Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to Steve Shipman, NALC pastor and former director of Lutheran CORE, for his review of the book, A Harvest of Lutheran Dogmatics and Ethics: The Life and Work of Twelve Theologians 1960-2020 by Carl Braaten.

As Pastor Shipman points out, Carl Braaten personally knew or knows all of the people whose lifework is described in this book.  His concern is that the contributions of this notable group may be forgotten rather than remembered and built upon. 

Steve tells us, “The names are a Who’s Who of Lutheranism in my lifetime.  If you want to understand the Lutheran theological giants of the generation immediately preceding or including most of us, this book is an excellent place to begin.  I would wish that it would be required reading for anyone preparing for parish ministry.”

Carl Braaten shared, “During the pandemic lockdown in our community, I could think of nothing better to do than write a book.”  Steve Shipman commented, “We can hope that there are many more books to come from his keyboard and that God will continue to bless him with health, strength, and wisdom.”  

This review, as well as seventeen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

PLAYLIST

If you would like to watch Lutheran CORE’s playlist of all of our video book reviews, click here, then scroll down and start the video by selecting the play button or click on the three vertical lines near the top right of the first video to select a new video from the list that will pop up. 

I would like to tell you about two communications which I recently sent to ELCA leaders.  The first one I sent to Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  The second one I sent to a synodical bishop.  As usual, I have heard nothing from Bishop Eaton.  I am very grateful to the synodical bishop, who I feel has very graciously and respectfully listened to and heard my concerns.

My communication to Bishop Eaton had to do with the slowness of her response to a crisis brewing within the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod (SPS – northern California and northern Nevada).  Last December the SPS synod council took action to terminate the call of a Latino mission developer, and they implemented their decision on a day that is very special to the Latino community.  Please notice that I am not taking a position regarding the action taken by the SPS synod council.  What I am taking a position on is only the slowness of Bishop Eaton’s response – particularly in light of how quickly she will take a position and send out a communication on other matters that are not within her scope of authority, responsibility, and expertise.  Here is what I wrote to Bishop Eaton.

* * * * * * *

Dear Bishop Eaton –

I was astounded to learn that it took you over three weeks to send a communication to the ELCA Latino Ministries Association regarding the termination of call of the mission developer for the Mision Latina Luterana in Stockton, California. 

You have said that, as presiding bishop, you have no authority to interfere with the actions of synodical councils and synodical bishops, but I do not understand why it would take you over three weeks to reach out to the Latino community and acknowledge their confusion and pain over the loss of their pastor. 

When the verdict regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was announced, you almost immediately had a response and you spoke critically of the judicial system, as if you knew the facts of the case far better than those who were involved day after day with the case.

In your communication on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you did honor the veterans of World War II, and you did honor the memory of those who died in that conflict, including at Pearl Harbor, but you could not let it stay at that.  You also had to speak against racism.

There are plenty of issues, situations, and problems that need your attention in the organization over which you have oversight and responsibility.  I would suggest that you clean up your own house before you claim to be able to speak helpfully, insightfully, and authoritatively concerning matters over which other people have oversight and responsibility.

As one who has a deep love for Jesus,

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

I purposefully signed the letter as “Retired ELCA Pastor” rather than “Executive Director of Lutheran CORE,” hoping that might increase the chances of my receiving a response.  So far it has not.

* * * * * * *

WOKE FRAGILITY

My letter to a synodical bishop had to do with that synod’s joining with the ELCA in making a Statement of Land Acknowledgement as a primary part of all of its communications.

First, some background information.

The February 2022 issue of ELCA Worship News contains a section entitled “Resources for Land Acknowledgement.”  A link to that section can be found here.

Reading that section raised several questions in my mind as I realize that the ELCA Churchwide offices on Higgins Road, as well as the offices of all sixty-five of the ELCA synods, as well as all of the ELCA congregations, are all located on land formerly occupied by native Americans. 

First, the whole matter of land acknowledgement must be very important to the ELCA because its Declaration to American Indian and Alaska Native People commits the ELCA “to begin the practice of land acknowledgements at all expressions of the church.”  The importance of this practice is also displayed in the fact that the introductory letter suggests all kinds of occasions and ways in which land acknowledgement statements could be used – read aloud at the beginning of every worship service, printed at the top of worship bulletins, used to create outdoor signage and a plaque for the narthex, and used at the beginning of zoom meetings.  

Second, this practice is clearly based upon the premise that all land in the United States is stolen land.  The resource document states, “All land is Indigenous land.”  The introductory letter states, “A land acknowledgement is a ritual intended solely to show gratitude to the land and acknowledge the original and Indigenous peoples from whom the land was stolen.”  (A whole other issue is the fact that I do not know what it means to show gratitude to the land – not gratitude for the land, gratitude to God for creating the land and making it a good land, or gratitude to those who developed the land, but gratitude to the land.)

Third, both the introductory letter and the resource document clearly state that the practice of land acknowledgement is only a first step – and an easy first step.  The introductory letter says, “This is arguably one of the easier commitments.”  The resource document adds, “We understand that this protocol is only a first step and that, as we venture into the world, we must learn more, do more and realize healing and justice for the Indigenous peoples whose lands we now occupy.”

In my communication to this synodical bishop, I summed up the content of the introductory letter and resource document.  I then made the following three observations.  I believe that this issue is even more significant and poignant in light of the fact that the congregations in that synod are significantly diminished, the giving from the congregations to the synod has dropped significantly in the past decade, the annual spending plan for the synod is much greater than the anticipated income, and a significant part of the shortfall is made up from funds obtained by selling the properties of closed congregations.  Here is what I wrote to that synodical bishop.

“First, if the synod feels that the land now occupied by its offices and congregations is stolen land, then the synod is morally obligated to return to native American people at least the value of the land whenever a congregation is closed and the property is sold.  If the synod does not do that, then the synod is clearly being complicit in the stealing of land from Indigenous persons.  The word ‘complicit’ is a word that the ELCA uses often to describe those whose attitudes and actions it is critical of.  Before I accuse someone else of being complicit, I need to ask whether there is any area where I am being complicit.

