of Bishops, revisions that respond to changing realities could be made more swiftly than they can by constitutional amendment.”  In other words, the formation process for your future pastor could more easily be changed to match new ELCA agenda and priorities.      

Churchwide 7.31.07 and 7.61.07 – The Task Force on On Leave from Call and Specialized Ministry (as called for by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly) is recommending that the existing policies whereby synodical bishops can unilaterally deny a request for On Leave from Call status for rostered ministers be replaced by a new protocol in which synodical bishops make recommendations but the final decision is made by the synod council following a consultation process.  I assume this change is because of the disaster and uproar in the Sierra Pacific Synod back in 2021.

A more pronounced change is the addition in several places of a mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups.”  The ELCA views historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, diverse gender identities, and diverse sexual orientation.  I assume this change is the result of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  Please note that this requirement and/or goal is in addition to a mandated or desired level of participation of persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.    

For example, proposed amendments for the “Constitution for Churchwide” include –

• 41.11.e. – In addition to their regular number of voting members for the Churchwide Assembly, synods may elect one additional voting member who is a member of a historically underrepresented group and one additional voting member who is a person of color and/or a person whose primary language is other than English.
• 21 – In selecting staff members for the Churchwide organization, a balance is to be maintained of members of historically underrepresented groups as well as women and men and persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English (please note that there are no mandated percentages here).

Here is a mandated proposed amendment for the “Model Constitution for Synods” –

S6.04.02 – It is to be the goal of every synod that at least 10% of the voting members of the synod assembly, synod council, and synod committees and organizational units be members of historically underrepresented groups in addition to at least 10% being persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.  The synod council is to establish a plan for implementing this goal.   

Another example is 10.21.03. in the “Constitution for Churchwide” which says that the ELCA is to foster organizations for persons of all gender identities. 

The only recommended change in the “Model Constitution for Congregations” relevant to Chapter 7 (Property Ownership) is in C7.03 – to change the language from “transfer” to “relate” to another Lutheran church body.   

 Certainly so far the proposed amendments do show ELCA values and priorities.  But I do not see how they would require a special, very expensive, reconstituting convention.  For me what are most alarming are the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide” which would fast track the approval process for any additional amendments that may come to the floor – including from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – without requiring a second, separate, full Churchwide Assembly.  These amendments to Chapter 22 were recommended by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. 

A change in 22.11.a. would allow for the possibility of a special assembly amending the constitution in a single step, following recommendation of amendments proposed by the Church Council.    According to this amendment, the Church Council proposes an amendment and then sends official notice to the synods at least six months prior to the next (the word “regular” is eliminated) meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.

Changes in 22.11.b. would allow amendments introduced on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly to be ratified unchanged by a 2/3 vote of the Church Council within 12 months of the assembly, instead of waiting three years for the next Churchwide Assembly.   According to this amendment, 25 or more members of the Churchwide Assembly can propose an amendment.  It states, “The proposed amendment shall be referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its recommendation, following which it shall come before the assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become effective only if (the words are changed from ‘adopted’ to ‘ratified unchanged’) by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at the next (again the word ‘regular’ is eliminated) Churchwide Assembly.”  The amendment then adds “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.” 

In the same way, Amendment 22.21, which also was recommended by the Commission, would allow for bylaw amendments to be approved by a special assembly, not only by a regular assembly.

Obviously, the Commission is planning on introducing amendments in addition to those that were given to the Church Council early enough so that the Church Council could send them out to the synods six months prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. 

SUMMARY

We do not know what else the Commission will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly, though they obviously have prepared the way for their submitting more.  There appears to be a deliberate strategy so that recommendations still to come from the Commission can be approved and ratified quickly and easily.  We do not know what actually might happen at the Assembly.  Assemblies can take on a life of their own.  But we do know that it will not stop there.

* * * * * *

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Many thanks to Larry Becker, member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document, which he has sent to his congregation.  A link to his letter can be found HERE. 

