The past couple months I have had the privilege of representing Lutheran CORE at four most inspiring events – the NALC theology conference, missions festival, and convocation (August 6-9 in Indianapolis); Lutheran CORE’s annual Encuentro bi-lingual ministries festival (September 14 at an ELCA congregation in Chicago); the STS (Society of the Holy Trinity) general retreat (September 24-26 at a Roman Catholic retreat center north of Chicago); and the LCMC gathering (September 29-October 2 in Omaha).

Space
does not allow for a thorough report on all of them, so what I would like to do
is to share one or two highlights from each of them.

INDOOR VS. OUTDOOR CHRISTIANITY

On
behalf of Lutheran CORE I would like to extend our congratulations to Pastor
Dan Selbo on his election as the next bishop of the North American Lutheran
Church.  Our prayers and best wishes are
with him as he steps into this position of leadership, care, and
oversight.  The answers that he gave to
such questions as “What Should Be the NALC’S Most Important Ministry
Priorities?” and “What Challenges Do You See Facing the NALC?” make me
confident that he is going to give wise, powerful, and effective leadership for
the church.  I believe that the Holy
Spirit was present and guiding the process for the election of a new
bishop. 

The
address from Gemechis Buba, Assistant to the Bishop for Missions, at the close
of the missions festival was most inspiring. 
He based his presentation on the account in John 20 of what took place
on that first Easter Sunday evening. 
John tells us that as “the doors of the house where the disciples had
met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said,
‘Peace be with you. . . . As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’”  Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive
the Holy Spirit” (verses 19-22).

Dr.
Buba commented, “When the Holy Spirit is blown on us, there are no more closed
doors.”  Many are accustomed to indoors
Christianity.  They see everything as
diminishing and closing.  But the Holy
Spirit is moving us from indoor Christianity – where there are closed doors –
to outdoor Christianity – where there are open doors.  He spoke of several Oromo churches, who at
first were concerned because they were being kicked out of buildings.  They were wondering, “Where will we go
now?”  They are no longer renting
buildings.  Rather they are buying
buildings. 

Dr.
Buba also shared how the church of Jesus Christ is always under pressure.  The persecution and pressure may be different
in different parts of the world, but we are all under pressure.  Satan is seeking to destroy the church.  But when the Holy Spirit is leading the
church, the church becomes unstoppable. 
Receiving the Holy Spirit, the early disciples moved from being in one
room behind closed doors to being out in the world, speaking in many different
languages. 

Dr.
Buba reminded us that some say that there is no future for the church in
present-day America.  But we follow an
unstoppable Holy Spirit.  With the early
disciples we move from one room with closed doors in Jerusalem through open
doors to all over the world.

May
we follow our crucified and risen Lord Jesus, who has given us the Holy Spirit
and who now leads us to follow him from behind closed doors into the outside,
waiting world.   

* * * * * * *

NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH

I believe that our annual bi-lingual ministries Encuentro is our strongest connecting point with the ELCA.  The Encuentro is an annual gathering of inspiration, fellowship, support, and resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations who either are currently involved in or are considering becoming involved in Spanish and/or bilingual (Spanish-English) ministries.  It is held at an ELCA congregation in northwest Chicago (St. Timothy Lutheran Church).  It is co-sponsored by Lutheran CORE and the Bilingual Ministries Resource Center out of First and Santa Cruz Lutheran Church in Joliet, Illinois (another ELCA congregation).  The majority of those who attend are ELCA, and the majority of the presenters are ELCA – including pastors, theologians, and national church staff.  We were especially delighted this year to receive an email greeting from Bishop Jeffrey Clements of the ELCA’s Northern Illinois Synod, and we were deeply honored that Bishop-Elect Yehiel Curry of the ELCA’s Metro Chicago Synod stopped by.  Bishop-Elect Curry said during his greeting, “I represent the entire synod.”  How delighted we were that the bishop would include in his definition of “the entire synod” a congregation that would host an event planned and sponsored by Lutheran CORE.

When
so much of our work is a critical review of much of what is done and valued by
the ELCA, it is refreshing to have this annual event, which is a source of
support and encouragement for many in the ELCA. 
Lutheran CORE and the ELCA disagree on many, very basic things, but we do
agree on the importance of reaching out to and receiving the gifts of Spanish-speaking
people.

I
would also want to mention the intentional inter-Lutheran outreach of this
annual event.  We were very happy to
welcome several LCMS pastors and lay people. 
   

Main
presenter was Dr. Maxwell Johnson, ELCA theologian and professor at Notre Dame
University in South Bend, Indiana.  Dr.
Johnson is incredibly knowledgeable, dynamic, energetic, and even funny.  He really engages with his audience and is
very clear in his teaching of the orthodox Christian faith.  Much of his second presentation was on the
Virgin of Guadalupe and her appearance to a native Mexican peasant farmer by
the name of Juan Diego.  Much of what he
said reminded me of the Magnificat in Luke 1, where Mary praised God for
lifting up the lowly (verse 52).  Dr.
Maxwell shared how her appearance gave the hope of the Gospel to people who had
no Good News from what was coming from Spain. 
Juan Diego was one of the low and despised indigenous persons who became
a messenger of God to the powerful, both in government as well as in the
church.  Dr. Maxwell sees her appearing
as an example of God’s care for and identification with the poor.  He said, “For people who have been told that
they are inferior – for the Juan Diegos of this world – there is
vindication.”  He added, “The Virgin of
Guadalupe is not necessary for salvation, but she is an expression of God’s
love.”

