The apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.” (Galatians 6: 7)  From my viewpoint, the ELCA is reaping what it from its inception has been sowing.

Lenny Duncan is an ELCA pastor who describes himself as “the unlikeliest of pastors.”  He is author of the book, Dear Church: A Love Letter from a Black Preacher to the Whitest Denomination in the United States.  We should not be surprised that he quickly became a celebrity within the ELCA – a sought after speaker in congregations and educational institutions.  He sounds exactly like someone to whom the ELCA would give the greatest amount of publicity and visibility. 

There is only one problem.  He has turned on the ELCA and has done so viciously.  Check out his website – https://lennyduncan.substack.com.  There you will find parts one through five of his articles, “Why the ELCA needs to start a reparations process,” which he subtitles, “Why you should defund your denomination.”

What is his plan?  What I really should ask is, What is his demand?  He is demanding that the ELCA set aside $32 million over the next three years to create a reparations fund to right the wrongs of centuries of racial injustice here in the United States.  And if the ELCA does not set aside $32 million over the next three years, then he is challenging people to “defund churchwide” and redirect $32 million in contributions away from the ELCA into his reparations fund.  What is amazing to me is not only the audacity of the way in which he demands that the ELCA make his top priority into their top priority, but also the vicious way in which he speaks of the leadership of the ELCA – a group that gave him support, visibility, and every opportunity to make maximum impact.

But as I think about, I realize that his words and behavior should not be surprising.  I would like to distinguish between the more moderate, pro-organization revisionists, and the more extreme, burn-and-tear-the-organization-down revisionists.

The more moderate, pro-organization revisionists are the ones currently in power in the ELCA.  They have three top priorities – their relentless agendas, their own power, and the preservation of the churchwide organization.  For them it seems that anything goes – you can believe and advocate for anything you want – even the rejection of basic, Biblical moral values and the foundational tenants of the historic Christian faith – as long as you are loyal to the organization.  For them preservation of the organization is paramount.

The problem is that they are now running into – or maybe I should say that they are being run into by – what they have been enabling and empowering – extreme revisionists who feel no loyalty to and do not value the organization.  Rather these extreme revisionists would be just as happy to burn or tear the organization down.  As it is happening in our nation, so it is happening in the ELCA.

Here is another example.  In 2019 the ELCA Conference of Bishops recommended to the Church Council a document entitled, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God” as a basic statement of the ELCA’s expectations for rostered leaders.  Extremists, who do not want pastors and other rostered leaders to have to be married (by any definition) in order to be sexually active, objected so strongly that the ELCA Church Council declined to consider the document and instead sent it back to the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit to come up with a new document that would not be so hurtful and harmful for people who had been deeply wounded by former ELCA statements that held to traditional Biblical standards for behavior and relationships.  The latest I have heard is that the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit has not yet come up with a new document because it wants to give the ELCA a “breathing space.”  Here also the extreme revisionists have been enabled and empowered.  You can be sure that they will not rest until the document that is approved by the ELCA Church Council is one that reflects the most extreme, revisionist view of human sexual relationships and identities.  

And what about the ELCA’s refusal to stand up to the “We Are Naked and Unashamed” movement, which arose out of one of the ELCA seminaries and which rejects marriage by any definition as normative for sexual activity?  Or what about the people who are chosen to be keynote speakers for the ELCA’s triennial youth gatherings?  The last time – in 2018 – one of the keynote speakers – another pastor whom the ELCA has chosen to make into one of its greatest celebrities – led 31,000 young people in rejecting traditional Biblical standards for morality as a lie.  What will the ELCA do as it continues to experience the effects of what it has been enabling and empowering?  How will the ELCA respond as it continues to reap what it has been sowing?   

Recently I was talking with an ELCA seminarian who was saying how much he wished that there was a list of Biblically and confessionally faithful books and other resources.  I was very pleased to be able to tell him about the List of Confessional Resources, which can be found on the Seminarians page on our website, www.lutherancore.org.  You can also find the Seminarians page by clicking on the hamburger symbol in the upper righthand corner of the website home page.  Seeing that list, he said, “That is exactly what I have been looking for.”  There you will find a list of and information about such resources as books, commentaries, videos, ministries, and movements that have been recommended by friends of Lutheran CORE.

That resource is now being taken to the next level.  We have begun the process of providing video reviews of some of these books on YouTube.  Our first book review can be found here. Our YouTube channel can be found here.

Many thanks to Pastor Chris Johnson for making the first review, Pastor Brett Jenkins for making the intro and outro, and Joel Awes for setting up the YouTube channel.

Our plan is to publish a new video book review during the first week of every month.

When you look at a video review for the first time, please click on the Subscribe button.  As enough people do that, it will eventually help us get a channel name that will include our organization’s name. 

The Great Commission Society of the North American Lutheran Church is to be commended for the three-day, online missions conference which they held in early November under the theme, “Unveiled: Shining Light in the Darkness.”   The comment was made at the beginning of the event that the only person that the conference organizers wanted to lift up is Jesus – not the structures of the church, not our own resourcefulness or efforts, but Jesus.  I need a faith that focuses on Jesus.  That is the kind of faith that I found nourished and sustained at the Unveiled Conference from the NALC’s Great Commission Society.  I also give thanks for the gift of today’s technology, which made it possible for us to be blessed by such an event, even during the time of a pandemic. 

Later in the day of the third session of the “Unveiled” conference I watched a webinar with Dr Thom Rainer of Church Answers.  You can learn more about his ministry at https://churchanswers.com.  His webinar was entitled, “Preparing for Revitalization in a Post-COVID World.”  One of the points that he made that I thought was most insightful was his comment about how much COVID has accelerated change.  Whatever dynamics and trends a congregation was experiencing prior to COVID have been accelerated by about four years.  If a congregation was in decline, its decline has been accelerated by four years.  But he also gave hope.  He gave strategies for revitalization, and he is working to train coaches who will work with congregations in the process of revitalization.

Both of those webinars were life and hope giving.  But what do I receive from the ELCA?  A word that tells me that I need to repent of systemic racism and white supremacy. 

The law is not life and hope giving.  The law rightly applied shows me my sins and drives me to Christ.  But the law wrongly applied only crushes, demoralizes, and discourages.  If the main message the ELCA has to give is all of the ways in which I need to repent because I have acted contrary to all of their chosen priorities, then how can I ever expect that the ELCA knows how to renew congregations and help them recover from COVID? 

LCMC GATHERING – A MATTHEW 17 MOMENT

The LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) gathering was held on October 5.  It was inspiring as always.  Because of COVID, they had to limit the number of voting delegates, and there were no vendors, so I did not have my typical opportunity to reconnect with people and make new friends.  But I found watching the event online to be very uplifting and renewing.

I want to thank Mark Vander Tuig for his ten years of ministry and leadership as Service Coordinator.  He brought energy, passion, and commitment to the position.  I also want to assure Mike Bradley, a fellow Arizonan and new Service Coordinator, of my prayers. 

What I would like to do is to share with you the main points that Gemechis Buba made in his keynote address.  Dr. Buba is Assistant to the Bishop for Missions for the NALC (North American Lutheran Church).  His presentation was awesome, as always. 

He focused on the account of the transfiguration in Matthew 17.  He spoke of this chapter as a transition chapter.  From this chapter on, everything is changing in the life of Jesus.  In the same way, with COVID, everything is changing in the life of the church.  We are in a Matthew 17 moment.

In the previous chapter – in Matthew 16: 18 – Jesus says, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”  Here Jesus mentions the church for the very first time, but in the account of the transfiguration we see the ten deadly mistakes of the church.  These mistakes include the following.