HERE is a link to the analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network.  They also have a video on the same subject, a link to which can be found HERE.  As I mentioned at the beginning, they are the organization whose work probably motivated the ELCA to produce that document.  If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to their website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will also find a just-released video regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide.  Future videos will review other proposed changes coming from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly.  The Support Network very intentionally approaches issues related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Finally, because theology is important, HERE is a link to an account from Steve Gjerde, LCMC pastor and former vice president of the board of Lutheran CORE, of the process of his congregation’s leaving the ELCA and their theological reasons for doing so.  Steve particularly emphasizes their understanding of Holy Communion as informing and motivating their decision. 

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS COMING FROM THE CHURCH COUNCIL TO THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY:

THE ELCA MUST NOT VALUE TRUST AND MUST NOT KNOW HOW TO BUILD TRUST

by Dennis D. Nelson

ELCA leaders must have heard enough about the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network that the ELCA Office of the Secretary has prepared a document entitled “Myths and Facts About Congregational Governance.”  Here is a link to that document – LINK # 1. 

The document contains a link to the proposed changes to the ELCA Constitutions for Churchwide, Synods, and Congregations that will be coming from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  The Assembly will be held from July 28 through August 2 in Phoenix.  Here is a link to the proposed changes – LINK # 2.  The document also contains a link to the Rationale for the proposed changes.  This notification is in line with the requirement that the Church Council must act on proposed changes and transmit them to the synods at least six months prior to the Churchwide Assembly.

According to the document –

• There is nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate, or even reduce, congregational autonomy and self-governance.
• The proposed changes to the “Model Constitution for Congregations” are minimal and do not reduce congregational autonomy in any way.
• The proposed changes do not affect congregational property ownership.
• There are no changes to the provisions related to synod administration or preservation of congregational property.
• There are no proposed changes to the disaffiliation process.

Synod preservation is the name for the process described in S.13.24 in the “Model Constitution for Synods” by which synods can move in and take over the property and functioning of a congregation if – in the eyes of the synod – the congregation has become too scattered and/or diminished and/or is no longer able to fulfill its function.  We have previously written about how two synods have used that provision against congregations – Metro Chicago and Southwest California.    

The document also states that recommendations from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church have been incorporated in some of the proposed changes, and even though the report of the Commission is not yet complete, none of the Commission’s recommendations advanced to date would do any of the things mentioned in the bullet points above.

I have read, studied, and analyzed the twenty-one pages of proposed changes and the ten pages of rationale.  Here is my response.

1.  Why would the ELCA have spent who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and on hiring a law firm to do a DEIA audit of its governing documents if the results are no more than the constitutional changes that are currently being proposed?

2.  Do we really think that those who worked for the creation of the Commission are going to be satisfied if it accomplishes no more in advancing their goals – including the dismantling of racism – than what is included in the proposed changes?

3.  How can anyone imagine that the proposed changes call for something as major, involved, and expensive as a separate, reconstituting convention?  And will those who worked for the creation of the Commission be satisfied if there is no such convention?    

4.  We do not yet have the final report from the Commission.  The written summaries of each of their eleven meetings to date are very general and communicate very little.  And we do not know what will be included in their final report, which could very well contain recommendations that are more significant than what is included in the proposed changes.  But as we will see under the discussion of the amendments to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide,” the Commission has certainly prepared the way for the possibility (probability?) of their making and fast-tracking additional and more-far-reaching recommendations.     

My overall impression is this.  The ELCA does not value trust and does not know how to build trust.

1.   When the results of the DEIA audit were posted, which contained extensive recommendations for congregations which would consume the time and energy of any congregation that would try to meet them, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council came out with a statement regarding the status, implications, and/or ramifications of the audit. 

2.  Even though lack of communication creates fear and distrust, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council did anything to get the Commission to be more informative in their reporting. 