“I can certainly understand the synod’s not returning also the value of the buildings, because the buildings were not present when the land was stolen.  But if the synod does not want to be complicit in the stealing of land by holding onto the value of stolen land, and for the synod to act in a way that is consistent with its values, statements, and priorities, then the synod would need to return to Indigenous persons at least the value of the land.

“Second, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority to have a statement of land acknowledgement as part of its communications and worship services?  Having such a statement without also returning to Indigenous people the value of stolen land gives the impression that the synod is in favor of justice only if being in favor of justice does not cost the synod anything.    

“Third, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority – along with the ELCA – to advocate for reparations for people of African descent?

“I am reminded of what John the Baptist said to those who came out to hear him and be baptized by him.  ‘Bear fruit that befits repentance.’ 

“When the ELCA, including the (Synod), calls upon our country to repent of past evils and injustice, then the ELCA, including the (Synod), also needs to think through whether there are any ways in which they are being complicit in perpetuating those evils and injustices.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

I am constantly amazed over how arrogant, self-righteous, ungrateful, and inconsistent the “woke” agenda actually is.  You take what they say, bring it out to its logical conclusions, apply their standards and criteria to them, and it collapses.  We hear a lot about “white fragility.”  I think instead we should hear about “woke fragility.”

HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

THE ELCA AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – PART TWO

Introduction

For the January 2022 issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, I wrote the first part of a two-part article entitled, “How Did It Happen?”  How did LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda completely take over the ELCA, and so quickly?  I began with an explanation of the principles of community organizing and how that methodology has been used extremely effectively by such groups within the Lutheran community as ReconcilingWorks.  A link to that article can be found here.

In that article I covered such things as –

• Resources for further study
• Community organizing as part of the curriculum at ELCA seminaries
• The emphasis upon strong relationships and shared values
• The “Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit” from ReconcilingWorks
• Minimal use and major misuse of Scripture

In this second part I will further describe how those who put into practice the principles of community organizing can take over a congregation.  Then I will close with several suggestions as to what those who hold to a high view of the authority of the Bible and the Bible’s clear teachings regarding human sexuality can and need to do.    

Mapping the Journey

A key component of community organizing is categorizing people according to how supportive and/or useful they will be to the cause, and then working to change the minds of the others who are most likely to change their minds and support the cause.

The fourth (out of eleven) steps is called “Mapping the Journey.”  In this step people are divided into five categories according to the level of their support or lack of support.

• Innovators – 2.5%
• Early Adopters – 13.5%
• Early Majority – 34%
• Late Majority – 34%
• Laggards – 16%

The percentages given for each category reflect the estimated percentage of people in the total group (a typical congregation) who will fall into that particular category.

The Innovators are expected to be either already on board or easily convinced.  They are then appointed as core team leaders and/or congregational influencers.  After the Innovators, the Early Adopters are the easiest to convince.  The Early Majority will require more persuasion to be on board, but with some effort, they, too, are not too difficult to convince.  Therefore, the Building an Inclusive Church (BIC) Toolkit recommends that these three groups be the primary focus of the efforts.

Because a vote to gain RIC (Reconciled in Christ) status requires a 75% vote on the part of the congregation, the Late Majority will also have to be engaged in order to have enough people to say “yes.”  The BIC Toolkit’s strategy for dealing with the Late Majority is to do the following:

• Focus first on the Innovators, Early Adopters, and Early Majority.  These people will be easier to convince.  Only then start working on the Late Majority.

• It is hoped that efforts to win over the Early Adopters and Early Majority will have some effect on the Late Majority so that it will be easier to convince them.

• Engage in One-to-One Visits with the Late Majority in order to get to know them better, build trust, make them feel heard, and form a strong relationship with them.

• Leverage this trust with the Late Majority in order to press them to agree with you, or at the very least to not be opposed to you, as you push for change.  (Statistically most people who do not agree with a decision will be willing to live with that decision if they feel that they have been heard and included in the decision-making process.)

• Gradually work on their hearts and minds, until they are willing to say at least “maybe” if not “yes.”

Laggards are regarded as lost causes.  No attempt is to be made to meaningfully engage with them.  Instead, the BIC Toolkit’s strategy is to engage with everyone else, get all the others on board, and then force the Laggards to either change their minds, begrudgingly accept the decision, or leave the community.  The expectation is that many Laggards will choose to just leave.

The community organizing approach reflects what ReconcilingWorks has been doing throughout the ELCA to bring the ELCA to becoming LGBTQ+ affirming.  This is how the liberal/progressive wing of the ELCA has managed to gain so much power and to have so many things, such as changes in liturgy and in church policy and practice, go in their favor.

Response and Actions

Clearly, the confessional Lutheran community has not been effective in battling the community organizing method nor in responding to the needs and concerns of those who get swayed by these tactics.  What do we who hold to a high view of the authority of the Bible and the Bible’s clear teachings regarding human sexuality need to do?  I can think of several things.

• We need a strong and effective response to these community organizing techniques.  We need to build strong relationships with people.  That is at the heart of how the LGBTQ+ affirming community was able to get so many people who were once opposed to their ideology to accept it.  If they can do it, we can do it too!  In fact, I believe that the revisionists may have had the advantage in gaining empathy through their telling stories of same-sex attracted people who have experienced rejection, are suffering from depression, and are even suicidal, but those who hold to traditional Biblical moral values should be able to have the advantage of gaining empathy through telling stories of people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery and now regret their decision, are experiencing medical ill affects because of their decision, and/or have found that their undergoing that surgery did not bring them the joy and peace that they had been hoping for. 

• We need to build a strong understanding of the basics of the Lutheran understanding of the Bible.  We need to promote and model good engagement with Scripture and proper understanding of Scripture – the whole of Scripture – in light of Scripture’s primary message of Law and Gospel.  People’s lack of Biblical knowledge and failure to properly engage with Scripture leave them vulnerable to all manners of false teaching.