Wanting to maintain the status quo.  In verse 4 – after Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared – Peter said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here.”  How often does God have something better in mind for us, but we want to keep things the same?  We say, “Lord, it is good for us to be here.”

An excessive emphasis on buildings.  Again in verse 4, Peter said, “If you wish, I will make three dwellings here.”  It is interesting that Jesus did not respond to Peter’s offer.  With the pandemic, many churches are closed, but much ministry is going on and there is a multitude of gatherings in homes.  The glory and power of God are not contained within four walls. 

Speaking rather than listening.  Verse 5 says, “While he (Peter) was still speaking.”  Peter was still speaking when he should have been listening.  Peter was still speaking when the moment of transfiguration was happening.  Even during COVID, God is doing some incredible things, but sometimes we are speaking when we should be paying attention. 

Detaching ourselves from the overwhelming experience of the presence of God.  In verses 6 and 7 the disciples “fell to the ground and were overcome by fear, but Jesus came and touched them.”  When and how do we detach ourselves from the overwhelming touch of God?

Not focusing on Jesus.  Verse 8 says, “When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.”  Are we distracted, or are we Christ-centered and Christ-focused?

Focusing on the mountain top experience while neglecting the needs of people in the valley.  Verse 9 says, “As they were coming down the mountain.”  Peter had said, “It is good for us to be here.”  But Jesus said, “No, we need to go down into the valley.”  Too often we make the Sunday morning gathering, rather than our mission in the world, the most important thing.

Replacing the theology of the cross with the theology of glory.  In verse 9 Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”  Jesus now transitions from their most remarkable mountain top experience (glory) to talking about his suffering and death (the cross).  But how often would we rather remain with the glory?

Not walking and living in the hope of victory.  The church is the only institution that knows how the story ends.  Which is why our message is so important and so relevant.  Jesus had said, “Do not tell anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”  We must speak the whole Gospel message because Jesus has been raised from the dead.

Not knowing, and not being able to respond to, the needs of the world.  In verses 14-15 a man came to Jesus, pleading, “Lord, have mercy on my son.”  The disciples had not been able to help him.  They had not been able to cast out the demon because of their lack of faith.  There is much suffering – much demonization in the world.  But often we are not able to help because of our lack of faith and our lack of knowledge of the Word of God.

Not preaching the Gospel with simplicity and clarity.  Verses 22-23 tell us, “As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.’  And they were greatly distressed.”  Here we see the three major parts of the Gospel message: the identity of Jesus as the Son of Man, the cross (“he will be betrayed and killed”), and the resurrection (“on the third day he will be raised”).  We need to preach the Gospel message with clarity, simplicity, power, and joy.  And not – like the disciples – because of COVID – be “greatly distressed.” 

* * * * * *

ELCA REMOVES ALL DOUBTS

If anyone still thinks that the ELCA is at all interested in even listening to – let alone considering – traditional views.  If anyone still believes that the ELCA has any intent to honor the commitments made at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly to also respect traditional views, they need to realize that the ELCA has removed all doubts.  It has no intention to do anything but totally dismiss and ignore those who disagree with the direction in which the ELCA has chosen to go.

In the June 2020 Letter from the Director I told about an article that I had written concerning Episode 1 of Season 5 of the Netflix series Queer Eye.  This episode featured an ELCA pastor by the name of Noah Hepler, who received help in accepting his sexual identity from a team of LGBTQIA+ persons, known as the Fab 5.  A link to my June 2020 Letter from the Director can be found here.  A link to my full article can be found here.

Subsequently I learned that Mr. John Potter, ELCA Content Editor, had written an article entitled, “How Noah Hepler found ‘reawakening’ in Queer Eye.”  His article was posted on the Living Lutheran website on June 22.  A link to his article can be found here.  I went to the website and saw where it was written, “We are a church that values and encourages diverse voices and lively dialogue in our faith and life.  Living Lutheran is an opportunity for church members to express individual perspectives, and does not necessarily reflect official positions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”  Because of their statement that they value and encourage “diverse voices and lively dialogue” and want to give church members “an opportunity . . . to express individual perspectives,” I thought that they might be willing to also post a more traditional perspective on the same episode.  Therefore, I called and left a voice mail message for Mr. Potter.

In a very timely way I received an email from Mr. Potter, in which he wrote, “Thank you for reaching out.  We would be interested in reviewing a draft of your piece.”  He also mentioned that they generally ask that articles be under six hundred words in length.

I worked very hard to reduce my article to the required length.  The next day I sent him my shortened article, a copy of which can be found here.  He wrote back, “Thank you! . . . . We will review and be in touch shortly.”  Two and a half weeks later I heard back.  He said, “I apologize; I’ve learned that we have a policy of not publishing unsolicited review submissions we haven’t commissioned.  Sorry for not having initially replied with that position.”

A link to my response to him can be found here.  As I knew would happen, and as has consistently happened whenever I have challenged the ELCA to abide by, honor, and live up to its own promises and commitments, I have heard nothing.

In my letter to Mr. Potter I made several statements and asked several questions, none of which were responded to and/or answered.

First, in response to his statement, “We have a policy of not publishing unsolicited review submissions we haven’t commissioned,” I said that I felt that my article was “solicited” because when I asked him about it he told me to send it to him.  I also asked about his use of the word “commissioned.”  I said that I certainly was not asking for any payment for my article.  I merely thought that Living Lutheran should be willing to publish another view of the Queer Eye episode.

Second, I shared that his reference to Living Lutheran policy raised four questions in my mind –

Is this policy in writing? 
If so, could I have a copy? 
When was this policy developed? 
Is it consistently followed?

Third, I reminded him of the fact that the 2009 human sexuality social statement described four positions, each of which would have a place within the ELCA.  All four of those positions are more “conservative and traditional” than the full LGBTQIA+ agenda, which the ELCA now embraces.

I mentioned that at the bottom of his article, “How Noah Hepler found ‘reawakening’ in Queer Eye,” there are postings for a number of other articles, each promoting the LGBTQIA+ agenda and lifestyle.  I clicked on several of the links and found that each of those articles also ended with postings for a number of other articles, each promoting the LGBTQIA+ agenda and lifestyle.  So I asked him the following questions –

Were each one of these articles solicited and commissioned?

Has the Living Lutheran also posted a comparable number of – or even any – articles promoting traditional views? 

If not, why not, since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly stated that there would be a place for all four views which were described in the human sexuality social statement?

Fourth, I reminded him of how one of the RESOLVED sections in the 2009 ministry policies states, “RESOLVED, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American make provision in its policies to recognize the conviction of members who believe that this church should not call or roster people in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationship.” 

In light of that RESOLVED, I asked – 

What has Living Lutheran done – if anything – since 2009 to “recognize the conviction” and honor and support the position of those who hold to traditional views?

Fifth, I reminded him of the words which Living Lutheran uses to describe its own work –

“We are a church that values and encourages diverse voices and lively dialogue in our faith and life.  Living Lutheran is an opportunity for church members to express individual perspectives, and does not necessarily reflect official positions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

In light of those words I asked –

How can Living Lutheran claim to be valuing and encouraging “diverse voices and lively dialogue” and claim to be giving church members an opportunity to express individual perspectives if it will only publish material which is solicited and commissioned?

How can Living Lutheran claim to be valuing and encouraging “diverse voices and lively dialogue” if it only publishes articles which promote and advance the full LGBTQIA+ agenda and lifestyle and it does not give any space and time (let alone equal space and time) to any of the four positions which were described in the 2009 human sexuality social statement, including the two more traditional views?