3.  The Presiding Bishop, Vice President, and Chairperson of the Conference of Bishops all totally ignored the communication from me regarding the bullying and abuse of power behavior on the part of the Metro Chicago Synod Bishop and Council in their using S.13.24 (synodical preservation) to take over and close a congregation.

4.  Nobody has stepped in and intervened when a synod (such as Southwest California) fights a war of attrition against a congregation.  Because of their closing congregations and selling properties, synods have the resources to fight long, protracted, legal battles against congregations, while individual congregations can only keep going for so long to try to protect themselves. 

With all of these dynamics, I do not understand why the Church Council and Conference of Bishops do not realize that there has been a crying need for greater communication all along.

Having shared these overall impressions, I would now like to highlight several specifics from the proposed changes and rationale which illustrate what I am saying.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND RATIONALE

The proposed amendments to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include the addition of several references to participants in Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs) to “expand inclusion and leadership opportunities.”  SWACs consist largely of community outreach and social justice-oriented groups.  Because they are established by synods and their ongoing existence is dependent upon synodical approval, they would not be able to resist synodical influence as a congregation could, if it so chooses.

Changes to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include one being recommended by the Candidacy Working Group of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church –

7.31.03.  This amendment is intended to produce a more flexible, competency-based discernment and formation process for candidates for the ministry of word and sacrament.  As stated in the Rationale, “By moving certain bylaws to the policy level in the Candidacy Manual, which can be approved by the Church Council after consultation with the Conference of Bishops, revisions that respond to changing realities could be made more swiftly than they can by constitutional amendment.”  In other words, the formation process for your future pastor could more easily be changed to match new ELCA agenda and priorities.      

Churchwide 7.31.07 and 7.61.07 – The Task Force on On Leave from Call and Specialized Ministry (as called for by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly) is recommending that the existing policies whereby synodical bishops can unilaterally deny a request for On Leave from Call status for rostered ministers be replaced by a new protocol in which synodical bishops make recommendations but the final decision is made by the synod council following a consultation process.  I assume this change is because of the disaster and uproar in the Sierra Pacific Synod back in 2021.

A more pronounced change is the addition in several places of a mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups.”  The ELCA views historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, diverse gender identities, and diverse sexual orientation.  I assume this change is the result of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  Please note that this requirement and/or goal is in addition to a mandated or desired level of participation of persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.    

For example, proposed amendments for the “Constitution for Churchwide” include –

• 41.11.e. – In addition to their regular number of voting members for the Churchwide Assembly, synods may elect one additional voting member who is a member of a historically underrepresented group and one additional voting member who is a person of color and/or a person whose primary language is other than English.
• 21 – In selecting staff members for the Churchwide organization, a balance is to be maintained of members of historically underrepresented groups as well as women and men and persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English (please note that there are no mandated percentages here).

Here is a mandated proposed amendment for the “Model Constitution for Synods” –

S6.04.02 – It is to be the goal of every synod that at least 10% of the voting members of the synod assembly, synod council, and synod committees and organizational units be members of historically underrepresented groups in addition to at least 10% being persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.  The synod council is to establish a plan for implementing this goal.   

Another example is 10.21.03. in the “Constitution for Churchwide” which says that the ELCA is to foster organizations for persons of all gender identities. 

The only recommended change in the “Model Constitution for Congregations” relevant to Chapter 7 (Property Ownership) is in C7.03 – to change the language from “transfer” to “relate” to another Lutheran church body.   

 Certainly so far the proposed amendments do show ELCA values and priorities.  But I do not see how they would require a special, very expensive, reconstituting convention.  For me what are most alarming are the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide” which would fast track the approval process for any additional amendments that may come to the floor – including from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – without requiring a second, separate, full Churchwide Assembly.  These amendments to Chapter 22 were recommended by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. 

A change in 22.11.a. would allow for the possibility of a special assembly amending the constitution in a single step, following recommendation of amendments proposed by the Church Council.    According to this amendment, the Church Council proposes an amendment and then sends official notice to the synods at least six months prior to the next (the word “regular” is eliminated) meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.