It was exciting to see the extent to which St. Timothy is reaching out to its neighborhood.  There were several from the community present during part of the event, and both the beginning of a mariachi-led Misa Panamericana as well as a prayer vigil for peace in the city of Chicago were held outside – as a witness to the community.  One woman who came with her family to the Encuentro invited everyone to her home on the evening of Wednesday, December 11, the day before the annual commemoration of the Virgin of Guadalupe on December 12.  This will be one of several Wednesday evening Advent prayer gatherings for the St. Timothy congregation.  The text for these evening home Bible studies and Vespers will be Mary’s Magnificat from Luke’s Gospel.

Part of the festival was a re-dedication of a more-than-a-century-old baptismal font, which had not been used in worship for several years.  That rededication seemed like a recommitment on the part of the congregation to reach out to its community.

                                                       
* * * * * * *

NOT ASHAMED OR AFRAID TO CALL GOD FATHER

The
second time I had the opportunity to hear from Dr. Maxwell Johnson was at the
Society of the Holy Trinity (STS) general retreat.  At that event he spoke on “Ecclesia Semper
Reformanda” (the church must always be reformed) as it relates to baptism and
the eucharist.  I deeply appreciated the
powerful case he built against the radical hospitality movement, which would
invite all people to receive the Lord’s Supper whether or not they have been
baptized.  Here are some of the
statements Dr. Johnson made which I thought were particularly helpful and
insightful.  “In baptism the eucharist
begins; in the eucharist baptism is sustained.” 
“No one deserves baptism; the eucharist is the birthright of the
baptized.”  “The exclusion of the
unbaptized from the eucharist is not to protect the eucharist, but out of
pastoral care and concern for the unbaptized.” 
They might not be ready to make a confession of faith in Christ and to
commit to the costly discipleship of the life of following Christ.  I also appreciated his comment, “The purpose
of liturgy is not to permeate our lives with ritual, but to permeate our lives
with Christ.”

It
was refreshing being with people who are not hesitant to affirm the Trinity and
the Trinitarian nature of our faith.  It
was also refreshing being with people who are not afraid and ashamed to call
God Father.  The Society of the Holy
Trinity is an inter-Lutheran ministerium which regularly gathers pastors for
mutual encouragement, prayer, and study, fortifying continued faithfulness to
ordination vows.

The
campus of the University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary, where the
retreat was held, is beautiful, and the singing at the worship services was
awesome.  Very often I did not join in
the singing because I just wanted to be surrounded by the beauty of voices
lifted up in praise to God.

The
Rev. Dr. Ryan Mills, STS, pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in New Haven,
Connecticut, and dean of the New England Chapter of the Society, gave the
message at the closing worship service. 
The Scripture passages were the account of the Last Supper in Mark 14
and Luke’s description of the shipwreck on the way to Rome in Acts 27.  As I listened to those passages being read, I
was wondering how they were going to be related to each other.  The way Pastor Mills did it was brilliant.

In
Mark 14 Jesus sends a couple of his disciples into Jerusalem, where they are to
follow a man carrying a jar of water. 
Men usually did not carry water in those days, so this man was sure to
catch their attention.  They were to
follow him to a house where a large upstairs room would be furnished and ready
for them to eat the Passover.  Mark tells
us, “So the disciples set out and went to the city and found everything as he
had told them” (verse 16).  All that we
need for our faith to be nourished and sustained Jesus has furnished.  It is ready in the Lord’s Supper.  The grace that he has promised and that we
need is available there – just as he has told us.

In
his description of the storm in Acts 27 Luke uses phrases like these.  “We were being pounded by the storm so
violently” (verse 18).  “All hope of our
being saved was at last abandoned” (verse 20). 
“We were drifting across the sea” (verse 27).  “Fearing that we might run on the rocks, they
. . . prayed for day to come” (verse 29). 
What did Paul do in a situation like that?  He urged them all to take some food – to help
them survive.  Verses 35 and 36 – “He
took bread; and giving thanks to God in the presence of all, he broke it and
began to eat.  Then all of them were
encouraged and took food for themselves.”

Often
we feel like we have been caught in a powerful storm of unfavorable
circumstances.  We feel pounded
violently.  We can lose all hope of being
saved.  We feel like we are
drifting.  Fearful, we pray that day will
come.  In circumstances such as these
what do we need?  The body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ, to give us courage, strength, and spiritual
sustenance.  Having heard that message,
and having attended that retreat, I felt ready to return to the challenges of
life – knowing that Jesus has already prepared all I will need, and that with
his presence and grace I can weather the storms.   

* * * * * * *

INTENTIONAL INTERIM MINISTRY

Attending
the LCMC annual gathering, I was blessed and encouraged by the resources that
that association provides for congregations that are between pastors, in the
call process, and/or in transition.  I
attended breakout sessions for Call Committee Coaches, on Intentional Interim
Ministry (with a focus on the interim pastor), and on Pastoral Succession.  I had a hard time choosing between a second
breakout session on Intentional Interim Ministry (with a focus on the
congregation) and the session on Pastoral Succession.  I found myself wishing they were not being
offered at the same time. 

The
session for Call Committee Coaches was led by Perry Fruhling, LCMC Coordinator
for Pastoral Ministry.  I commend Perry
for all the resources he has for congregations that are in the call
process.  I also deeply appreciate the strong
endorsement he has given to Lutheran CORE’s Congregations in Transition
ministry initiative.