I concluded my letter by asking him if he could help me understand how Living Lutheran fulfills its mission in a way which is consistent with its own stated purpose and in line with the social statement and ministry policies approved by the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

I have not received a response.  I did not expect to receive a response because ignoring, marginalizing, and dismissing is the way that the ELCA consistently deals with any view other than the preferred, official view.  The ELCA consistently ignores, marginalizes, and dismisses anyone who seeks to challenge the ELCA to act in a more honorable and honest way.  The ELCA has removed all doubts.  It has absolutely no interest in any viewpoints, values, and perspectives other than its own.

If it is already this difficult to get the ELCA to respect what they committed themselves to in 2009, when there might still be a few church leaders left who were a part of the 2009 decisions, just think of how much more difficult it is going to be when there will be no one left who was present at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  It reminds me of the verse near the beginning of Exodus, which says that “a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1: 8).

Seeking to be found faithful,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
[email protected] 

September 2020

Dear Friends:

I am always blessed and encouraged whenever I talk on the phone with friends of Lutheran CORE.  You are very interested in and supportive of our work, and you are very generous in the ways in which you express your support.  A question I am often asked is, “How do you keep on doing it?  What gives you the strength to keep on facing and confronting the issues?”

I always answer that I have a huge sense of the importance of what we do, I get to work with a wonderful board, I have the opportunity to meet so many wonderful people, and I am constantly encouraged by the support I receive from the friends of Lutheran CORE.

A passage of Scripture which gives me – in the words of the great Gospel hymn, “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” – “strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow” is Revelation 7: 9-17.  There are five elements in this image of heaven which encouraged John, as he was in exile on Patmos, and which can encourage us.

First, a gathered throng.  John describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (verse 7).  In the Gospel reading for a recent Sunday – in Matthew 16: 18 – Jesus said, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”  Here in Revelation 7 we see unmistakable evidence that Jesus built His church and the gates of Hades did not prevail.  Even though many who call themselves the church pursue an agenda that does not focus on the cross and that relies upon the power of human activism rather than the power of the resurrection, still there are those who are faithful, Jesus is building His Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail.

Second, an occupied throne.  The gathered throng is “standing before the throne” (verse 7).  God is not absent.  God has not abandoned us, even though many have abandoned Him.  He is still on the throne.  He is still in control.

Third, the slain Lamb.  The gathered throng cries out in a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb” (verse 10).  I was deeply alarmed when I read the summary of actions from the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly last August.  It never mentions Jesus.  When a group that calls itself a church meets for several days, takes many votes, but never mentions Jesus in its summary of its own actions, something is wrong.  The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world is at the heart of our faith, is the core of our message, and is the one whose grace and love empowers and enables us to continue to do His work.

Fourth, worshiping angels.  All the angels standing around the throne “fell on their faces and worshiped God” (verse 11).  The angels have seen it all.  They saw the fall.  They joyously announced His birth.  I love those words in 1 Peter 1: 12 – “Things into which angels long to look!”  As I read that verse, they have been watching God’s plan of salvation unfold, and they are in awe.  They have now seen salvation come to completion, and they are rejoicing.

Fifth, springs of living water.  “The Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; He will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (verse 17).  We all need to be refreshed.  We all have tears that need to be wiped away.     

I am reminded of a song we used to sing while I was growing up –

“It will be worth it all when we see Jesus. 
Life’s trials will seem so small when we see Him.
One glimpse of His dear face all sorrow will erase.
So bravely run the race ‘til we see God.”

Trusting in the promises of God, having a huge sense of the importance of what we do, being able to work with a wonderful board, having the opportunity to meet so many wonderful people, and constantly being encouraged by the support I receive from the friends of Lutheran CORE, I am able to keep on doing it.  I have the strength to keep on facing and confronting the issues.      

In previous communications I have shared with you about our ongoing work as well as our new areas of ministry involvement.  I am amazed, but not surprised, that I have not heard from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton in regard to my challenging the honesty and integrity of the ELCA.  I have written a response which shows how much the LGBTQIA+ movement twists and misuses Scripture to support their agenda.  We want to get the word out.  Thank you to all who have shared our response with others.  Thank you to all who have given to support our sponsoring a week of NEXUS during the summer of 2021.  If you have not already done so, please read my review of NEXUS in my August letter from the director.  Please pray for a new project, as we are working to gather a group of younger people to develop some sort of medium of communication geared to younger people.  It is absolutely imperative that our concern for the historic, orthodox Christian faith be passed on to future generations.     

Thank you again for your encouraging words and faithful prayer and financial support.  Please click here for the form that you can use to let us know how we can be praying for you.  Your timely gift to Lutheran CORE will help enable us to continue to be a VOICE for Biblical Truth and a NETWORK for Confessing Lutherans.

As a steward with you in the ministry of the Gospel, 

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Visit our website www.lutherancore.org
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/LutheranCORE
Like us on Facebook www.facebook.com/LutheranCORE

Background Notes: One of the dangers and difficulties of discussing almost any issue these days is how easily any discussion can become highly divisively politicized.  It is not the intent of Lutheran CORE to speak either for or against any political party or candidate.  The political views of the friends of Lutheran CORE cover a very wide spectrum.  In this discussion of Contemporary Critical Theory we are neither endorsing nor speaking against any political candidate or party.  We are discussing an issue which we feel is critically important for Christians to be aware of and be prepared to deal with.

The First Reading for September 6 was from Ezekiel 33, where God compares the role of the prophet to the role of a military sentinel.  Verse 6 says, “If the sentinel sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any of them,” God will require the blood of the people at the hand of the sentinel.  In the same way, verse 8 says that if the prophet does not warn the people, God will require the blood of the people at the hand of the prophet.

Lutheran CORE defines its mission as being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  As a Voice for Biblical Truth we feel called by God to serve as a sentinel to warn people of forces and movements in our world today – even in the church – that are incompatible with if not actually hostile to the historic, orthodox Christian faith.  This is in addition to our role of alerting people to ways in which orthodoxy is being challenged and compromised within the church today.

One of the mindsets and movements that are growing and prevailing today – within our culture and, unfortunately, even within some segments of the Church – is Contemporary Critical Theory.  There are two articles within this issue of CORE Voice which deal with this very powerful and I believe very dangerous force within our world today.  This first article is intended to give you an overview and introduction to Contemporary Critical Theory.  If you are not already familiar with this way of thinking, I am certain you will recognize it as the mindset behind much of what is happening in our nation and our world today.  The second article is a longer and more detailed evaluation and critique of Contemporary Critical Theory.  The intent of this second article is to show how this mindset is incompatible with and even a threat to the historic, orthodox Christian faith.  Many thanks to Brett Jenkins, NALC pastor and former member of our board, for writing the second article.

There is a major difference between the claim that “there is no truth” and the claim that “there is truth, but we have a hard time seeing it on our own.”  While those who are more orthodox-minded may be inclined to assert the latter, those who are not so orthodox-minded may be inclined to assert the former. The former has its roots in the claims of Contemporary Critical Theory.

Contemporary Critical Theory asserts that all knowledge is “socially constructed.”  Therefore, there is no single, objective body of knowledge which all must accept.  All of knowledge is rooted in experience, and we all have different experiences.  My experience will be different from yours; therefore, the knowledge that is “socially constructed” by me may be different from the knowledge that is “socially constructed” by you.  There is no body of knowledge which is wholly objective, as every area of knowledge is tainted with subjectivity.  “Even the field of science is subjective.” (Robin DiAngelo & Öslem Sensoy). 