Changes in 22.11.b. would allow amendments introduced on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly to be ratified unchanged by a 2/3 vote of the Church Council within 12 months of the assembly, instead of waiting three years for the next Churchwide Assembly.   According to this amendment, 25 or more members of the Churchwide Assembly can propose an amendment.  It states, “The proposed amendment shall be referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its recommendation, following which it shall come before the assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become effective only if (the words are changed from ‘adopted’ to ‘ratified unchanged’) by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at the next (again the word ‘regular’ is eliminated) Churchwide Assembly.”  The amendment then adds “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.” 

In the same way, Amendment 22.21, which also was recommended by the Commission, would allow for bylaw amendments to be approved by a special assembly, not only by a regular assembly.

Obviously, the Commission is planning on introducing amendments in addition to those that were given to the Church Council early enough so that the Church Council could send them out to the synods six months prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. 

SUMMARY

We do not know what else the Commission will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly, though they obviously have prepared the way for their submitting more.  There appears to be a deliberate strategy so that recommendations still to come from the Commission can be approved and ratified quickly and easily.  We do not know what actually might happen at the Assembly.  Assemblies can take on a life of their own.  But we do know that it will not stop there.

* * * * * *

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Many thanks to Larry Becker, member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document, which he has sent to his congregation.  A link to his letter can be found HERE. 

HERE is a link to the analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network.  They also have a video on the same subject, a link to which can be found HERE.  As I mentioned at the beginning, they are the organization whose work probably motivated the ELCA to produce that document.  If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to their website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will also find a just-released video regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide.  Future videos will review other proposed changes coming from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly.  The Support Network very intentionally approaches issues related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Finally, because theology is important, HERE is a link to an account from Steve Gjerde, LCMC pastor and former vice president of the board of Lutheran CORE, of the process of his congregation’s leaving the ELCA and their theological reasons for doing so.  Steve particularly emphasizes their understanding of Holy Communion as informing and motivating their decision. 

* * * * * *

VIDEO MINSTRIES

“MY LIFE WITH CARL BRAATEN AND PHIL HEFNER” by ROBERT BENNE

Many thanks to Robert Benne, Professor of Christian Ethics at the online Institute of Lutheran Theology, for his very warm and personal reflections and memories of two former colleagues.  A link to his video can be found HERE.

Professor Benne writes, “One of the blessings of my life was to share a significant portion of it with those of two major Lutheran theologians, Carl Braaten and Philip Hefner, both of whom have died recently.  We not only shared fifteen years of teaching together at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, but extended our friendships for many years before and after those Chicago seminary years.  In the following video I will go through some of the memorable moments I shared with both of them. Of course, since they were theologians, I will touch on their theological contributions.  But many of the memories I will share have to do with other dimensions of our lives.  The video is meant to be something of a historical record of a special time in Lutheran history, but also a winsome tribute to two Lutheran theologians who also happened to be my friends.” 

Director’s Note: The contents of this post were provided to Lutheran CORE’s director by the Lutheran Congregational Support Network (LCSN).

The ELCA Office of the Secretary has produced a document in response to what they identify as “rumors that have been circulating regarding supposed changes to ELCA governance…” This document is being shared by ELCA bishops and synod leaders in what appears to be a response to information on the LCSN website.  

Myths or Facts: We want you to decide!

Start by:

• Reading a response to the “Myths and Facts” sheet found on LCSN’s website.
• Watching the videos of the synod assemblies of the Metro New York Synod and the Southwest California Synod as they apply synodical administration to viable congregations.
•  Connecting with LCSN if you have questions or need clarification.

We are simply providing information made public by the ELCA.

Read and engage in the discussion.

Stay tuned!

More videos will be coming soon…

Please reach out to us with any questions by replying to this email or contacting us directly at info@lcsn.com.

This isn’t about politics. It’s not about theology. It’s about autonomy.