• We need to model what showing love to the LGBTQ+ community looks like in a biblically sound way.  The charge against us – that we are angry and hateful – is widely believed because some people have experienced far more anger than love from those who hold to traditional views of human sexuality.

• We need to have good answers to such questions as, “What do I do if I am gay?” and “What should I do now that my child or friend has come out as gay?”  We need to do more than just tell people not to sin.  We also need to equip them with tools and support to resist sin.  We need to provide and be for these people a loving and supportive faith community which will walk alongside of them in their struggles against sin and will proclaim God’s gift of forgiveness for them so that – when they do fall – they will find hope in Jesus.

• We need to find resources that have been created for LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones that are biblically sound.  We need to find them, let people know about them, and promote their use.

• We need to provide support for LGBTQ+ identified persons who are honest about struggling with sin, yet who want to live in a biblically faithful way.  We need to encourage them and show them that it is possible to live a life that is pleasing to God.  These people carry a heavy burden, which is often made only heavier by rejection from conservatives (because of their having same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria) as well as from liberals (because of their wanting to live in a biblically faithful way).  These people need our support.  We need to have empathy for them and show love to them. 

Conclusion

There is no question but that those who have wanted to totally remake the church’s view and practice of issues related to human sexuality have been extremely effective – much more effective than those who desire to maintain traditional, Biblical moral values. 

In Luke 16: 8 Jesus said, “The children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.”  Those within the ELCA whose beliefs, values, and priorities reflect the world rather than are based upon the clear teaching of Scripture I would call children of this age rather than children of light.

We need to be concerned for upcoming generations, who more and more are going to be told lies concerning human sexuality, so we must be aware of the principles and methodology of community organizing.  Traditionally minded congregations need to be made aware so that they will not fall prey.  We who believe that the Bible is the Word of God need to show compassion and care for those who struggle with same sex attraction.  We need to be of encouragement, support, and help to their family members and friends.  And we need to be prepared to point them to resources that will help them live a life that is pleasing to God.        

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEWS

“THE PATIENT FERMENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH”  

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to ELCA Pastor Matt Voyer for his review of the book, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, by Alan Kreider. 

We all have admired and been in awe over the phenomenal growth of the early Church, even in spite of opposition and persecution.  Alan Kreider argues that the great growth of the early Church was driven by the lifestyle of early Christians.  What attracted people were not moving and relevant worship services but the way of life of the early believers.  It was not what Christians said, but what they did.  Their lives and habits and ways of being and living in the world drew people not just to the Church, but to our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Pastor Voyer highly recommends this book and suggests that it be read by individuals, church councils, and within small groups.

“A PLACE FOR TRUTH” – EDITED BY DALLAS WILLARD

I would also like to remind you of ELCA Pastor Kevin Haug’s review of a book edited by Dallas Willard, A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions.  Dallas Willard was a long-time professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and is well known for his writings on Christian spiritual formation.

The book is a series of fifteen lectures covering such topics as truth in relation to post-modernism, an examination of the exclusive claims to truth of Christianity, human DNA as evidence for a creator, and a psychological study of why some people may be atheists. 

Pastor Haug commented regarding the book, “I found it to be very intellectually stimulating and satisfying.  If you have a high regard for the authority of Scripture and a high regard for reason, logic, and science, if that is you, this book is for you.” 

These reviews, as well as fourteen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

PLAYLIST

If you would like to watch Lutheran CORE’s playlist of all of our video book reviews, click here, then scroll down and start the video by selecting the play button or click on the three vertical lines near the top right of the first video to select a new video from the list that will pop up. 

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

A friend of Lutheran CORE has written a side-by-side, phrase-by-phrase comparison of every phrase in the Lord’s Prayer as used by Ebenezer HerChurch with the version of the Lord’s Prayer as translated by the English Language Liturgical Consultation.  Here is a PDF link to that comparison, but it is also below in text.  Per Lutheran CORE’s Executive Director, Dennis Nelson, “People need to know how bad Ebenezer HerChurch is and that the ELCA allows it.”

---

The Lord’s Prayer is one of several liturgical texts which have been rewritten for use in worship at HerChurch. How does the revision fare? Here is a side-by-side, phrase-by-phrase comparison of every part of the The Lord’s Prayer as used at HerChurch with every corresponding part of the standard edition of The Lord’s Prayer as translated by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), with commentary on the revision.

HerChurch	Original
Our Mother	Our Father

This part scraps the biblical witness to take up unsanctioned innovation with pagan roots. In the biblical text, nowhere do we find a model of, and nowhere are we given the authority for, calling upon God by the name “Our Mother”. Worship of the “mother”, the “goddess”, the “divine feminine”, is a marked feature of pagan religious tradition. It has no basis in Christianity.

HerChurch	Original
who is within us,	in heaven,

Gone, in this part, are the ideas of heaven and that we have a higher power above us. We are to look within ourselves, rather than up to the one who is greater than we are. But God is above us, and greater than us. It is this very fact which makes the incarnation of Jesus Christ so radical: that God, the Most High, humbled himself to become like us, to suffer and die for us.

HerChurch	Original
we celebrate your many names;	hallowed be your name;

This part lacks humility. Rather than ask God to do for us, in this part, we are to tell God what we do. Rather than submit to God’s authority and will, we demand that God must submit to us. Absent is the notion that God’s name is holy, and the implied petition that God’s name be made holy in us. In fact, there is no mention of holiness in the revision.

HerChurch	Original
your wisdom come,	your kingdom come,

In this part, rather than ask for God’s kingdom—in which all wrongs are made right, all of God’s people belong, and all of creation is made whole—to come amongst us, here we are to ask merely for “wisdom” to be bestowed upon us. A rather myopic and self-centered request.

HerChurch	Original
your will be done, unfolding in the depths within us.	your will be done, on earth as in heaven.