I
was very interested in attending the breakout sessions on Intentional Interim
Ministry and Pastoral Succession because I have seen the tragedies that can
happen when pastoral succession does not go well.  I have seen a strong, orthodox ELCA
congregation where orthodoxy did not survive a change in pastors.  I have seen the massive disruption and great
damage that can happen when the largest congregation in a synod trusts the
synod to supply them with their next pastor. 
I have seen a congregation “settle” for a pastor in order to relieve
their own anxiety rather than doing the hard work of continuing in the search
process.  This congregation is now paying
a high price.  I have seen what can
happen when one person manipulates and controls the call process rather than
allows it to be a unique opportunity for the congregation to learn from its
past, identify its strengths, and prepare itself for a new future.  Having seen what can happen, I was very
grateful to learn about the Intentional Interim Ministry that the LCMC has to
offer its congregations.

I
was intrigued with the comparison that was given between repairing a parking
lot and interim ministry.  One option is just
to fill the potholes.  That would be like
simply having pulpit supply.  A second
option would be to apply a thin coat of sealant that would get you through
another winter.  That would be like
having an interim pastor who has not been trained to be an intentional
interim.  The third option would be to
take the time and put forth the effort to take off a few layers and get down to
the foundation.  That would be like
having an intentional interim.

Three
kinds of situations were described where having an intentional interim would be
particularly recommended – after a long-term pastor, where there have been
several different pastors in a short period of time, and when a pastor leaves
suddenly or unexpectedly.  The comment
was made that a congregation should have an intentional interim for one month
for every year of the former pastor’s call – but no less than a year. 

We
learned that intentional interims can and need to be “truth speakers.”  Using all the capital and credits that they
have, they can deal with issues that the next called pastor will then not have
to deal with.  A big difference between
an intentional interim and the next called pastor is that the intentional interim
will be leaving.  That factor alone might
enable the intentional interim to do what needs to be done. 

People
attending the breakout session were encouraged to consider whether they might
have the gifts and calling to be an intentional interim.  We were told that intentional interims have
got to be able to love all people – even very difficult people – as they draw
from the well of God’s great love for us. 
They have got to be able to remain calm and be a non-anxious
presence.  And they have got to be engaged
in doing self-care. 

I
am very grateful to Dawn Spies, Steve Abend, and Steve Lien (former LCMC
coordinator of pastoral ministry) for leading the workshop.  The next day I was talking with a friend who
is serving his second term as an intentional interim.  I thanked him for what he is doing, and I
committed myself to pray and ask God to bless those who serve in this way and
to raise up more intentional interims.

*
* * * * * *

Thank
you to the organizers of and the presenters at these four events.  I am very grateful for the opportunity to
attend, I value the ministry partnerships, and I enjoy the relational
connections. 

Blessings in Christ,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

Unfortunately,
this has become a regular part of our monthly communications – our asking the
question, “What Will It Be Next?,” as we find the ELCA slipping further and
further away from the historic, orthodox Christian faith, a traditional view of
the mission of the church, and Biblical morals and moral values. 

Relentless LGBTQIA+ Agenda

In
the July issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, I asked the question, “What Will
It Be Next?”, in response to the fact that the ELCA Church Council declined to
act upon the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” even though
it had been recommended to them by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  Instead they sent it back to the Domestic
Mission Unit for revision.  You can be
sure that the process for writing and rewriting and revising this statement of
what the ELCA expects of its rostered ministers will continue until it fully
conforms with everything desired and demanded by the relentless LGBTQIA+
agenda.

Polyamory

In the August letter from the director I wrote of a video in which Bishop Elect Leila Ortiz of the ELCA’s Metro Washington D. C. Synod speaks favorably of polyamory (a relationship in which there are three or more partners).  A link to that video can be found here.

Songs for the Holy Other?

This month’s “What Will It Be Next?” is my response to an August 20 communication from ELCA Worship.  This email included in its list of resources a new hymnal entitled, Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community.  This hymn collection was introduced at the recent annual conference of the Hymn Society of the United States and Canada.  According to the society’s website, TheHymnSociety.org, the volume is intended to be “a toolbox of hymns by and for those who identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, nonbinary, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, aromantic, two-spirit, and other sexual/gender minority (LGBTQIA2S+) community and their allies.”  As explanation for their choosing the name, Songs for the Holy Other, they write, “We continue to be othered for our identities, relationship-styles, dis/abilities, race, economic status, and more.”  So the title is “a self-conscious claiming of otherness as holy and beloved of God. We who have been labeled as ‘wholly other’ are claiming our holiness, and reclaiming our otherness as a prophetic witness to the church.”

The
first thing I noticed is that here once again the ELCA is promoting letters far
beyond what was actually approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  That gathering only addressed the issue of
publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous same gender relationships (L and
G relationships held to a very high standard). 
It said nothing about the issue of B, T, Q, I, A, and +
relationships.  And yet here we are –
only ten years later – and the ELCA feels free to promote a wide variety of
sexual identities and expressions far beyond what actually was addressed and
approved.  “What will it be next?”

New Symbols

The
second thing I noticed is that there was a number and a letter which I had
never seen before in the series of letters – 2S.  Doing some research, I found that 2S stands
for “Two Spirit,” which I discovered is “a term used by some indigenous North
Americans to describe certain people in their communities who fulfill a
traditional third-gender (or other gender-variant) ceremonial role in their
cultures.”  Realizing that the ELCA is
now promoting a new hymnal affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ community, all I could
think of was to again ask the question, “What Will It Be Next?”  What letter/letters will be added next?  