Many thanks to Alan Williams for his video review of his book, “Captain Comet and the Intergalactic Patrol.”  A link to Alan’s review can be found HERE.  A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-six reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.    

Alan writes, “As a retired Lutheran pastor for 54 years of ministry (NALC and LCMC), I wrote three books that are science fiction, outer space and Christian, in hopes to touch the minds of high school and college aged people to come to know God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The spaceship Star Treader, with a crew of fourteen, has a five-year, galaxy-policing mission, which is completed with many challenges along the way and tragically the loss of some lives. The crew hail from five different planets and take their religious faith seriously as they call on God to help them deal with impossible difficulties such as space pirates, intelligent nuclear spiders, AI viruses, fighting trans-dimensional beings, and rescuing energy beings who are friends. They run into political shenanigans that almost cost them their lives. They find friends in unexpected places.  Alan writes, “The combination of adventure, faith, and camaraderie . . . is an exciting glimpse into the world of the future.”

Published by Christian Faith Publishing, Alan L. Williams’s new book is a thrilling space odyssey that will captivate readers of all ages. With its imaginative world building and dynamic characters, it offers a compelling exploration of courage, friendship, and the enduring power of faith. Consumers can purchase this book at traditional brick & mortar bookstores, or online at Amazon.com, Apple iTunes store, or Barnes and Noble. The author webpage is alanleewilliams.com.

Every year Lent is a time when we give thanks to God for His great love and amazing grace.  How much we need that love and grace.  Every year on the First Sunday in Lent the Gospel reading is the account in one of the synoptics of the temptation of Jesus.  This year the reading is from Luke 4.  The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus resisted the tempter and how He did so.  The author of the letter to the Hebrews expresses so beautifully and powerfully what that can mean to us.  “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4: 15). 

We have a God who can empathize with us.  But more than that, we have a God who paid the penalty for and broke the power of sin and who won the victory over death and the devil.  Therefore, we can “approach the throne of grace with boldness” for it is there that we will “receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4: 16)  Do you see the throne of God as a throne of grace?  Do you know that you can approach it with boldness?  Have you found at the throne of God mercy and grace to help in time of need?

What I would like to do is to go through Luke’s account of the temptation as found in Luke 4: 1-13.  As we do so, we will see what makes God’s throne a throne of grace and why it is possible for us to approach that throne with boldness.

Luke 4: 1-2 tell us that after His baptism “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.”  Matthew and Mark say it a little bit differently.  According to Matthew 4: 1, “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”  Mark 1: 12 says, “The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.”  When have you felt that the Spirit led you while you were in the wilderness?  When have you felt that the Spirit actually led you into the wilderness?  When have you even felt that the Spirit drove you into the wilderness?     

Luke 4: 2 continues, “He ate nothing at all during those days, and when they were over, he was famished.”  Note:  The devil attacked Jesus at a point of weakness – at a time of great vulnerability.  Remember: The devil also knows your points of weakness – your times of greatest vulnerability.  And that is exactly where the devil will attack you.    

We find the First Temptation in Luke 4: 3.  “The devil said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.’”  Just a few verses before, in Luke 3: 22, at His baptism, the Father had said to Him, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” 

I can see two possible things going on here.  First, Satan could be saying, “If you truly are who you think you are, then you should be able to turn these stones into loaves of bread.”  But Jesus knew that if He were to do that in order to have the strength to resist the devil, then He would be drawing on a power that would not also be available to us.  A second possibility is that here we see the devil attacking Jesus at His sense of self-identity.  He wanted to get Jesus to question whether He truly is the Son of God.  In the same way the devil will try to get you to question whether you are a child of God.  The devil is jealous of your identity as a child of God, so he will attack you there.  The devil will attack your self-identity, your self-image, your self-confidence. 

We find the Second Temptation in Luke 4: 5-7.  “Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.’” 