Gone, again, is the idea of heaven, in this part. And, again, we have a myopic request. Rather than ask for the whole world to be subject to God’s good will, we are to ask only for God’s good will to unfold within ourselves. Quite inconsiderate, myopic, and self-centered.

HerChurch	Original
You give us everything we need.	Give us today our daily bread.

This part is more of a statement than a petition, an affirmation of sorts. The statement is not wrong, strictly speaking, as God does indeed give us everything we need. But the revision entirely misses a key point of the original petition: that we are told to ask, and free to ask, for our Father in heaven to provide our every need. God invites us to ask, and graciously provides for us.

HerChurch	Original
You remind us of our limits and we let go.	Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.

Gone, in this part, is the notion that we have “sins” for which we need God’s “forgive[ness]”, which is central to Christian faith. It is replaced with the words that we are “remind[ed] of or limits” and that “we let go”. But “sins” are not mere “limits”. “Sins” are trespasses against the Law of God. And we aren’t merely “remind[ed]” of our sins, nor are we to simply “let go” of

them. God calls on us to repent–confess, turn away from our sin, and turn again to God–in order to receive God’s forgiveness. Also gone, in this part, is the notion that we, too, are to forgive.

HerChurch	Original
You support us in our power,	Save us from the time of trial,

Entirely absent, in this part, is the notion that we are tempted, let alone that we need deliverance from temptation. That is replaced with an affirmation that God, supposedly, “supports us in our power”. But what kind of power? And to what end? The prayer does not say. God does not always “support us in our power”. Scripture has many examples of God rebuking the powerful, and of God taking away power from those who misuse it.

HerChurch	Original
and we act with courage.	and deliver us from evil.

Entirely absent is the notion that there is “evil” which we need to be delivered from. Instead there is an affirmation that, supposedly, “we act with courage”. But what act do we do with courage? Is it, or is it not, something of which God approves? Again, the prayer does not say.

This prayer is not particularly comforting to one who knows well that he or she does not “act with courage”. The original prayer is a source of strength to the weak ones who pray it in times of trouble. The revision expects that the one who prays is already strong and courageous.

HerChurch	Original
For you are the dwelling place within us, the empowerment around us, the celebration among us,	For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours,

This seems to be an attempt to avoid words that reflect power and hierarchy: “kingdom”, “power”, “glory”. There are some for whom it has become fashionable to replace “kingdom” with “kin-dom” for similar reasons. But the reality is that God is our King, has power over us, and has glory above ours. God is not our equal. God is greater. To strip that away masks the truth that above everyone and everything, above even the most powerful, God is King.

Again, the revised wording is self-centered rather than God-centered, inward-facing rather than Godward-facing. Rather than God’s “kingdom”, God’s “power”, and God’s “glory”, it speaks of our “dwelling place within”, our “empowerment”, our “celebration”.

HerChurch	Original
now and forever. Blessed be.	now and forever. Amen.

“Blessed Be” is a pagan greeting, as well as a common way to end prayers in neopagan traditions. And herein is revealed the true origin of the Our Mother in Heaven prayer, and more broadly, of the “Divine Feminine” spirituality which HerChurch promotes: paganism.

This “Divine Feminine” is not merely a contextualization of the historic Christian faith for women; it is something entirely different, which borrows heavily from pagan traditions, without truly “baptizing” them. The resulting religion strays quite far from biblical Christianity. It cuts out essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and it adds beliefs which are contrary to the Christian faith. We clearly see it happen in this revision.

This prayer is not the Lord’s Prayer. It is not even a poor imitation of the Lord’s Prayer. It is something different entirely. It bears little resemblance to the original, since it has been so thoroughly rewritten according to the whims of the “Divine Feminine” spirituality followers.

This prayer is not suitable for use in true Christian worship; avoid it entirely. Choose a standard translation of the Lord’s Prayer instead, in order to truly pray the prayer that Jesus taught us.

Introduction

A question I am often asked by people is this – How did it happen?  How did LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda completely take over the ELCA, and so quickly?  The purpose of this article is to show how the principles of community organizing were used most effectively to bring about this change.

The ELCA was formed in 1987 and began functioning as a church body in 1988.  At the 2005 Churchwide Assembly traditional values prevailed, though just barely.  It was not until 2009 that standards changed, and look at all that has happened since.  For nearly twenty-two of the thirty-four years that the ELCA has existed, at least the officially recognized position was more traditional.  It has only been during the last twelve years that revisionist views have prevailed.  Actually and officially, the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly only gave its blessing to (PALMS) publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same sex relationships.  But in reality the ELCA has fully embraced the LGBTQIA+ agenda, values, priorities, and lifestyle.  The ELCA has completely marginalized anyone who holds to any other view, and it is charging ahead at such a rapid pace that it makes you wonder whether anything could stop it except a total crash.

How did it happen?  Part of the answer can be found in the fact that those who have been driving this are super focused and relentlessly dedicated.  Part of the answer can also be found in the image of lily pads on a lake.  Let’s say that the area of the surface of the lake that is covered by lily pads doubles each year.  At first, the amount of increase is small.  Then it becomes larger and more noticeable.  Eventually lily pads are covering half of the lake.  At that point and at that rate how much longer will it take for lily pads to cover the entire lake?  One year.

Community Organizing

A more detailed answer can be found in the principles of community organizing and how that methodology has been used extremely effectively by such groups within the Lutheran community as ReconcilingWorks.  ReconcilingWorks is an organization that since 1974 “has advocated for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”  Specifically we will be looking at how community organizing is the central approach employed by the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit (BIC) developed by ReconcilingWorks in order to change peoples’ minds, turn the minority position into the majority position, and thereby take over the church.  A link to the Toolkit can be found here. 

Community organizing is also the primary approach employed by many other social justice activists – in the secular world as well as in the mainline church – in order to push for social change.  It is popular because it works.  Its techniques are effective, which is why and how the liberal/progressive movement has been so successful in taking hold of the mainline church and secular society.

Lutherans who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture need to be aware of this process, so that we might develop and offer an effective response.  Our failure to do so is a major reason why we are losing the battle – in the mainline church as well as in the secular world – to the LGBTQ+ agenda and other liberal/progressive concerns. 