Because we all have different experiences, we all have different levels of access to truth. The degree to which we have access to truth depends upon positionality: that is, I may have greater access to truth than you do, or vice versa, based on our respective positions in life.  Greater value is given to the perspectives of those with positions in life that give us lived experiences that may provide us with greater insight on the topic(s) discussed.

The idea that there is such a thing as objective reality is looked upon with great suspicion, or even rejected entirely.  Some say that, historically, those in positions of power and privilege have falsely claimed that things which are subjective are actually objective and have used these false claims in order to marginalize and oppress those without power and privilege. Some also say that the privileged misuse these false claims in order to normalize forms of injustice that we should not be accepting as normal. When this is done, “Those in power sleep well at night; their conduct does not seem to them like oppression.” (Richard Delgado).

Contemporary Critical Theory pays great attention to the particular demographic status of the person, and, based on that status, to whether the person might, in context, be considered privileged or marginalized (i.e., rich or poor, white or black, male or female, straight or gay, cisgender or transgender, etc.). The marginalized have the benefit of lived experiences which the privileged simply cannot experience first-hand.  Because the marginalized have greater access to truth than the privileged, the voices of the marginalized are considered to be of greater value than the voices of the privileged. That is especially, but not exclusively, true of matters in which the lived experience of the marginalized provides particular insight into the matter being discussed.  For example, a powerless person who has experienced discrimination at the hands of a person in power will be better equipped to explain such discrimination than a person in power who has never experienced such discrimination first-hand.

Contemporary Critical Theory warns that those with power and privilege do not easily give up their power and privilege.  Rather, they establish institutions, rules, norms, and claims of objective truth in order to establish and protect their dominance in society.  Those in power use all those institutions, rules, norms, and claims in order to subject the powerless to marginalization and oppression.  When the dominance, power, and privilege of the privileged are challenged, they cast doubt on the validity of the claims of those who challenge them.  Consequently, the act of questioning those who are marginalized, especially when done by those who are privileged, is frowned upon, looked upon with suspicion, or even forbidden entirely.

These are not just the opinions of a small number of peculiar individuals.  Rather they are ideas that have spread far and wide in our society, even within the church.  These ideas are driving forces, though not the only driving forces, behind several contemporary movements in the political and social arenas.  These ideas are widely, but not universally, accepted.  They have their critics, on the left as well as on the right.  And there are those with more nuanced positions who will partially but not wholly accept these ideas.  Nevertheless, the influence of these ideas is strong, with variants on the left and on the right.  It is critically important for us to be aware of them, in order that we might be able to respond effectively.

I often wondered – during the years I was serving as a pastor – why God would bring the particular group of people together at the church where I had been called.  I have often wondered why Jesus chose the particular people that He selected to be the first twelve disciples.

According to Matthew 10: 2-4, the twelve included Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot.  Why would Jesus have chosen to be among His first followers and those to whom He would entrust the work of the Kingdom two people who could not have been more poles apart politically?  Matthew, the former tax collector and employee of the Roman empire, and Simon the Zealot, a member of a revolutionary movement. 

The Zealots were passionate about obeying the Torah, especially its commandments against idolatry.  As the Romans continued to impose their pagan ways upon the Jewish people, the Zealots sometimes turned to violence.

One of the offshoots of the Zealots was a group of assassins called the Sicarii, or daggermen.  They would mingle in crowds, slip up behind a victim, and then stab him with their sicari, or short curved knife.  One interpretation I have read is that Judas Iscariot had been a member of the Sicarii.  Talk about disastrous consequences if you do not practice social distancing.  Through their acts of terrorism the Sicarii sought to disrupt the Roman government. 

In Luke 22: 38, just before they left the Upper Room for the Garden of Gethsemane, the disciples tell Jesus, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”  It is not hard to imagine that one of the swords belonged to Simon the Zealot or Judas Iscariot, who kept it hidden.  We all know what Peter did with his.  He pulled it out and cut off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. 

And yet what is amazing is that you never read of politically charged and divisive conversation among the disciples.  They lived during some very tense and difficult times.  We also live during some very tense and difficult times.  Matthew on one side, and potentially both Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot on the other side, would have come from totally opposite sides politically.  And yet you never read of politically charged discussions.  The only real dissension that I can think of among the disciples was the debate over who was the greatest, brought on by the request from James and John (or their mother, dependent upon which Gospel account you are reading) for the top seats in the Kingdom.

If the first century disciples could find their unity in Jesus and avoid explosive, divisive political rhetoric, then we – the twenty-first century followers of Jesus – should be able to do the same.

The days between now and the election in early November are going to be very difficult.  There will be many times when it will be very easy to get involved in very heated, even angry exchange, such as on Facebook.  I would urge all of us to take a deep breath, express ourselves in a responsible way, give each other the benefit of the doubt, not let comments from others “push our buttons,” and look to Jesus, the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith.

May the Lord bless you,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE 

A SUMMER LIKE NO OTHER

This has been a summer like no other.  Who would have ever imagined – at the beginning of the year – that we would be in the midst of a global health crisis?  One person said, “Five years ago, if we all had been asked what we thought we would be doing in 2020, we all would have been wrong.” 

Most of my work as executive director of Lutheran CORE is by telephone or computer, so most of it continues without major change or interruption.  But there is one area where there has been major change.  The various convocations and gatherings that I had been planning on attending during the second half of the year have all had to become online.   

I would like to tell you about two such events that I had been planning on attending in person the past couple months, that instead became online.  The first was a week of NEXUS in mid-July at Grand View University (ELCA) in Des Moines, Iowa.  The second was the NALC convocation in early August.

NEXUS

NEXUS is a program which gives high school youth the opportunity to study the Bible and theology, engage in ministry, develop new friends, and consider a church-related vocation.  This is the fourth summer that Grand View has offered two weeks of NEXUS.  Lutheran CORE will be sponsoring one of the weeks next year, so my intent had been to attend a major part of the NALC-sponsored week in July.  Because NEXUS became an online rather than an in person program, I participated in the sessions on one of the days.  It was a good day.

What I experienced was something totally worthy of our support.  Kate Faas, director of NEXUS, has awesome organizational, coordinating, and technical skills.  During the opening worship service Russell Lackey, campus pastor, gave an inspiring message based on Revelation 2, in which he challenged us to stay in the race.  Mark Mattes, chair of the department of religion and philosophy, gave a presentation from the Old Testament book of Jeremiah.  I was struck by the great similarities between Jeremiah’s day and our day.  The stark contrast between the message of Jeremiah regarding the need to take seriously the power of the Babylonian empire and those who minimized the concern reminded me of the differing attitudes that people today have towards COVID-19.  I felt warmly welcomed by the college-aged mentors and the high schoolers during the hangout time in the evening. 

What I would like to spend more time telling you about was the presentation from the New Testament by Ken Jones, professor in the religion and philosophy department.  The comparisons he drew between the musical “Hamilton” and Paul’s letter to the Galatians were brilliant.  His Bible study was one of the best I have ever heard.  

Dr. Jones described “Hamilton” as “the best theater experience in my entire life.”  He talked about the song, “It’s Quiet Uptown,” where everything in the story changes.  Prior to that time Hamilton’s son Philip had been killed while defending his father in a duel.  He and his wife Eliza have become estranged because of his being unfaithful.  The song, “It’s Quiet Uptown,” talks about three “unimaginables” – the unimaginable consequences of Hamilton’s sin (the death of his son and the breakdown of their marriage), his wife’s unimaginable gift of forgiveness, and the unimaginable grace of now being able to live into a new future.  Hamilton’s adultery and his son’s death had changed the trajectory of their lives in a negative way as it led to a complete collapse of their marriage.  But during the song Eliza reaches out and takes his hand.  Everything changes.  The trajectory is no longer based upon Hamilton’s past sin.  Instead it has hope for the future because of his wife’s gift of forgiveness.  Instead of being determined by the past, their relationship would now be able to build and anticipate a new future. 

