I have appreciated Don Brandt’s wisdom and leadership in Lutheran renewal through the years, and I welcomed his article in last month’s CORE Voice. He accurately diagnoses the biggest single problem that runs through all of our Lutheran denominations in North America — our desperate shortage of pastors. And I almost agree with his proposed solution.

Don points out that even when we had more than enough pastors, there were not nearly enough willing to serve in smaller rural and inner-city settings. He notes that these congregations became training locations for pastors who would move on in a few years to a larger church. This does not provide the stability of leadership a congregation needs to be effective in mission and outreach.

I would add that in our time even larger congregations are having difficulty finding ordained pastors. In my North American Lutheran Church, we were told at our pastors’ convocation that some congregations have had profiles posted for a year or more but have received zero interest from pastoral candidates. The ELCA synod I had been a part of recently notified its congregations that because 40% of its churches lack either a called or interim pastor, they no longer have enough supply pastors or authorized lay leaders to provide leadership for these congregations every Sunday.

As an NALC dean, I tell congregations that the total cost of having a pastor (not just the compensation) will approach or involve six figures. Many pastors now serving “full-time” can only do so because their spouses provide insurances and other benefits. Retirements are outpacing ordinations. I don’t think we in the NALC are alone in these challenges.

So far Don and I are on the same page. And I fully agree that what we have been doing is not going to provide the pastors we need to lead our congregations in mission in the 21st century. Not only do we not have people who are in a position to take three or four years out of their lives to pursue MDiv degrees (even online), but many of our congregations cannot afford the salaries required to cover living expenses plus student loan debt (which can easily amount to $50,000 for seminary alone and at least as much for college).

My quibbles with Don are two-fold.

First, and probably minor, he repeats the common misconception that Luther taught something called “the priesthood of all believers.” For all that we have heard this repeated from lecterns and pulpits, Luther taught no such thing. It is actually a 19th Century Calvinist concept. Luther did teach a wonderful understanding of Christian vocation (see the oldie but goodie by Gustav Wingren, Luther on Vocation, Muhlenberg Press, 1957). Whereas the medieval church taught that church vocations were “religious” but others were not, Luther understood that all Christians exercise our Baptism in the world as we love God by serving our neighbors, and that we do so through our variety of callings. These grow out of the Fourth Commandment that establishes the orders and structures of society. Thereby all legitimate callings can be “religious,” as long as Christians engage in them out of love for God and neighbor.

Luther also taught that because the bishops refused to ordain pastors for the churches of the Reformation, the princes and magistrates should claim the authority of their Baptism and ordain pastors to serve these churches. This was not a free-for-all. Luther called on legitimate authorities to meet the need, and to do so by ordaining pastors to serve these congregations. More on that later.

In the Augsburg Confession, Article V makes it clear that the “Holy Ministry” is of divine origin, and that it consists in preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. Article XIV insists that nobody is permitted to preach or teach publicly in the churches or administer the sacraments without a “proper call” (rite vocatus in Latin, which in the context means “ordained”). The sad reality is that none of our Lutheran church bodies are observing Article XIV today.

As I see it, the problem is the professionalization of the clergy, which took hold in the 1950’s as pastors wanted to have the social status of lawyers, doctors, and others. The Bachelor of Divinity degree was changed to a Masters of Divinity with absolutely no change in the program (a similar thing happened to law degrees), and spiritual qualifications for ministry were largely replaced by academic ones.

It didn’t help that the primary requirement to teach in our seminaries was to have an earned PhD degree and not vital parish ministry experience. And with few exceptions PhD degrees could only be secured in religion departments of secular universities, which had no accountability to the “faith once delivered to the saints.”

Don proposes that the solution is to have lay-led congregations. My counter-proposal is that we ordain those people in congregations who have the gifts and call for ministry, which includes seeking realistic and reasonable ways to equip them to serve faithfully as pastors to God’s people in those places.

Ordination historically is not an academic certification. It involves the Body of Christ discerning God’s call on a person, and then gathering to lay hands on that person and pray for them to receive the gifts they need to serve God’s people faithfully. Does this communicate some sort of “indelible character”? I do not believe that ordination makes a person spiritually superior or gives them some special powers, but neither dare I say that these prayers are inconsequential. Paul called on Timothy to “stir into flame” the gift he had received through the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6).