Texts

Here are some resources that you can use for further study.  Fortress Press is “an imprint of 1517 Media.”  1517 Media is “the ministry of publishing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

• Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit by Reconciling Works
• Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing by Dennis A. Jacobsen (Fortress Press)
• Faith-Based Organizing by Charles Frederickson, Violetta Lien, Herbert E. Palmer, and Mary Lou Walther (Fortress Press)
• Faith-Rooted Organizing by Alexia Salvatierra and Peter Heltzel (Fortress Press)

Theological Education

Several ELCA seminaries offer classes and/or training in community organizing as part of the public theology and/or practical theology components of the seminary curriculum.  At one ELCA seminary the “public church” curriculum has become the primary organizing principle around which the degree programs are structured.  At other ELCA seminaries, efforts have been made and/or are in progress to expand the “public theology” focus, often at the expense of Biblical and confessional theological content.  At one ELCA seminary a career in community organizing is one of the possible career pathways that the Master of Theological Studies (M. T. S.) degree leads to and prepares for.

Background

Community organizing methodology was developed by Saul Alinsky, a secular Jewish man, in the late 1930’s.  Although Alinsky never identified as a socialist and/or a communist, he shared in common with them radical left (for his time) ideology, concern for the poor, and support for working-class communities and labor movements.  Alinsky saw the need to fight for specific goals and used the principles and techniques of community organizing to achieve those goals.

Overview

Community organizing relies on two main things – strong relationships and shared values.  Community organizers use these two things to change the minds of community members in order to get them to support a cause.  In this way they build a coalition of supportive people.  They then rally these people together and work together to press for change.

Community organizing begins with the following steps –

• Gather together a small core team of people who are already committed to your cause. These are the people who will start the process of pushing for change.
• Gather information about individual people as well as about the community. Build relationships with people.  Learn about what they believe and why.  Use what you learn to plan your approach.  Identify key influencers and supporters who may be assets to your cause.
• Tell stories which evoke sympathy and support for your cause.
• Build common ground with your community (shared values and/or experiences).
• Educate the community in order to bring its members to your side.
• Once the initial prep work has been done, choose a course of action.
  • Either a conflict approach, where the people in power are seen as your enemy.  If so, confront them and take them down.
  • Or a consensus approach, where the people in power are seen as people who can change their minds.  If so, convince them to side with you.

Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit

The Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit from ReconcilingWorks builds upon, and relies upon, the community organizing method.  Its approach assumes that there is already support from the leadership (clergy, church council, lay leaders, etc.) and that what needs to be done is to convince the rest of the community – enough to secure a 75% vote for RIC (Reconciling in Christ) status, as required by ReconcilingWorks.

As such, the proposed course of action is similar to the consensus approach.  However, normally in community organizing the primary target is people in power (i. e. the clergy).  However, in the BIT Toolkit, the primary target is the community at large (i. e. the congregation).  The primary target’s minds need to be changed in order to accomplish the desired goal. 

A Faith Community Assessment Survey is taken to evaluate the faith community’s current position(s).  A link to the survey can be found here. Based upon the results, one of three timelines is suggested – Cautious, Moderatus, and Adventurous.  The timetable ranges from six years to under one year.  But no matter how long it may take, those working to bring about change are focused and relentless.  

Whichever timeline is followed, the process is broken down into eleven steps, and there are six tools that are employed in order to work the process.  These steps and tools are described in the Toolkit.  Four of the six tools are Graceful Engagement, One-to-One Visits, Public Storytelling, and Scriptural Engagement.

Scriptural Engagement

It is interesting – and significant – that the sixth step – Providing Educational Opportunities – and the sixth tool – Scriptural Engagement – both come so late in the process.  Typically, people who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture would begin by focusing on what the Bible says.  But that is not what the BIC Toolkit does.  Instead the primary means of building community support are finding shared values – such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and welcome – and then engaging in carefully crafted storytelling in order to evoke sympathy and support for the cause.  “Scriptural Engagement” does not actively come into play until the steps that build support from the community have already been completed. 

It should not surprise us that “Scriptural Engagement” does not come until late in the process.  The Bible does not support what ReconcilingWorks is trying to accomplish.  The Scripture passages that are included in the BIC Toolkit include Luke 10:29-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan), John 4: 4-26 (Jesus and the woman at the well), Matthew 22: 35-40 (the Greatest Commandment), Matthew 26: 51-52 (Peter’s cutting off the high priest’s servant’s ear), and Luke 23: 34 (one of the words of Jesus from the cross.)  There is obviously no way that these passages support the LGBTQIA+ agenda.  They do not even address LGBTQIA+ issues.  No wonder support and agreement must be built in other ways rather than on the clear message of Scripture.  Relying on the principle that feelings are often more important and more powerful than facts when it comes to convincing people to change their minds, the BIC Toolkit focuses on feelings-based approaches, such as storytelling, rather than on facts-based approaches, such as asking what the Bible says, in order to get people to come on board with the cause. 

By the time the “Scriptural Engagement” tool comes into active use, the community’s minds and hearts have already been shaped into being LGBTQ+ affirming.  Very little of Scripture is engaged with, and the purpose as well as the message of Scripture is distorted.  The whole of Scripture’s message is reduced to three themes –

1. We are called to love God and love our neighbors.
2. It is not our place to judge.
3. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Specific passages from Scripture which appear to support these themes are selectively chosen in an effort to demonstrate that these ideas form the fundamental message of Scripture.

Other themes of Scripture – such as sin and our need for God’s forgiveness, God’s command that we repent of our sins, our need to obey God, and the Bible’s instructions regarding holy living – are minimized or avoided entirely. 