The truth is that the devil has no more right to lay claim to all the kingdoms of the world than I would have the right to try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.  The devil could claim that right only as a usurper – a thief.  The devil was also tempting Jesus to choose the easy, less painful way, and to avoid the way of the cross.  When has the devil tempted you to choose the easy, less painful way?  What was the result?  Would the easy, less painful way have worked? 

We find the Third Temptation in Luke 4: 9-11.  “Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,  for it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,” and “On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.”’” 

Again, the devil attacks Jesus by trying to get Him to question His identity as the Son of God.  Here we see that the devil knows the Bible (in this case, Psalm 91: 11-12), though he will misquote and misuse the Bible.  If the devil knows the Bible (and he has had many more centuries than any of us have had to learn the Bible), then we had better get to know the Bible too, so that we will not be led astray. 

Luke concludes his account with these words.  “When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.” (Luke 4: 13)  The devil is like the Terminator, who said, “I’ll be back.”

Again, I can see two things going on here.  First, the devil had finished every test.  The devil has thrown everything he has against Jesus and none of it knocked Him over.  Jesus experienced the full onslaught of evil and none of it worked against Him.  The devil does not need to throw everything he has against us, for we fall early in the process.  Jesus experienced the full severity of temptation in a way that we do not know because the devil does not need to use it all against us.

Second, we can ask the question, When was that “opportune time”?  I believe in the Garden of Gethsemane, where again the devil tried to tempt Jesus to go the easier, less painful way and avoid the way of the cross.

In Luke’s account of the agony in the garden after Jesus prayed, “Father if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done,” it says that “an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength.”  (Luke 22: 42-43).  Mark’s much more succinct account says, “He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan . . . and the angels waited on him.” (Mark 1: 13)

When have you experienced the ministry of angels after a particularly difficult time in your life, including a time of severe temptation?  When have you offered encouraging and strengthening ministry to someone else after a particularly difficult time in that person’s life, including a time of severe temptation?   My prayer for you during this Lenten season is that you will experience the throne of God as a throne of grace, that you will know that you can approach that throne with boldness, and that coming into God’s presence you will receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. 

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that

they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

“CRACKING OPEN THE HARD PARTS OF THE BIBLE”

by Ken Coughlan

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for his video review of his book, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible.” Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland. A link to Ken’s review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-five reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Regarding the book Ken writes –

Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? Did he order genocide? Does he value men more than women? Isn’t the Bible filled with contradictions, especially in the stories about Jesus’ birth or his death and resurrection? If you believe most atheists today, you’d answer all of these questions, “yes.” But you’d be wrong. Equally useful as a six-week group Bible study or for individual reading, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible” doesn’t just give answers to some of skeptics’ favorite targets in Scripture. It also provides six “interpretive principles” that will help you find the answers whenever you come across someone who says they’ve found something “wrong” with a Bible passage, or when you read something you find puzzling or troubling yourself. Not afraid to “crack open” those verses that are commonly thought to be the most problematic for the Christian faith, this book will give you the answers you seek and a strategy to tackle future conversations yourself.

* * * * * * *

LATEST ISSUE OF SIMUL

The latest issue of SIMUL, the Journal of St. Paul Lutheran Seminary, on “Free Will vs. Bondage of the Will” is now available. Click here: https://issuu.com/stpaulsimul/docs/issue_13_v5

Editor Dennis DiMauro writes –

This edition goes to the heart of the matter by exploring whether human beings actually have free will. In this volume, Roy Harrisville tells us what to do when those pesky door-to-door evangelists come calling. And Paul Owens explains what you should say when surrounded by a dozen free will preachers at the local pastors’ lunch.

Virgil Thompson takes another look at Gerhard Forde’s The Captivation of the Will to understand how freedom leads to bondage, but also (and paradoxically), how bondage leads to freedom. Marney Fritts provides a beautifully written and well-researched study on Luther’s Bondage of the Will.

Dennis finishes out this issue with a book review on Michael Massing’s 2019 tome Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind. Can the lives and experiences of these two great humanists shed light on their theologies about free will?