The ELCA document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” says, “Those who serve as pastors and deacons reflect a variety of sexual orientations and diverse gender identities.” (page 11, lines 233-234)  If a document which has been rejected because it is too conservative makes a statement like that, what will be said in the document which finally is accepted because it finally is acceptable to the LGBTQIA+ community?  And if, for the ELCA, the clear teachings of the Bible are not the basis for understanding human sexuality, how is the ELCA going to decide whether to endorse and promote all of the letters and numbers which are going to be continually added to the sequence, LGBTQIA2S+?  The plus sign allows for any and all possibilities.  “What will it be next?”

PLEASE, LORD, BRING FIRE

For
me one of the most challenging parts of writing an article or a letter is
knowing where and how to start.  I know
what I want to say.  I know what I want
to include.  But where and how do I
begin?

That
is the challenge I was facing with my August letter from the director, where I
wanted to write about and review two church gatherings that took place during
the same week – the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Milwaukee and the NALC Theology
Conference, Mission Festival, and Convocation in Indianapolis.  I attended the NALC events.  Many thanks to ELCA pastor Steve Gjerde, vice
president of our board, who attended the ELCA event and gave us on Facebook an
account of the proceedings as they occurred.

I
wanted to write about those two gatherings and I knew what I wanted to include,
but for several days I could not answer the question, “Where and how do I
begin?”  But then, one week after both
events, during a telephone conversation with a pastor colleague, I was reminded
of the Gospel reading for August 18, the second Sunday after both assemblies –
Luke 12: 49-56.  In that passage Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already
kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the
earth?  No, I tell you, but rather
division!”

During
the days leading up to and even more so since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide
Assembly, we all have grieved over the relationships that have been strained
and even broken, the damage that has been done to congregations, and a church
body that is going off in the wrong direction.  The division is even greater – the lines are
now even more sharply drawn – as the ELCA goes further and further away from a
traditional, orthodox understanding of the authority of the Bible, the mission
of the church, and moral values. 

Four days after the close of the assembly, on August 14, the ELCA released a summary of actions that were taken by the assembly.  A link to that summary can be found here.  The opening sentence stated that the voting members made “a number of key decisions to further the mission and ministry of this church.”  Those key decisions included naming patriarchy and sexism as sins; calling on the church to take action against gender-based violence, workplace discrimination, and economic inequality; pursuing racial diversity and inclusion; adopting memorials dealing with gun violence, engagement in the Holy Land, and gender identity; affirming the ELCA’s long-standing commitment to migrants and refugees; declaring the ELCA to be a sanctuary church body; committing the ELCA to support a campaign against rape and violence; and condemning white supremacy. 

NO MENTION OF JESUS

Did
you notice that there is one thing missing in all these actions?  There was no mention of Jesus.  And there was only one mention of God, and
that one mention had to do with speaking “boldly about the equal dignity of all
persons in the eyes of God.”  I did see
one other mention of God in one of the daily press releases during the
assembly, but that reference had only to do with using gender inclusive and
expansive language for God.  With no
mention of Jesus, there is nothing in these actions regarding telling the world
about what Jesus has done (grace). 
Instead they are all about what I need to do (works). 

Now
some might say that that lack of reference to Jesus and that minimal mention of
God was only true of the summary of actions taken by the assembly.  Certainly Jesus must have had a more
important place during the assembly.

You might be able to convince me of that possibility if it had not been for the action taken by the assembly to adopt “A Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment” as “church policy for inter-religious relations.”  A link to that declaration can be found here.  The Declaration said, “We must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding another religion.”  It also stated, “Lutheran tradition has understood the word ‘faith’ to mean trust rather than affirming beliefs.  Hence, we also must be careful not to judge our neighbors only on the basis of their religious beliefs. . . . 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.”

I
do not know how anyone could read the Bible and study church history and say
that “we must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding
another religion.”  The prophet Elijah
spared no energy in warning Israel against the worship of Baal.  Other Old Testament prophets joined with him
in clearly warning against worshipping the idols of the surrounding
peoples.  The apostle Paul warned the
churches to whom he was writing about the other religions of the day.  How could we say that the Bible says that we
cannot know God’s judgments regarding other religions?  And besides, to argue that faith means trust
rather than affirming certain beliefs does not support the intent of this declaration
because my trust is only as good as the object of my trust.  I am not showing love for and I am not
serving my neighbors (which the declaration calls upon me to do) if I do not
warn them that what and/or whom they are placing their trust in is not worthy
of their trust.

We
commend a voting member of the assembly for reminding the assembly that in the
words of Jesus in John 14: 6 we do have “a basis to know God’s views on
religions that do not require faith in Jesus Christ.”  This voting member proposed an amendment to
the declaration both prior to and during the assembly.  His motion to amend was overwhelmingly
defeated.  The policy statement was
adopted with 97.48% voting in favor.  How
can we view the fact that the discussion took place in the presence of
thirty-nine ecumenical and inter-religious guests on stage as anything other
than the ELCA’s manipulating and controlling the outcome?

IN SHARP CONTRAST

In
Luke 12 Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.”  “I came to bring division.”  Contrast the actions and priorities of the
ELCA Churchwide Assembly and its de-emphasis upon Jesus with the clear
statements from the Rev. Dr. Daniel Selbo, who was elected to be the new bishop
of the NALC (North American Lutheran Church). 
In answer to the question, “What hopes do you have for the mission of
the NALC?” he wrote, “As a Christ Centered church body my hope is that we will
continue to grow in our relationship with Jesus as our Savior and Lord.  I hope each member of the NALC will become
stronger in their own personal faith-walk with Christ.  I hope our preaching and teaching will lift
up the name of Jesus. . . . My hope is that Christ will be seen in us because
we have fallen in love with Him and we have no greater purpose in life than to
live for Him. . . . Because ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,’
we must be tireless in our efforts to increase the number of people who come to
know Him as Lord.”  