The prescribed approach to the so-called “clobber passages” (the passages that clearly speak against same-sex sexual behavior) is to avoid them, or else to minimally engage with them only as needed, until the three themes mentioned above are firmly established in the hearts and minds of the community as the primary message of Scripture.  Only then are the “clobber passages” engaged with, under the assumption that, if indeed the primary message of Scripture is one of welcome and inclusion, and the “clobber passages” are neither welcoming nor inclusive of LGBTQ+ identified people who are engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, then either we have misunderstood these “clobber passages” or the “clobber passages” must be wrong in some way. 

With so little engagement with Scripture, and with what little of Scripture is utilized being so badly misrepresented, people are left with an understanding that is far from biblically sound.

I will be completing this article in my February Letter from the Director.  In that second part I will tell more about how the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit uses the principles of community organizing to change people’s minds and get them on board with the cause.  I will also offer several suggestions as to what those with a high view of the authority of Scripture need to do and can do in order to provide a viable, effective, and convincing alternative. 

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to NALC pastor Jeffray Greene for giving us a video review of the book Ethics by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  According to Pastor Greene, “The thoughts are profound and will cause you to think on a different level.”  Pastor Greene acknowledges that “it is not an easy read,” and this is the third time he has read it, but he shares that “if you allow it to be digested, it will help you to further shape the understanding and wisdom that God gives through Scripture.” 

Bonhoeffer was a deep thinker who struggled with the good and evil which surrounded him.  His was a keen mind which wrestled with the horrific realities which the twentieth century produced.  Unlike many of his fellow citizens, he was fully aware of the atrocities of the Holocaust and the decadence of the Nazi regime.  After lengthy incarceration and concentration camp privation, he was executed by the Nazis on April 9, 1945, just days before the Allied liberation. 

While wrestling with these things in the privation caused by a tyrannical and self-destructive regime, Bonhoeffer did not focus on what he saw around him with eyes that judged the evil.  Rather he focused on the goodness of God, which calls us to live according to the Lord’s purposes.  Pastor Greene concludes, “To do so is what ethics is all about.”     

This review, as well as fourteen others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

THE THINGS IN MARY’S HEART

I’ve always liked the way in which the Gospel writer Luke concludes his version of the Christmas story by telling us that Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2: 19).  I have often wondered, What are the things that Mary kept and pondered in her heart?  Luke does not tell us, though Mary might have told Luke.  But we can speculate.

1. How much she loved and appreciated Joseph

The first thing that Mary must have kept and pondered in her heart was how much she loved and appreciated Joseph.  For it had not been easy for Joseph.  And Mary knew it.

What kind of man was Joseph?  Even when Joseph thought that Mary had done him a great wrong, still he had no desire to punish – or even kill – or humiliate her.  Rather he intended to break off their engagement quietly.  Joseph had an inner strength that Mary certainly must have admired.

In the Jewish home it was the father who had primary responsibility for the religious instruction of the children.  Luke tells us that at the age of twelve Jesus impressed the teachers in the Temple with His knowledge of the Scriptures.  Joseph must have done his job very, very well.

Jesus told about a Heavenly Father who will not hold back any good things from His beloved children.  Joseph must have been that kind of an earthly father.  No wonder Mary loved him so much. 

I think of my own life partner, Terry, and how much I love and appreciate her.  We were married for thirty-two of the forty years that I served as pastor of a congregation.  She was always so supportive of and involved in my ministry.  She is a model of Christian faith and service.  Even now, in retirement, she continues to be involved in ministry.  She has a tremendously giving heart.  Christmas is a time to stop and think about how much our families and friends mean to us, what it was about our marriage partner that first attracted us to him or her, and what it is that we most love and appreciate about them.

2. The mystery of the birth of her child

And then a second thing that Mary must have kept and pondered in her heart was the mystery of the birth of her child.  Somebody once said, How could there possibly be an atheist in a maternity ward?  How could any mother ever hold her newborn infant in her arms for the first time and not feel that something sacred has just happened?

I often wonder if whoever turned Mary and Joseph away from the inn that night would have responded differently if he or she had known who they were.  Or, even more importantly, if he or she had known who was about to be born.  But it did not happen that way.  The Son of God was born in a cave. 

And so during this Christmas season may we ponder the miracle of birth.  The miracle of Jesus’ birth, the miracle of our birth, and the miracle of our rebirth.  Let us wonder at and glory in the Good News that the God of all creation values each and every one of us as His own dear, beloved child.  We are all somebody of great importance to Him.

3. The strangeness and unexpectedness of the whole thing

And then a third thing that Mary must have kept and pondered in her heart was the strangeness and unexpectedness of the whole thing. 

Except for some shepherds, there is no indication that anyone in Bethlehem knew what was happening that night.  No suggestion that anyone in Jerusalem, only a few miles away, took any notice of the event.  Sure, sometime later, there were a few astrologers from the East who saw an unusually bright star and then followed that star until it came to rest over the house where the young child lay.  Except for some shepherds, for the rest of the world, it was a night like all other nights. 

For Mary it might all have been a blur.  The visit from the angel nine months before.  The joy of her cousin Elizabeth, when she recognized that Mary would bear the Messiah.  The cruel, uncaring political events that had forced her and Joseph to go to Bethlehem – and at the most inconvenient of times.  What was she – a young peasant girl – probably only about thirteen or fourteen years of age – to make of all of this?

As the smell of the straw, the sounds of the animals, and the crudeness of the manger bed filled her senses, Mary must have been wondering about the meaning of it all.  Could the King of kings really be born in a cave?

But doesn’t God often work in that way – in the most unexpected of ways?  When has God come into your life and/or worked in and through your life when you least expected it and in ways that you never would have imagined?

4.  The presence of God

And then, fourth, on this most Holy of Nights, Mary must have been most deeply conscious of the presence of God.  For here was God’s own, dear Son lying before her.

How do you think Mary felt as she gazed upon her new-born Child?  Like at no other time in her life, God must have felt very, very real and very, very close to her. 

When has been the time in your life when God felt the most real and the most near to you?  My hope and prayer for you is that God will feel very real, very near, and very close to you during this Christmas season.  In the joy and love of family life.  In the warmth and beauty of Christmas carols.  In worship and fellowship with other believers.

Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.  My hope and prayer for you is that during this Christmas season you will experience many things that you will treasure, keep, and ponder in your heart.  Things like the love and loyalty of those closest to you.  The magic and mystery and miracle of human life.  The way in which God sometimes works in ways we would never expect.  And the presence of God.  All these things are more than enough to fill our hearts to overflowing this Christmas season with love and joy and peace and hope and goodwill.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEW – “A PLACE FOR TRUTH” – EDITED BY DALLAS WILLARD

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to ELCA Pastor Kevin Haug for giving us a review of a book edited by Dallas Willard, A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions.  According to Pastor Haug, this is a book that encourages some really deep thinking.  Its primary audience would be Christians who are dealing with some of the really big questions in life, such as why are we here, does God exist, and what is the role and purpose of suffering.  It would also be of interest to non-believers who would be curious about a Christianity which takes the authority of the Bible seriously while also taking science, reason, and logic seriously.

The book is a series of fifteen lectures compiled by Dallas Willard.  These lectures were delivered as part of the Veritas Forum, a movement which seeks for truth and seeks to apply truth to a university setting.  Lectures cover such topics as truth in relation to post-modernism, an examination of the exclusive claims to truth of Christianity, human DNA as evidence for a creator, and a psychological study of why some people may be atheists.   

Pastor Haug commented regarding the book, “I found it to be very intellectually stimulating and satisfying.  If you have a high regard for the authority of Scripture and a high regard for reason, logic, and science, if that is you, this book is for you.” 

This review, as well as eleven others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

After reading two recent communications from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, the only conclusion I can come to is this.  She just does not get it.

The first communication is dated September 3, 2021 and is entitled, “We Are the Body of Christ.”  A link to that communication can be found here. In that letter Bishop Eaton writes about the great, long-standing animosity between Jews and Gentiles, and about how in the early church, these two groups of people were able to be brought together.  She refers to the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 as well as to the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and to how “the dispute between the two groups was healed.”  She said that this healing “went to the very core of what it meant to be part of the church.”  She then said, “They were one body.  We are one body. . . . Yes, we have significant disagreement about very important issues, but our cultural and political differences cannot dissolve this bond.”  I was absolutely floored by what she wrote next.  “We can take heart from the example of the early church.  If, by the Spirit’s power, they could set aside their differences – which were far greater than any of ours – then we, too, by the power of the Sprit, can live into the unity that already exists in Christ.”

She just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans today who hold to the authority of the Bible and who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are a reliable interpretation of the Bible and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.  For example –

No one in the early church led the young people of that church in denouncing the views of the more traditional folks as a lie from Satan that needs to be renounced – unlike what happened at the 2018 ELCA youth gathering. 

The apostles did not ignore, dismiss, minimize, or marginalize the Hellenists when they expressed their concern that their widows were being neglected (Acts 6).  Instead, they appointed seven deacons to resolve the matter.  In contrast, those with traditional views are usually totally ignored when they express their concerns to those in positions of power.    

Heresies in the early church were dealt with (for example, see Colossians 2) rather than just accepted or even celebrated as culturally sensitive ways to contextualize the Gospel.

After the early church made their decision in Acts 15 as to how uncircumcised Gentiles could be a part of the church, they did not then a few years later claim to have decided something else.  Their honesty and integrity in holding to what they had decided stands in sharp contrast with the way in which the ELCA has expanded and re-interpreted what was actually voted on and approved in 2009 so that they are now able to embrace the full LGBTQIA+ agenda. 

The apostles did not break promises and ignore commitments as the ELCA has done by its not giving a place of honor and respect to traditional views and those who hold them.  I have heard of white male seminarians with traditional views being told to put tape over their mouths and not speak.  I also know of people whose ordination candidacy process was cancelled or who were denied entrance into the candidacy process because of their traditional views.   

Yes, Bishop Eaton just does not get it.  The differences between confessional Lutherans and those who would call themselves the “progressives” are not far less than, instead they are far greater than the differences between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.

Even more out of touch with reality is what Bishop Eaton wrote in the second communication, which is dated October 20, 2021, and is entitled, “A pastoral letter from the ELCA presiding bishop regarding the actions of the Reformed Church in America General Synod 2021.”  A link to that communication can be found here.  In that letter she told about one of the ELCA’s full communion partners, which had recently met in General Synod.  The final Vision 2020 Report was presented to the assembly, with its recommendations for the future of the denomination “with regard to staying together . . . and grace-filled separation.”  Bishop Eaton commended that church body for “adopting regulations to provide an unobstructed pathway for those local churches that will depart the denomination.”  She praised their actions, which she says “reflect the RCA’s commitment to walking together, respecting differences, and affirming common mission and ministry.”  She described the spirit of the synod as “conciliatory and hope-filled, as delegates shared their disagreements in the bond of peace.” 

What she then says in the next paragraph is totally out of touch with reality.  She talked about how the ELCA has “traveled this same road.”  She uses language from the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” when she says, “It is possible, by the grace of God, to be a church that makes an active choice to live with the disagreement among us, and ‘to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and respect.”  How out of touch can you get?  There may have been those who – back in 2009 – were deceived into buying that line so that they were willing to vote in favor of the human sexuality social statement and the changes in ministry policies.  But I do not know anyone today who continues to believe that the ELCA has any plans to “honor bound conscience.”

I know that there are ELCA bishops and synod councils who have been gracious in their dealings with congregations who were voting to disaffiliate from the ELCA.   But I have also heard many stories of bullying, intimidating, threats to take property, and efforts to get as many dollars as possible from congregations who wish to leave.  I know of retired ELCA pastors who were told by their synods that they would be removed from the ELCA clergy roster if they did not leave a congregation that has voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  I know of a seminarian who was no longer welcome at an ELCA seminary once the congregation that she was affiliated with began the process of leaving the ELCA. 