Dr. Jones then compared the message of the musical to the fifth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where the apostle contrasts living by the flesh and living by the Spirit.  As Eliza did for Hamilton, so Jesus gives freedom by extending mercy to sinners.  We were all living in unimaginable sin.  Jesus reached out to us with His unimaginable love.  In an unimaginable act of mercy and grace He took on our flesh and died for our sins.  In the song Hamilton says, “I’m not afraid.  I know whom I married.”  In spite of all the circumstances of our lives, in our nation, and in our world, we need not be afraid, because we can know Jesus as our Savior and Lord.  In the words of the song, Hamilton received from Eliza, and we can receive from Jesus, “a grace too powerful to name.”  The number of times that the college-aged mentors and the high schoolers talked about the musical “Hamilton” during the hangout time that evening told me how much Dr. Jones’ presentation had made a real impact on them.       

Grand View University is making a vitally important contribution to the Church through NEXUS.  I am very glad that Lutheran CORE has the opportunity to support this ministry through sponsoring a week of NEXUS during the summer of 2021.

I am very grateful for all who have already contributed towards our meeting our commitment of $15,000.  This amount covers half of the cost of providing one week of NEXUS for twenty-four high school students, including the cost of college-aged mentors, teachers, activities, room and board, and materials.  The funds from Lutheran CORE will be matched by Lilly Endowment to cover a full week’s cost of $30,000.

At this point we have received over $8,000 in contributions towards our commitment of $15,000.  Thank you to those who have already given.  Please consider making an additional contribution to Lutheran CORE to help us fulfill this commitment.  Be sure to indicate NEXUS on the memo line on your check. 

NALC CONVOCATION

Congratulations to the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) as they celebrate the tenth anniversary of their formation as a denomination.  Since the day when they were first constituted, on August 27, 2010, when seventeen congregations signed up, they have grown to over 440 congregations and over 150, 000 members.  As Bishop Dan Selbo said, “We are not able to be together in person, but we are united in Jesus.” 

Bishop Selbo’s opening devotions and Gemechis Buba’s keynote address were both based upon one of my favorite passages of Scripture – Ephesians 3: 14-21.  Paul concludes this passage by saying in verses 20 and 21, “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever.” 

Addressing the fact that Paul was in prison when he wrote this letter and referring to the global pandemic that has surprised us all, Bishop Selbo made the very interesting and pertinent comment that the shutdown and other circumstances related to the pandemic are “the closest I have come to being in prison, and yet they do not even come close.”  He then talked about the hope that sustained Paul in prison as he said, “That is the only real hope that we will ever have.”  Following up on Paul’s statement in verse 14, “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,” Bishop Selbo asked us, “Are we spending the time we need to in prayer, or do we think we can do it alone and on our own?”

The following morning Dr. Buba picked up on some more of the emphases of this passage.  I am always hugely inspired and encouraged whenever I hear Dr. Buba. 

Dr. Buba referenced Paul’s language in verse 21 – “To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever.”  First he said, “All our focus must be on Jesus.”  Then he asked how we could be speaking of the decline of the church and the passing of the Christian era when the Bible uses the words, “to all generations, forever and ever.”  He reminded us of how we speak of measurable goals, measurable actions, but the Bible speaks of immeasurability.  The Bible tells of the one “who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine.”  We must not put a limit on the grace of God.  If God is involved, the results will be immeasurable.

Reflecting on the fact that in verse 14 Paul said, “I bow my knees before the Father,” and in both verses 16 and 18 he said, “I pray that,” Dr. Buba commented that our problems come when we do not pray, when we ask for the wrong things, when we pray for less than God can do, and when our prayers lack intentionality.  In contrast to an image of a church that is shrinking, slowing down, and becoming less, Paul’s reference to “the power (that is) at work within us” means that the church is the most powerful institution on earth.   We must never ask for less.  We must never imagine small.  We need a God-sized prayer life and a God-sized vision. 

During the convocation Bishop Selbo laid out a ministry vision for the next several years of the NALC.  His vision for such things as new mission starts and the number of seminary graduates reflected a faith like that of the apostle.  I like the comment that Dr. Eric Riesen, president of the North American Lutheran Seminary, made to Bishop Selbo.  “You are articulating a vision for a Lutheran church that I have always wanted to be a part of.”   

LETTER TO BISHOP EATON

I had promised that I would share whether I had heard from Elizabeth Eaton, presiding bishop of the ELCA, in response to the letter which I sent to her on July 20.  Over three weeks later I have not heard anything from her or any of her staff.  That is an interesting way to handle challenges to the ELCA’s integrity – to just ignore it.

In my letter I asked Bishop Eaton how the ELCA could be celebrating the tenth anniversary of LGBTQIA+ persons’ being able to serve freely in the church when that is not what was voted on at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  That assembly did not consider B, T, Q, I, A, or + persons.  Instead it only provided for the possibility of the ordination of a certain group of L and G persons – those that are in (PALMS) publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same sex sexual relationships.  In my letter I asked her how, going forward, any one on any side of any issue would trust any action taken by any Churchwide Assembly if the ELCA does not honor the commitments and remain within the boundaries, but instead essentially rewrites the resolutions that were voted on and approved in 2009. 

A copy of my letter to Bishop Eaton can be found here.  If you receive communications from Lutheran CORE via the U. S. post office mail, a copy of my letter has been enclosed. 

PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH

Finally, I would like to recommend to you the weekly prayers of the church, which can be found on the Worship page on our website.  Many thanks to Cathy Ammlung, NALC pastor and secretary of the board of Lutheran CORE, for writing these weekly prayers.  I had the privilege to preach on August 16 on the text from Matthew 15 on Jesus and the Canaanite woman.  I found her prayers to not only relate to the issues of our day, but also to the unique emphases of that particular Scripture passage.

Many thanks to Cathy for writing these prayers.  I highly recommend them to you.

Blessings in Christ,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
[email protected] 
909-274-8591  

July 17, 2020

Dear Bishop Eaton:

As I was reviewing the section on the homepage of the ELCA website entitled, “Resources for the LGBTQIA+ Community,” I was surprised to find a link to the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” because of the multitude of ways in which the ELCA violates the commitments, does not maintain the boundaries, and essentially has rewritten the documents that were approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.   

The ministry policies, adopted in 2009, only had to do with people in (PALMS) “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”  That phrase was used repeatedly.  The policies did not have to do with B, T, Q, I, A, or +.  They only had to do with a certain group of L and G – those who are in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”  And yet what does the ELCA claim to be celebrating?  The tenth anniversary of LGBTQIA+ persons’ “being able to serve freely in the church.”  This is language that you yourself have used.  In a letter dated June 29, 2020 you wrote, “And it wasn’t until 2009 that barriers to ordination were removed for LGBTQIA+ individuals in committed relationships.”

The 2009 human sexuality social statement described four positions, each of which would have a place within the church.  All four of those positions are more conservative and traditional than the full LGBTQIA+ agenda which the ELCA has now totally embraced and claims to be celebrating the tenth anniversary of. 

One of the RESOLVED sections in the 2009 ministry policies states, “RESOLVED, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America make provision in its policies to recognize the conviction of members who believe that this church should not call or roster people in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationship.”  What has the ELCA done to “recognize the conviction” of members who hold to traditional views?  In 2018 at the youth gathering, the assembly was addressed by a transgender activist (which was outside of what had been approved by the church) and another keynote speaker led the young people in renouncing traditional views as a lie.  The home page of the ELCA website now contains a link to ReconcilingWorks and its resources.  No support is ever given to traditional views in the selection of speakers for youth gatherings or in links to resources on the home page of the website.  And no concern or support has ever been expressed by you for those who fear that they might be adversely affected by Supreme Court decisions regarding same sex marriage and/or LGBTQIA+ rights.