I AM DEEPLY DISTURBED AND
CONCERNED

I
am deeply disturbed by the actions taken, the resolutions approved, and the
memorials adopted by the 2019 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  I am even more concerned when I consider the
percentages of the votes. 

The
“Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment,” which we discussed above, was
approved by a vote of over 97%.  The
social statement, “Faith, Sexism, and Justice,” was approved by a vote of
97%.  Elizabeth Eaton was re-elected on
the first ballot by a vote of over 81%. 
She is the first ELCA presiding bishop to win re-election on the first
ballot.  How could we expect her to view her
re-election as anything other than a clear mandate to continue leading the
church in the direction in which she has been leading it?

What
is the significance of all of these nearly unanimous or high percentage votes?  (Every photo I saw of voting members’ voting
by ballot showed everyone holding up their green cards.)  I can think of several probable outcomes from
the ELCA’s leadership and chief decision-making body becoming almost completely
of one mind.

• An increasingly intolerant attitude towards and eventual suppression of any dissenting position.  They are well on their way to eliminating anything other than the preferred view.  If they are already at 97%, and there were about nine hundred voting members, they only have to eliminate twenty-seven people in order to be at 100%.  Why would they even bother to pretend to honor bound conscience and listen to and give a place for traditional views if the prevalence of revisionist views is so strong?  Even though the ELCA leadership and makeup of the churchwide assemblies will be increasingly out of synch with the majority of congregation members sitting in the pews and supporting the work of the church, those in power will fully be able to implement their agenda and priorities.     

• An even stronger trend to promote only the official ELCA values and views at the ELCA seminaries.  While we are very thankful for every orthodox ELCA pastor serving in an ELCA congregation and as Lutheran CORE want to do everything we can to support them, it is only a matter of time until every ELCA rostered leader will have attended and graduated from seminary post 2009.  Orthodox churches who are blessed to have an orthodox pastor and who believe that all of this cannot and will not affect them are in for a rude awakening. 

• An even easier path for positions that a few years ago would have been unthinkable to become acceptable, mainstream, and even preferred.  For example, there is a video in which Bishop Elect Leila Ortiz of the ELCA’s Metro Washington D. C. Synod speaks favorably of polyamory (a relationship in which there are three or more partners).  A link to that video can be found here.  With the churchwide assembly being so strongly of one mind, what is to prevent an even further erosion of Biblical views and values from taking place? 

TRUSTWORTHY SERVANTS

In the July 2019 issue of CORE Voice we wrote about the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” which was written in order to express what the ELCA expects of its rostered leaders.  A link to that article can be found here.  As we mentioned, the document was recommended to the ELCA Church Council by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  But after hearing from many who objected to it, the ELCA Church Council declined to consider it and instead referred it back to the Domestic Mission Unit, who had originally written it, for review and revision.  In our opinion it was rejected because it was just too traditional and conservative.  We believe that the review and rewriting process will continue until it is exactly what the LGBTQIA+ agenda and community want it to be. 

There was a very interesting email that was sent out
to some ELCA rostered leaders on August 3, in which Pastor Phil Hirsch,
executive director of the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit, asked for input.  He said that the review and rewriting
committee wanted to hear from “various communities,” including “the
confessionally conservative” and “those from all four convictions identified in
the social statement ‘Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.’”

On the one hand, we are encouraged by the possibility
that an ELCA task force might actually want to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and those who hold to more traditional views.  But then we wonder whether traditional views
will actually be taken seriously and whether this is only a way so that they
will be able to say, “We heard from all sides.” 
We are reminded of how strongly some people objected even to Lutheran
CORE’s presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly.  Some people said that even our presence made
them feel unsafe, to say nothing about the willingness on the part of the
leadership of the assembly to announce our evening hospitality gathering twice.  One person asked, “Who will they allow to be
here next?  The Taliban?”

If even our presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly
was so strongly objected to, how much more of an outcry will there be against
the review and rewriting committee’s wanting to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and from those who hold to positions one and two as identified in
the human sexuality social statement? 
And will it be even easier for the objecting voices to prevail given
that the votes at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly were so close to being unanimous?

Still, if you have received one of those emails from
the Domestic Mission Unit, asking for your input, we urge you to respond.

IS
THERE ANY HOPE?

Many
times I have been asked by people, “Is there any hope that the ELCA will turn
around?”  I always tell them, “It would
take a major intervention on the part of God. 
It would take a powerful working of the Holy Spirit.”  Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the
earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have
come to bring peace to the earth?  No, I
tell you, but rather division!”

We
pray for a sending of the power and fire of the Holy Spirit, to convict us of
error and to bring us back to Biblical truth. 
We pray that we will not be comfortable and at peace until the church
returns to recognizing Jesus rather than a social activist agenda as its
Lord.  We pray that the church will be
united under the authority of God’s Word, which is living and active, sharper
than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4: 12), and able to pierce and divide truth
from error, true worship from idolatry, true values from misplaced
priorities. 

Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.” 
Jesus, we need Your fire.  We need
Your fire to reform, renew, reorient, and redirect Your church.  Please, Lord, bring Your fire.  How we wish it were already kindled!