Too many ELCA congregations have not experienced a “grace-filled separation.”  Too many ELCA congregations did not find “an unobstructed pathway” when they began the process of voting to leave the ELCA. I am certain that what Bishop Eaton wrote in her October 20 communication is something that she wishes were true and that she desires to be true.  But why does she not know that it is not true?  Does she really think that people will believe what she wrote?   

On September 27 the ELCA released a “Declaration of the ELCA to American Indian and Alaska Native People.”  The document contains a full page of confessions to the American Indian and Alaska Native communities of the ELCA and in the U. S. as well as to non-Indigenous communities of the ELCA.  A link to that document can be found here.

There is no doubt – there is absolutely no question – but that when settlers from Europe came to America, there were already people living here.  There is no doubt – there is absolutely no question – but that treaties were broken, promises were not kept, and people – including children who were forcibly enrolled in boarding schools – were mistreated and abused.  There is much that we need to repent of.  We also know that all of our homes and all of our churches – and even the ELCA office building on Higgins Road – are all built on land that once belonged to someone else.    

I am reminded of the account in 2 Samuel 21, when “there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year” (verse 1).  David inquired of the Lord and asked why.  The Lord replied, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The Israelites had made a treaty with the Gibeonites when they first entered into the Promised Land (Joshua 9).  Even though the Gibeonites had tricked the Israelites into making that treaty, Joshua knew that they still needed to keep their promises.  But several generations later – during the time of King Saul – those promises were broken.  Israel needed to deal with the fact that they had not kept their word.  They had to face what they had done.  It was only after they had done so that God would again bless them.  2 Samuel 21: 14 tells us that after Israel made things right, “God heeded supplications for the land.”  It makes you wonder if part of the reason for all of the problems within our country – as well as within the ELCA – is because of promises that have been broken.

But there are a couple sentences within that declaration/confession that make me deeply troubled.  In the first paragraph it says, “We have devalued Indigenous religions and lifeways.”  In the second paragraph it says, “We confess that we are complicit in the annihilation of Native peoples and your cultures, languages, and religions.”  I completely agree that it is severely wrong to devalue other people and their lifeways.  It is absolutely wrong to annihilate other peoples and their cultures and languages.  What I want to address is the ELCA’s confessing its devaluing indigenous religions.  I read that statement in the light of the “Declaration of Inter-Religious Commitment,” which the ELCA Churchwide Assembly overwhelmingly approved in 2019.  A link to that document can be found here. 

What concerns me about the ELCA’s Declaration of Inter-Religious Commitment is the section entitled, “Limits on our knowing.”  In that section it says, “We must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding another religion.”  Instead it says that “all we know, and all we need to know, is that our neighbors are made in God’s image and that we are called to love and serve them.”  Certainly our neighbors are made in God’s image.  Certainly we are called to love and serve them.  But since it is a fact that people who are not followers of Jesus also love and serve their neighbors, then the ELCA is saying that the church of Jesus has nothing unique, valuable, and important to offer to other people.

If the church of Jesus has nothing unique, valuable, and important to offer to other people, then I could see why we might feel the need to confess devaluing other religions.  But if the church of Jesus does have something unique, valuable, and important to offer to other people, then it is not that we devalue other religions.  Rather it is that we value people.  We love people, and we want people to know and love Jesus and to know that Jesus loves them.  We would not be loving and serving our neighbors if we did not tell them about Jesus.  

Are the only options either devaluing other religions or feeling that as followers of Jesus we have nothing unique, valuable, and important to offer?  The account of the apostle Paul in Athens in Acts 17 says that there is another option.  Please notice five things from this account.

First, verse 16 says that Paul was “deeply distressed to see that the city (of Athens) was full of idols.”  Are we deeply distressed over the ways in which people place so many other things before and above God?

Second, in verse 22 Paul began his message in front of the Areopagus on a very positive note.  He did not blast the people for all of their idols.  Instead he said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way.”  In our relating to people who do not know Jesus, do we begin on a positive note and do we maintain a positive spirit? 

Third, we see in verse 23 that Paul had taken the time and had put forth the effort to become familiar with their culture and the objects of their worship.  He said, “As I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship.”  Do we do the same?  

Fourth, he found a connecting point.  As Paul looked carefully at the objects of the Athenians’ worship, he came across an altar with the inscription, “To an unknown god.” (verse 23)  Do we look until we can find a connecting point?  Can we identify the aspects of our culture that reveal the spiritual yearnings and longings of people?

Fifth, he was able to relate to the people by quoting from their poets, who had said, “In him we live and move and have our being” and “We too are his offspring.” (verse 28)  Are we able to relate to and connect with people today by quoting from the sources that give expression to their feelings, needs, and longings?

So either devaluing other religions or feeling that as followers of Jesus we have nothing unique, valuable, and important to offer are not the only options.  Like the apostle Paul, we need to recognize the spiritual yearnings and longings of people, and then we need to find ways to connect with them.  We do this, not because we devalue their religions, but instead because we value people.  We love people, and we want people to know and love Jesus and to know that Jesus loves them. 

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to NALC pastor Mark Werner for giving us a review of Heather Ruesch’s book, Sexuality Mentality: Creating a Culture of Biblical Integrity.

Because we are being bombarded by all sorts of propaganda and lies that the devil uses to deceive and destroy, Pastor Werner feels that we need a book like this one, which views sexuality as a good gift from God which enriches life when people live according to God’s design for healthy relationships.  Knowing that many pastors have been worn down and are tired from speaking about sexuality on the floors of synod assemblies, Pastor Werner states that the confessional church is now often too silent and is not speaking the truth in love, particularly in regard to our teenagers.  Reminding us that our primary identity is not in our sexuality but in Jesus Christ, Pastor Werner recommends this book as a must read for parents.  In addition, it can be used within congregations as youth engage in dialogue with their peers and are able to have honest, faithful conversations with their parents and the pastor.  The book is available through Concordia Publishing.   

Mark Werner is pastor of Emanuel Lutheran Church in Elmer, New Jersey and is a member of the NALC Executive Council.     

This review, as well as eleven others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.