The only possible positive point is that the information accessible through links on the homepage of the ELCA website does describe ReconcilingWorks as an “Independent Lutheran Organization” – rather than as a department of the ELCA.  But it is obvious that ReconcilingWorks is the preferred, recognized, and approved organization, and when it comes to matters of human sexuality, the only organization that counts. 

How can the ELCA be trusted?  How can the ELCA be seen as having moral integrity and authority when it neither honors the commitments nor respects the boundaries from the 2009 human sexuality social statement and ministry policies.  What would happen if any branch of the government were to take a law passed eleven years ago – or anyone were to take a business contract signed eleven years ago – and then claim that it said something different from what it actually said?

Going forward, why would anyone on any side of any issue trust that any decision made by any Churchwide Assembly would be honored?  

Thank you for hearing my concerns.  I deeply hope and pray that the ELCA will begin to keep its commitments in this area and begin to act in a more honorable and honest way so that it can be trusted and so that the trust which you described as so important when you were first elected can be rebuilt and regained. 

Thank you for your leadership of the church.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

[email protected]

A RESPONSE TO AND EVALUATION OF RECONCILING SCRIPTURE FOR LUTHERANS

Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans: Sexuality and Gender Identity is a booklet distributed by ReconcilingWorks to give a Biblical basis for affirming the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and for fully welcoming LGBTQ+ people into the life of the church, including as rostered leaders of the church. The booklet is divided into three parts. A short introduction discusses what the authors present as a Lutheran way of interpreting Scripture. The booklet then covers eight Bible passages, which it describes as the “clobber passages” that have been “used to exclude LGBTQ+ people from the body of Christ,” and eight passages which it claims “offer inclusive and expansive understandings of the nature of God’s welcome” (page 7).

In this article I will cover two things –

First, the way in which the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture is set aside in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective.

Second, the way in which the booklet never adequately addresses the fact that whenever the Bible speaks of same-sex sexual behavior, it always speaks against it.

First, the setting aside of the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective.

The authors begin by praising Martin Luther for rejecting allegorical and metaphorical methods of interpretation, and instead insisting “that Scripture should not be interpreted to say more than what it meant to its original hearers, writers, and readers.” Our duty is to explore “what Scripture would have meant to its original hearers in its historical context” (page 10). And yet there are multiple times when the authors twist and/or stretch the plain and obvious meaning and message of the Bible in order to get the Bible to support their agenda.

The First of the Passages Used to Exclude is from Genesis 1, which clearly states that God created humanity male and female and then said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1: 28). The traditional view of human sexuality is based upon the Biblical account of the creation of humanity as male and female. This view is supported by no less an authority than Jesus himself, who quoted this passage in Matthew 19: 4. Because God made humanity male and female, they were able to multiply and fill the earth.

And yet look at what the authors have done. They argue that just as there is not only land and sea, but also things in between such as swamps, estuaries, and reefs, and not just day and night, but also times in between such as dusk and dawn, so the Biblical account of creation could be interpreted as endorsing not just two sexes – male and female – but also a wide variety of gender identities (page 16). They also say, “We may read the description of human beings as male or female in this verse in the same way we read the description of God as Alpha and Omega – as a summary of every point along spectrum, rather than as two distinct boxes” (page 16).

But what does the Bible say? What is the clear meaning and message of Scripture? In Genesis 1: 27 it says, “Male and female he created them.” And then in the next verse, in verse 28, it says, “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’” It is because humans are male and female that they are able to multiply. In Matthew 19: 4-5 Jesus said, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” The words “for this reason” at the beginning of verse 5 mean that there is a connection between verse 4 and verse 5. It is because God made humans male and female that two people—one male and one female—are able to become one flesh. Any other interpretation—such as that the Bible is advocating for a wide variety and broad spectrum of sexual and gender identities—is reading in rather than listening to the plain, clear, and obvious message of Scripture.

The Second of the Passages Used to Exclude is from the second creation story found in Genesis 2. The authors state, “This coming together of Adam and Eve as man and woman has been used as a proof text in the argument against same-gender relationships.” The authors are correct when they say that Christians who hold to a traditional view believe that “true unity in relationships can only be achieved by male-female pairs whose differences complement each other, essentially making one whole out of two halves” (page 19).

What is odd is what the authors say in the next several sentences. They argue that the use of the language “one flesh” in both Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 recognizes a desired “sameness.” “If Adam was searching for a partner who had significant differences, or even complimentary (sic) differences, he might have chosen one of the animals whom God brought to him earlier in the chapter . . . . But rather than choosing something entirely different from himself, Adam speaks reverently about the similarities he and Eve share . . . . The characteristics that Adam was looking for in a mate had more to do with similarity and the ability to share life with someone like himself than it had to do with making up for some kind of lack in either partner” (page 19).

It is because of their bias to find support for same-sex relationships that the authors allow for only two options—the sameness of Adam and Eve, and the great differences between Adam and one of the animals. They do not allow for a third possibility—the similarities and differences, or what could be called the complementary differences, of male and female, which are able to become one flesh, and which are then able to multiply and fill the earth.

The authors also ignore the clear and obvious way in which the Biblical text connects verse 23 of Genesis 2, which speaks of the creation of two sexes, male and female, with verse 24, which speaks of two becoming one flesh. Verse 24 begins with the words “therefore” or “for this reason.” It is because male and female are two separate sexes (verse 23) that they are able to become one flesh (verse 24).

The Third of the Passages Used to Exclude is Genesis 19. I believe that the authors have made a clear and compelling case that homosexual behavior is not the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rather the Scriptures are very clear that many other sinful behaviors also are the issue, including pride, greed, and uncharity (page 23). Those who wish to build a case that the Bible consistently rejects same-sex sexual behavior need to refer also to other passages of Scripture and not just the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Leviticus 18 and 20 – I will deal with these in the second part of this article.

The Fifth of the Passages Used to Exclude is Deuteronomy 22: 5, “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” The authors give two reasons why this verse should not be used as an argument against cross dressing. First, they say that some scholars believe that wearing the clothing of another gender was a common part of the cultic rituals for many of the civilizations surrounding Israel. Therefore, this prohibition essentially added another layer of protection against any kind of worship of other gods (page 27). I do not know enough about the worship life of the nations surrounding Israel at that time to be able to comment on this first argument. However, there is a major flaw in their second argument. The authors refer to the writings of a Jewish rabbi who suggested that the words used for “a man’s apparel” actually refer to armor and weapons. In an effort to minimize the loss of women who would be capable of childbearing, women were not to dress as men and go into battle (pages 27-28). The problem with that interpretation is that the verse not only forbids women to dress as men, it also tells men not to dress as women.

The Sixth of the Passages Used to Exclude is Deuteronomy 23: 1 – “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” Along with the authors I feel compassion for a man who has been forcibly castrated—either as a form of punishment (page 29) or in order to make him into a eunuch so that he would be able to care for the king’s wives or to watch over the royal treasury (page 30). I can understand the point of the authors that maybe this verse was included in order to keep “the Hebrew people from using castration as a punishment because it would essentially disconnect the offender from society as a whole, which, in that time and place, would have been almost as effective as a death sentence” (pages 29-30). I give thanks for the later inclusion of those who had been forcibly castrated in exile (see my consideration of the Third of the Passages Used to Welcome – Isaiah 56), and I give thanks that Philip reached out to and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (see my consideration of the Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome – Acts 8). But, as I will say in my consideration of those two passages, they do not give Biblical support for transgenderism as a sex change process which is intentionally and voluntarily chosen.