Pastor
Dennis D. Nelson

Executive
Director of Lutheran CORE

909-274-8591

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com 

In an article in the June letter from the director I outlined some of the ways in which the ELCA is fully embracing and constantly promoting and empowering the entire LGBTQIA+ agenda.  A link to that article can be found here.  One of the ways is the fact that the ELCA Church Council declined to consider the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” even though it had been recommended to them by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  Instead they referred it back to the Domestic Mission Unit for revision.  We all know that the process for writing and revising this statement of what the ELCA expects of its rostered ministers will not be complete until it fully conforms with everything desired and demanded by the relentless LGBTQIA+ agenda.

Too Conservative

We also have been wondering
all along when the ELCA would decide that the Human Sexuality social statement,
which was approved by the Churchwide Assembly in 2009, is just too conservative
in its allowing for and even giving a place of respect to traditional
views.  Lo and behold.  It looks like that time is coming.

Update on the Revision Process

By going to https://elca.org/rosteredlife you can find an update on the revision process for
the “Trustworthy Servants” document.  At
the bottom of the page you can find a link to FAQ’s – Frequently Asked
Questions.  One of the Frequently Asked
Questions is as follows –

“Does ‘Human Sexuality: Gift
and Trust’ need updating too? The Northwest Washington Synod Assembly has
submitted a memorial to revise the social statement on sexuality, and the
proposal to reopen this social statement will come before the 2019 Churchwide
Assembly.”

What Next?

Did any of us actually
believe that what was approved in 2009 would be where it would stay?  Were any of us actually naïve enough to
believe that the “bound conscience” argument that was used to gain support for
the human sexuality social statement would actually provide for the protection
of the bound conscience of those with traditional views? 

After the ELCA human sexuality social statement and the document
describing the ELCA’s expectations for its rostered leaders fully conform to
the desires and demands of the radical, relentless LGBTQIA+ agenda, what will
it be next?  Will the ELCA then rewrite
and revise its doctrinal statement – its confession of faith – so that it
actually conforms to what the ELCA actually believes and what the ELCA allows
its pastors to believe and teach? 

Photo by Robert Vergeson on Unsplash

Many thanks to those who have already responded to the appeal for prayer and mission partners for a faithful, orthodox ELCA pastor and his Spanish-speaking ELCA congregation – Pastor Samuel Nieva and Pueblo de Dios Lutheran Church in Compton, California.  Compton is one of the poorest and most violence-prone cities in California.  A link to the article, which was part of the June letter from the director, can be found here.   

At the current time Pueblo de Dios is receiving $24,000 a year from the ELCA Churchwide and $5,000 per year from the Southwest California Synod, in support of an annual budget of $75,000.  But these amounts are at risk of being reduced, plus Pastor Nieva would like to not be financially dependent upon the ELCA.  Combining the donations from the congregation’s current mission partners, plus the amounts that have been given or pledged in the last few weeks, we are about one-fourth of the way towards meeting the goal of $50,000 per year from mission partners.  If you feel that God is speaking to you and/or your congregation about the needs of this most effective, faithful, and powerful orthodox ministry, please contact me at dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com.   

Some startling statistics were included in a newsletter article by the president of an ELCA seminary.  According to the president, there are currently 2,776 vacancies in the nearly 10,000 congregations of the ELCA.  That is over one out of every four.  One thousand of those vacancies are for a full-time position.  What makes these statistics even more startling is the fact that the majority of the baby boomer pastors have yet to retire. No wonder there is such an extreme urgency about what Lutheran CORE’s Congregations in Transition (CiT) ministry initiative is doing.     

CiT is a new ministry, sponsored by Lutheran CORE, to assist churches facing the departure or retirement of their solo pastor.  CiT can be especially helpful in two kinds of ministry scenarios: 1. When the pastor has recently announced — or is planning to announce — his or her upcoming retirement; and 2. When congregational leaders who are already dealing with a vacancy have found the search and call process to be longer (and perhaps more frustrating) than they had anticipated.

Each congregation that “signs on” is assigned their own trained coach/consultant to provide customized counsel to the church for up to six to eight months.  These trained coaches are mostly recently retired Lutheran pastors, which means that they are volunteering their time.  This is a pan-Lutheran effort.  We have pastor/coaches who are rostered with ELCA, LCMC, NALC, and AALC.  The only costs to the congregation are the reimbursement of actual travel expenses incurred by the coach, plus a nominal $150 administrative-cost fee paid to Lutheran CORE.  This ministry is not designed to replace the ministry support and resources available to your congregation from your own church body.  Instead it is designed to supplement those resources.

Chuck Amdahl, retired LCMC and NALC pastor and one of the trained coaches, describes CiT in this way:

“It is all about people whose hearts are great for the people of God, for the life of the congregation. . . . As coaches they come alongside of congregations in transition, encouraging and equipping – empowering leaders whose responsibilities include navigating the congregation through uncertain transitions.  These coaches are building awareness, strength, and confidence among its members, renewing purpose (mission) and vitality all the while. 

“I am privileged to work alongside of these coaches.  They are brothers and sisters serving the Lord Jesus and His Church – your congregation, and the very Church which as Samuel Stone so rightly reminds us in that old and favorite hymn composed well over a century ago:  ‘…with His own blood He bought her, and for her life He died.’”   