SIMUL can be read three ways. One can enlarge and read through the flip book on the top of the webpage (there is a full screen button that can be clicked on the lower right-hand side of the flipbook, and you can double-click or use the zoom slider at the bottom of the page for even more magnification), or one can scroll down and read each individual article. This second option

allows readers to share individual articles (that can be read on a cellphone) without sending the entire issue. You can also download a pdf to your device and keep it forever!

Many thanks to Dr. Mark Mattes of Grand View University, Des Moines, Iowa, for the video recordings of the lectures he recently gave on how we can be sure of our salvation.  These lectures were given at Lutheran Church of the Master in Corona del Mar, California, where Russell Lackey serves as pastor.  Until recently Russell was campus pastor at Grand View.    

Mark Mattes has been a Lutheran pastor for 38 years.  He served congregations in Illinois and Wisconsin and has taught theology at Grand View University for over 29 years.  He has authored and edited numerous books in theology and has lectured both across the country and in various parts of the world.

Concerning the theological and spiritual significance of his presentation, Mark wrote, “Many Christians look not just to Christ for the assurance of their salvation but also to changed behaviors, such as a greater engagement with prayer, Bible study, and witnessing.  They have a ‘checklist’ for evidence of conversion and ask you to mark off your progress in spiritual growth.”

In this presentation Mark shows us that this approach is simply not scriptural.  “The Bible tells us that Jesus alone is sufficient for our salvation.  If we look to changes in our lives and not to Christ alone, we jeopardize our assurance of salvation.  Anxiety, not security, is found when we look to the quality of our faith or righteousness for comfort.  Growing in devotional practices is a good thing but it does not guarantee our salvation. Nothing other than Jesus can secure those consciences anxious about God’s judgment.”

After watching these videos and reading his book on the same subject, “Ditching the Checklist,” I told Mark, “What you are saying I wish I had heard sixty years ago.  It would have saved me so much stress and anxiety.”

Here are links to his two You Tube videos.

The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

• Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
• Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration of the “church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

The task force that has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1.  They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.”  After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2.  This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.

The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31.  The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.

• A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
• A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
• A conversation guide for groups
• A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits

The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage.  Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.

The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February.  You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at reconsiderations@elca.org, but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.

I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force.  I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns.  When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed.  Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust. 

Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force.  Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.

I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process.  There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1.  I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.

Comment # 1

The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length.  The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length.  True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length.  But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex?  How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages?  It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.

Comment # 2 

I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.”  Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”        

To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.”  The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”).  On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.”  A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”  That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning.    True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15).  It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16).  But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009.  Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.         

Please check out the new page on our website, “ELCA Focus,” which brings together in one place a large number of resources and articles regarding the ELCA.  It is intended to help pastors, lay leaders, and congregations become aware of and prepared for the dramatic changes that are anticipated from decisions that will be made and actions that will be taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  A link to that page can be found here. 

There are three sections to the page – “What Is the Issue?”, “Stories from Churches”, and “Relevant Articles.”

“What Is the Issue?” (LINK) contains links to the websites for the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, and the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  The page also includes a link to my evaluation of a communication from an ELCA synodical bishop where he totally dismisses the legitimate concerns that people have about anticipated coming changes.  You will also find a link to power point slides that were used by the Reformers group of one ELCA congregation to inform their fellow members regarding issues within the ELCA.

If you have not yet checked out the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, we urge you to go to their website – https://lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org/  Their goal is to provide a means to inform ELCA congregations of coming constitutional changes in the ELCA and to help congregations be prepared and know how they can respond. 

“Stories from Churches” (LINK) contains links to actual accounts of pastors, churches, and lay leaders that have experienced the heavy-handed tactics of synods.

“Relevant Articles” (LINK) contains links to articles previously published by Lutheran CORE.  I do not see how anyone could read several of these articles and not say, “Something is very, very wrong.”

We hope this resource is helpful for you and that you will share it with others.