The Seventh and Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 – I will deal with these in the second part of this article.  

It should be clear and obvious that in their consideration of the Passages Used to Exclude the authors are not taking seriously the clear and obvious meaning of a text, but instead are using a text for their own pre-determined purposes in order to find Biblical support for the LGBTQ+ agenda. The same is also true of the Passages Used to Welcome.

The First of the Passages Used to Welcome is the book of Ruth. The authors are absolutely correct when they say that “Ruth shows great loyalty to Naomi, both in word and in action, and for it she is rewarded with a husband and a place among the chosen people of Israel” (page 42). The authors say it so well in their claim that “Ruth’s story gives us some of the most beautiful commitment poetry in the Bible” (page 42). The fact that Ruth, a foreigner, became a “part of the chosen people of Israel and a member of the lineage of Christ” (page 42) does show that “God works through outsiders to continue to bring the whole world to restoration and reconciliation” (pages 42-43). But there is no way that one can legitimately argue that the book of Ruth is intended to support the LGBTQ+ agenda and the concept of same-sex sexual behavior. The only sexual relationships mentioned in the book of Ruth are opposite-sex sexual relationships—between Elimelech and Naomi, their two sons Mahlon and Chilion and their Moabite wives Orpah and Ruth, and Ruth and Boaz. In trying to get this story to support the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior the authors have violated the method of interpretation which they have praised Martin Luther for—not trying to get Scripture to say “more than what it meant to its original hearers, writers, and readers” (page 10).

As part of their discussion of this First of the Passages Used to Welcome, the authors also mention Jesus’ actively reaching out to people on the edges of society, including Samaritans and tax collectors (page 42). But again, there is no way that one could argue that in taking these actions Jesus was advocating for the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior. In the same way, I do not believe that Jesus was advocating for same-sex sexual behavior in Luke 4 when he spoke of how Elijah was sent to the widow at Zarephath in Sidon and how during the time of the prophet Elisha, only Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of his leprosy. The authors are violating the integrity of Scripture by trying to get Scripture to say something far different from what it meant to the original hearers, writers, and readers.

The Second of the Passages Used to Welcome is Psalm 139. The authors quote verses 13 and 14: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” These verses remind me of Jeremiah 1: 5, where God said to the prophet, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

The authors are absolutely right when they say that the verses from Psalm 139 show that “God already knows us completely, and loves us unconditionally” (page 44). They are also correct when they say that we “learn and grow and continue to change throughout our entire lives” (page 45). They are accurate in their statement that “sometimes we require or choose to do things that help make us more whole and more healthy, like getting fitted for glasses, or taking medication for depression, or having our appendix out” (page 45). So far I would agree with them. But then they go on to say that “for transgender people, these changes may include things like name and pronoun changes, hormone therapy, or gender-confirmation surgery” (page 45). They are speaking as if gender-confirmation or gender-reassignment surgery was no more than getting fitted for glasses or having your appendix taken out.

What the trans-affirming community is saying is that the “real” self is the self with the new name and the new gender identity. According to the trans-affirming community, as God was forming my inward parts and knitting me together in my mother’s womb, God knew that the name I would be given at my birth would not be my real name and the gender with which I would be born would not be my real gender. There is a total lack of Biblical support for the idea that my “real” self (which is also known to God) is something other than what God formed me in my mother’s womb to be. Psalm 139 does not support what the trans-affirming community is trying to get it to support.

I will consider together the Third and Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome. The Fifth of the Passages Used to Welcome is the story in Acts 8 of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Along with the authors I grieve over the thought that this person who was seeking to be in relationship with God might not have been allowed into the temple in Jerusalem. Along with the authors I rejoice that a follower of Jesus (Philip) realized “the real-life implications of a Gospel that is meant for all people” (page 54). The Ethiopian eunuch was asking, “Can my being a eunuch and an ethnic and racial outsider keep me from being baptized?” Along with the authors I am glad that Philip answered with a resounding, “Of course not.” But the baptism and inclusion of someone who was probably forcibly castrated does not provide Biblical support for voluntarily choosing gender-confirmation or gender-reassignment surgery.  

The same thing is true of the Third of the Passages Used to Welcome – Isaiah 56, which embraces those who had been forcibly castrated in exile. This passage also does not provide Biblical support for a sex change process which is intentionally and voluntarily chosen.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Welcome is from Matthew 22. Jesus is asked, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He replies, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew 22: 37-39, Mark 12: 30-31). The authors ask whether the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 against sex with animals, sex with “a man as with a woman,” and sex during a woman’s menstrual cycle show love (verse 51). Their answer is that the ancient Israelites were like other ancient cultures in believing that the amount of semen was limited. Sex with animals, same-gender sexual activity between men, and sex during a woman’s menstrual cycle would have “wasted” an opportunity to have a child. “Depriving a wife of children . . . would not have been an act of love” (page 51). However, the Bible does not base its prohibition against sex with animals and same-sex sexual behavior between men upon a limited amount of semen. Rather it is based upon creation. The one whom Adam was to become one flesh with was the one concerning whom Adam said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2: 23). The one whom Adam was to become one flesh with was not one of the animals, from which he was very different, but a human, with whom he shared both similarities and differences—a human of the opposite sex.  

The Sixth of the Passages Used to Welcome is the story of Peter and Cornelius, as found in Acts 10 and 11. Along with the authors, I am struck with how difficult it must have been for Peter to go to Cornelius’ house. I am glad that Peter paid attention to what the Spirit was doing, even when the Spirit was doing some “scary and life-changing things” (page 56). But there is a basic problem in claiming that the Gentile outreach of the early church supports the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior. Outreach beyond the Jewish community was fully in line with the words of Jesus to the disciples in Acts 1: 8 – “You will be my witnesses in . . . Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” And in the New Testament there is a clear change in attitude towards the Old Testament dietary laws. “The law was our disciplinarian until Christ came.” (Galatians 3: 24) But there is no way that there is a similar change in attitude in the New Testament towards same-sex sexual behavior. Rather, as we will see in the second main section of this paper, every time the Bible speaks about same-sex sexual behavior, it speaks against it.

One wonders why—with their prime method of interpretation being a hermeneutic of inclusion rather than what the passage meant to its original readers, writers, and hearers—the authors did not include the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 as one of the passages used to welcome. If some of the other passages which they use are supposed to support same-sex sexual behavior, then why could we not say that the decision to include Gentiles within the church without their first having to become Jews also supports same-sex sexual behavior?

The Seventh of the Passages Used to Welcome is 1 Corinthians 12, where the apostle Paul describes the church as being like a body. I agree with the authors that Paul is saying that every part of the body is important, and that when one part of the body is hurting, the whole body is hurting. The problem is that the authors then use these statements to build their case in favor of the LGBTQ+ agenda and same-sex sexual behavior.

Certainly, every part of the body is important. Certainly, the pain felt by anyone needs to affect everyone. As people who have experienced the love of Christ, we need to feel compassion for all people, regardless of their sexuality and gender identity. We need to speak the truth in love, but we need to speak the truth. How can we use this part of one of Paul’s letters to argue in favor of something that Paul so clearly writes against in other parts of his letters? Again, the authors are violating their own principle of interpretation by trying to get a passage of Scripture to say something very different from what it was meant to say by its original writer to its original hearers and readers.