For more information contact Don Brandt at pastordonbrandt@gmail.com or Dennis Nelson at dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com.  You can also read more about Congregations in Transition by visiting the Lutheran CORE website.  A link to that portion of the website can be found here.

by
Dennis Nelson, executive
director, Lutheran CORE

In the March issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, we included information about the ministries of two of the pastors who were going to be presenters at the Rekindle Your First Love event.  Another one of the persons who was going to be a presenter, NALC pastor Wendy Berthelsen, heads up a non-profit Christian teaching ministry called Call Inc., which mobilizes ordinary people “called” by Christ Jesus our Lord to “incorporate His call” into all of life, 24/7: home, family, church gathering and “glocal” (local to global). Wendy writes:

We offer seminars and resources that are
available on our website: http://www.callinc.org. We take seriously that the Biblical
Greek word for church (ekklesia) literally means “called out
ones.” We believe “called out ones” gives both the definition
and purpose of church: “Ones” … ordinary people “called”
by Christ Jesus our Lord, to go “out,” transforming the world in
Jesus’ name, with His Gospel and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore,
actively teaching about living God’s call and helping people to recognize and
discern the Holy Spirit’s call and gifts is crucial to being the church.

Dennis D. Nelson is the Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

I am continually blessed and encouraged by the very positive and uplifting responses which I receive to my letters from the director, articles in our newsletter, CORE Voice, and other written communications.  It is good to know that people read our materials and appreciate, value, and support our work.  The responses I received to my most recent (the April) letter from the director were no exception.

One NALC pastor wrote, “There have been times when I have wondered why CORE staff and adherents remain in ELCA, but after reading this letter, I am thankful that you are still there.  If you were to leave, it would please them because they wouldn’t have to deal with your wisdom any more. . . . I know your presence will probably not make a difference over the long run, you are fighting a strong and wily opponent, Old Scratch himself, but I admire your courage and your willingness to take on a formidable task.  Blessings to you on your work, your passion, and your hope that there may be a ray of sanity somewhere in this mess.”

And then, to clearly show what we are up against and how we got into the mess we are in, a former ELCA synod mission director wrote the following [emphasis added] –

“Shortly after being called to that position I attended staff orientation at the ELCA headquarters with other new Mission Directors.  We were told unequivocally that we were to start new congregations for gay and lesbian groups but to refrain from traditional church starts as there would be little if any financial support for traditional church groups.  I was told directly by the then ELCA mission director it was the unspoken policy of the ELCA to NOT start traditional New churches or to provide any support for Rural Congregations because the money was to be directed to gay and lesbian church starts. . . .

“During one of my visits to the ELCA headquarters, the national mission director took me into a closet that held the congregations responses to the first sexuality study of the ELCA.  She said, and I quote, ‘we are going to ram this s____ down their (congregations) throat.’. . .

 “I and many faithful pastors suffered mightily at the hands of the ELCA.  In fact nearly every faithful pastor I knew as Assistant to the Bishop suffers or has suffered as a result of ELCA pressure on their ministry to conform.  In the ELCA almost anything is tolerated except not accepting their lgbt policy.” Thank you to both of these pastors for letting me quote them in this article.  We give thanks for the support of all of our friends, and we pray for and want to encourage and help all who are enduring pressure to accept and conform to non-Biblical positions, practices, and priorities.

HAS THE ELCA SPUN OUT OF CONTROL?

My original plan was to share with you the letter I wrote to my synodical bishop regarding “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God.”  That is the document which the ELCA was considering to replace “Visions and Expectations” as a statement of the behavior that is expected of pastors and deacons.  But after receiving a very strong negative response to the document, the ELCA Church Council – at their meeting in early April – declined to consider it.  Instead they referred it back to committee for further review and redrafting.  After all of that, what I had been planning on writing seemed so out of date.  Therefore, instead I will be reviewing and evaluating what the ELCA Church Council had to say as it decided not to consider for adoption a document which had been recommended to them by the Conference of Bishops. 

First,
the ELCA continues to be obsessed with sex. 
Any who thought (and maybe even hoped) that this obsession would subside
after the 2009 Churchwide Assembly should now see that this preoccupation will persist
until the radical, relentless LGBTQIA+ community and agenda get all that they
want.  Many times we of Lutheran CORE
have been accused of being obsessed with sex, as we have been advocating for
the historic, traditional view of human sexuality that the vast majority of the
world’s Christians for two thousand years have understood the Bible to clearly
be teaching.  We are not the ones who are
obsessed with sex.  We are not the ones
who keep on bringing up the subject, always pushing the perimeters one step
further.  Rather we are the ones who keep
on lifting up and holding onto traditional Biblical values and views as others
keep on pushing for an erosion of Biblical understanding and standards.

Second,
something is wrong if ELCA leaders do not realize by now what they have enabled
and even created by continuing to cater to the radical, relentless LGBTQIA+
agenda.  They have allowed it to become
more and more prominent and empowered.  One
group that appeared before the ELCA Church Council, which calls itself the
“Trustworthy Servants” Public Witness Team, wants at least 25% of the members
of a task force that would carry out the work of revision to be LGBTQIA
people.  The traditional view was trashed
at last summer’s youth gathering, the LGBTQIA+ community was able to force the
firing of a seminary president, and ELCA leaders refuse to stand up to a
movement which rejects marriage by any definition as normative for sexual
activity.  Is all this being allowed
because ELCA leaders agree with it, or do they feel powerless and unable to
stop it?  Either way we have a serious
problem. 