Having covered several examples of the amazing way in which the authors set aside the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture in order to get Scripture to support the LGBTQ+ perspective, I will now turn to the second main section of this article –

The way in which the booklet never adequately addresses the fact that whenever the Bible speaks about same-sex sexual behavior, it always speaks against it.

Here I will address the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude. All of these passages are very clear in their rejection of same-sex sexual behavior. The authors of Reconciling Scripture are never able to develop a convincing argument to dismiss, discredit, reinterpret, or explain away this rejection. One of the things that for me is amazing about their treatment of the Fourth Passage is that they do not even really try.

The Fourth of the Passages Used to Exclude is from Leviticus 18 and 20. Leviticus 18: 22 clearly says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” This prohibition is then repeated in Leviticus 20: 13. (Please note that I have corrected the typo in the booklet, which has “like” rather than “lie” in its quotation of both verses.)

What could be clearer than that? And yet the authors never really deal with that very clear prohibition. Nor do they come up with a convincing argument to explain it away. Instead they state that “Jesus’ relationship with the Mosaic law is complex” (page 25).

They are correct when they say that Jesus made some of the commandments even more demanding (as in the Sermon on the Mount), on several occasions did not observe the sabbath commandment, and saved a woman who had been caught in adultery from being stoned. But Jesus never arbitrarily violated the letter of the moral law merely by stating that that prohibition was not valid anymore. When he acted contrary to the sabbath commandment, he always had a specific, life preserving purpose for doing so. Also, as in the time when he defended the disciples, who were being criticized for plucking some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them on the sabbath, Jesus cited Biblical precedent. He told of how David and his companions ate the Bread of the Presence, “which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat” (Luke 6: 4). Unlike Jesus, the authors are not able to and do not provide any Biblical precedent for their rejecting the prohibitions against same-sex behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.

In the same way there is no way that you could say that Jesus’ challenging the crowd, refusing to condemn the woman, and sending her on her way (page 26) is an adequate argument for rejecting the very clear prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. In Jesus’ saying, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11), he was saying that the woman—as well as the man with whom she had been committing adultery—had both been sinning.

I would certainly agree with the authors that the Bible does not support modern-day violence against men who have sex with other men (page 26). It certainly also does not support modern-day violence against women who have sex with other women, men and women with gender dysphoria, and so on. But I would also want to say that the authors have done nothing to counter the clear prohibitions against same-sex sexual behavior in Leviticus.

Nor have they done an adequate job at explaining away the clear statements from Paul against same-sex sexual behavior in the Seventh of the Passages Used to Exclude – from Romans 1. In Romans 1: 26-27 Paul says, “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.”

Unlike the way in which the authors really did not deal with the Fourth Passage (from Leviticus), at least they try to find a way to explain away the clear meaning of the Seventh Passage. First, they try to discredit the Seventh Passage by saying that “Paul, like every other writer of his time, did not have a concept of ‘sexual orientation’ as we have today” (page 32). Therefore, they would argue, Paul did not understand that for some people it feels “natural” to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. But here Paul is not talking about what feels natural to me. Rather, starting with verse 20, he is talking about creation. He is talking about the natural orders of creation—the fact that God created humanity male and female. And besides, just because certain desires and attractions feel natural to me, that does not mean that they are right. It would be a very scary approach to ethics to say that if it feels natural or desirable to me, then it must be acceptable. One would never want to say that, if it feels natural or desirable to engage in pedophilia, rape, or adultery, then it must be OK.

Second, the authors argue that Paul is not speaking against same-sex sexual behavior per se, but same-sex sexual behavior within the context of idol worship. Again, that kind of interpretation has to be read in. It is not what the passage says. It is not the conclusion that a person would come to through what the authors call “the Plain Reading of Scripture.”

And then there is another line of argument that has been used by others against a traditional interpretation of this passage, which the authors of this booklet do not use. Some say that Paul is not talking here about loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior between two adults, but instead is speaking against abusive, same-sex sexual behavior, such as between an adult and a child. The problem with that interpretation is the clear consensual language that Paul is using. “The men . . . were consumed with passion for one another” (verse 27).

The Eighth of the Passages Used to Exclude are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. These two verses make use of two words in Greek which are the issue here – malakoi, which literally means “soft ones” (page 35), and arsenokoitai, which is a combination of the words “male” and “bed” (page 36) – men who take other men to bed. The Greek word malakoi has been interpreted to refer to men who take the passive role in a same sex sexual relationship, i.e., who allow themselves to be penetrated.

The authors are among those who try to build a case in favor of same-sex sexual behavior by arguing that what the Bible is speaking against is abusive, same-sex sexual behavior—same-sex sexual behavior where there is an imbalance of power—not against loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior. Therefore, they make such statements as the following. In the culture in which Paul was writing, “same-gender sexual activity existed, but long-term, monogamous, same-gender romantic relationships did not . . . . Paul wanted to reaffirm the boundaries of marriage. Although there was same-gender love in Greek and Roman cultures, it was not understood as a long-term relationship or one that could lead to marital fidelity and family” (pages 36-37).

But again, that is not the clear meaning of what is being said. Paul is not saying that it is OKto be among the malakoi and arsenokoitai as long as you are involved in loving, committed, consensual, same-sex sexual behavior, but it is not OK if you are involved in abusive, imbalance-of-power, same-sex sexual behavior. Rather he is speaking against all same-sex, sexual behavior. And the fact that in these passages Paul speaks against a number of other kinds of behavior does not eliminate the fact that he speaks against the malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The Eighth of the Passages Used to Welcome is Galatians 3. The authors begin that section by saying that Paul’s letter to the Galatians “was meant to help a community of diverse people understand how they might worship God together” (verse 59). Therefore, “in an attempt to bring the diverse Galatians together, Paul points them toward the one thing they all share—an identity in Christ” (page 59).

I was relieved that the authors did not try to argue for the elimination of sexual differences based upon Paul’s statement in Galatians 3: 28 that “there is no longer male and female.” I have known people who have made that kind of argument. Rather Paul’s point is that in terms of salvation there is no one group that has a special “in” over other groups. Paul’s main purpose in writing to the Galatians was not “to help a community of diverse people understand how they might worship God together.” Rather it was to counter false teachers and to bring the people back to an understanding that “a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2: 16).

The authors are right that there is an “inclusive arc that runs throughout scripture . . . beginning in the earliest history of the Hebrew people—set apart from all others with a Law to govern that separation—to the calling in of one outsider after another from Ruth, to the foreigners and the eunuchs of Isaiah, to the tax collectors and Samaritans of the Gospel, to Cornelius the Gentile centurion” (page 60). But the prohibition against same-sex sexual behavior remains throughout Scripture. It is not just part of the Law that governed Israel’s separation in the early days of their existence as a people. Rather it is based upon the creation of humanity as male and female, and it stands throughout the Bible.

The authors end the booklet by advocating for “an acceptance of differences in sexuality and gender identity” (page 60). It should be clear from a reading of this article that the authors are advocating for something that the Bible consistently does not approve.

The authors end by advocating for “a welcome for all” (page 60). The issue is not “a welcome for all.” Jesus told Nicodemus in what has been called the Gospel in a nutshell—the most famous verse in the Bible—“God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3: 16). Jesus’ use of the word “everyone” is a “welcome for all” to believe in him and have eternal life.

The issue is not whether there is “a welcome for all.” Rather the issue is what kind of behavior does the Bible accept and what kind does it not accept. It is absolutely essential that those who hold to traditional views of human sexuality address the matter of LGBTQ+ concerns with compassion. We need to stand firm on what the Bible says, but, as the apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians, we need to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4: 15).