Third,
the ELCA expects its leaders to be trustworthy, while the ELCA itself is not
trustworthy.  It was only after a very
long, painful, and divisive process that the 2009 Churchwide Assembly approved
the possibility of ordaining persons, and the possibility of congregations
calling persons, who are in publicly accountable, life-long, and monogamous
same gender relationships.  And yet the
ELCA has neither honored the commitments that were made nor remained within the
boundaries of what was actually officially approved.  The 2009 Social Statement, “Human Sexuality:
Gift and Trust,” describes a wide range of four positions on human sexuality
that exist within and that would have a place within “this church.”  The “Trustworthy Servants” document describes
only one acceptable position – that “those who serve as pastors and deacons
reflect a variety of sexual orientations and diverse gender identities” (page
11).  Even though the ELCA has broken
trust by developing a document that goes way beyond what the 2009 Churchwide
Assembly actually officially approved, it is not enough for the LGBTQIA+
community.  They have risen up against
it, claiming that the document’s expectations concerning marriage are shame
producing and not life-giving.  Therefore,
the ELCA Church Council declined to consider it and instead sent it back to
committee for review and rewriting – I assume until it turns out the way the
LGBTQIA+ community wants it. 

Fourth,
I am not aware of any statement from the Presiding Bishop concerning this
fiasco.  She will make and has made statements
on many things – including gun violence, immigration, the recent vote taken by
the United Methodist Church, and the Middle East.  But on subjects where a statement from her
could elicit a strong negative response – such as standing up to the “We Are
Naked and Unashamed” movement, dealing with a prominent ELCA “public
theologian” who advocates for sex outside of marriage and “ethically sourced
pornography,” and addressing recent state legislation on abortion which is
clearly contrary to the ELCA social statement on abortion – she is silent. 

Fifth,
what is the ELCA Church Council saying to and about the Conference of Bishops
when they decline to consider what the Conference had recommended?  What are they saying to and about the Domestic
Mission unit, which developed this document? 
What are they saying to and about the leaders of the ELCA for the first
twenty years of the life of the ELCA when they say that now they especially
want to hear from “those who have been most harmed by the misuse of ‘Visions
and Expectations’”?  How will they feel
if twenty years from now the new leadership of the ELCA most wants to hear from
“those who have been most harmed” by the statements and actions of the current
leaders of the ELCA?

Having
made these five general statements about the Church Council’s response, I would
now like to comment on specific parts of their response.

First, the Church Council referred the document back to the Domestic Mission unit “for further review and redrafting that is governed by this church’s social teaching documents.”  And then it gives “Sexuality” as an example of one of those social teaching documents.  A couple things are significant here.  For one, the review and redrafting are not to be governed by the Bible and the Lutheran confessions, but instead by “this church’s social teaching documents.”  Once again, the ELCA sees itself as wiser and more insightful than the authors of the Bible and the writers of the Lutheran confessions.  Also, if this review and redrafting truly were to be governed by this church’s social teaching documents, it would have to include and respect the wide range of views that are described and honored in the 2009 social statement, not just the one view that endorses a “variety of sexual orientations and diverse gender identities.”

Second,
the Church Council said that they want a “process that intentionally includes diverse
voices.”  The “Trustworthy Servants”
Public Witness Team, which I previously mentioned, wants at least 25% of the
people on the task force to be LGBTQIA. 
Once again will the makeup of the group be so lop-sided that the end
result is predicable?  Will these “diverse
voices” also include voices that will give credible, respectable expression to
the traditional view?  Will there be
enough credible, traditional voices so that it will not be just a token group
so that the ELCA can say, “We also listened to the traditional view”?

Third,
the Church Council said that they especially want to include the voices of
those who have been most harmed by the misuse of “Visions and Expectations.”  What about the voices of those whose
congregations have been most harmed by the actions of the ELCA since 2009?  Do the leaders of the ELCA care – does the
LGBTQIA+ community care – about the amount of turmoil that has been created in
and the amount of damage that has been done to congregations where many, if not
most of the people, have traditional views? 
How can they say that there are people who have been “most harmed by the
misuse of Visions and Expectations” when the original wording in “Visions and
Expectations” was not misused but instead was applied in determining who would
be eligible to be a rostered leader in the ELCA?

Fourth, the Church Council said that they would support the Conference of Bishops in their “living into their commitment . . . to listen and take seriously the concerns of all our leaders – particularly those who historically have been marginalized.”  What about those who currently are being marginalized?  First as president of the board and now as director of Lutheran CORE, I have written many times to the presiding bishop and the sixty-five synodical bishops.  Over the years I have written on such subjects as the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage, the ousting of the president of an ELCA seminary, last summer’s youth gathering, state legislation on abortion, the removal of our former director from the ELCA clergy roster, and the question of whether anyone from Lutheran CORE is welcome at a synod assembly.  Once in a while I do receive a response.  I would want to say that my own bishop was most gracious in her response to my letter to her about the “Trustworthy Servants” document.  But usually, if I do hear anything, the response rarely engages with and takes seriously what I have said.  Usually I am completely ignored.  I have written many times to the bishop of the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  I have never received a single response to any of my communications.  When one is usually completely ignored, is not that person being marginalized?  Do the Church Council and Conference of Bishops only want to listen to and take seriously the concerns of those whom they say have historically been marginalized, or are they also willing to listen to and take seriously the concerns of those who currently are being marginalized?

As I read what has been posted on Facebook by some of the people who attended the meeting with the ELCA Church Council, and as I read statements from the “We Are Naked and Unashamed” movement, I conclude – If the real issue is that there are ELCA pastors and seminarians who do not want to have to be married in order to be sexually active and/or do not want to be limited, bound, or confined by the expectation that they will be monogamous, then the ELCA Church Council and Conference of Bishops should just admit it and state it rather than use all of this other language to make it sound better than and/or different from what it really is. 

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

909-274-8591