I am not arguing for dumb pastors (although the smart-aleck in me might wonder whether the academic captivity of the churches has alleviated this concern). We were ordaining pastors in North American Lutheranism for 125 years before we had a seminary. Their training and preparation was through mentorship. There is no reason we couldn’t have more than one clergy roster, or that we could not establish a system of ongoing mentoring for those unable to pursue the academic track.

I wish we could fill all our pulpits with faithful pastors formed by four-year residential programs in our seminaries. But as is so often the case, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. We need pastors in many of our congregations right now, not ten or fifteen years from now, and simply working harder at what has not been working fits the classic definition of insanity, if we imagine the results will be any different.

To return to Luther: I believe on the basis of the Augsburg Confession that all God’s people deserve and need to be fed with the Word and the Sacraments from properly ordained persons, and that the most important single task of any church judicatory is to provide such pastors for all its congregations. If the judicatory insists on procedures that effectively starve the people in congregations spiritually by denying them Word and Sacrament, perhaps the congregation should adopt Luther’s example and, after prayerful discernment and conversation, ordain people within their own fellowship to serve them. I view this as Luther viewed his proposal for the princes and magistrates to ordain as a “last resort” sort of option, and I am sure judicatory officials will not be pleased if congregations take matters into their own hands. The solution is for the officials to find creative ways to feed the lambs of our Lord’s flock with the Bread of Life. I suspect that here Don and I come very, very close to agreeing. Such a congregation needs to be prepared to accept discipline from their judicatories. [Here is where LCMC with its contract pastors offers a viable option, although I believe they need policies in place to protect people from abusive clergy.]

God has established the Holy Ministry of Word and Sacrament, and He has given us the task of determining how to structure and organize it in this time and place. The structuring of the Office of the Ministry has changed many times throughout history, and needs to change today. I fully agree with Don that what we are doing has not served us well for many decades and will become an even greater problem as time passes.

The answer is to re-evaluate how we discern that God has called a person to Holy Ministry. Once we make that discernment, after prayer and serious conversation, the solution is to ordain the person. St. Peter would not be acceptable as a pastor in most of our Lutheran churches today. We need to look at God’s call and gifts and not merely at academic degrees to determine whom God has chosen to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments in our congregations.

To all decision-makers in our church bodies, our Lord says: “Feed my sheep.”

I first got to know the name James Nestingen through what I still believe is the best confirmation text ever produced — the first edition of Free to Be co-written with Gerhard Førde. (Jim was unhappy with the later revision of it by AugsburgFortress.)

But while I heard him speak from time to time, the first occasion I spent at length with him was the Lutheran CORE Conference at Lindenhurst, Illinois, on September 28, 2007. Many of Jim’s friends and students describe him with the word “prophet,” and he was certainly in full prophetic mode at that event regarding the directions the ELCA was taking. The event gathered those of us who would lead the response to the sexuality decisions that would be made a few years later, leading to the change in strategy of Lutheran CORE and the formation of the North American Lutheran Church.

Jim represented a somewhat different version of Lutheranism than I had grown up with in my eastern LCA context, and I found it enlightening and refreshing, not to replace but to supplement the ways I had come to understand the faith. I learned from him to say with regularity, “we sinners,” as I would preach and teach. Jim would tell us that we should always listen for a confession in conversations with people. He understood the brokenness of our fallen world, and exulted in the Word of absolution that we dare to speak on the authority of the Son of God Himself.

Not that Jim ever claimed to be anything other than one of “us sinners.” And he could sin boldly from time to time. For him, theology was not an abstract intellectual enterprise, but God’s life-saving intervention in the world with the Word of Life we are empowered to speak through Jesus. He stood on “grace alone,” knowing that even our repentance is God’s gift through the Holy Spirit, channeled through the Word and the Sacraments.

Jim was not given to moderation, because his life was a huge love affair with Jesus. He and I had one difficult time when he demanded that Lutheran CORE rescind our invitation to a speaker with whom he had personal and theological conflicts. When we refused, our relationship was tense for a while, but we both moved beyond it. Lovers sometimes over-react, and Jim threw his whole being into the service of the Lord he loved. He was indeed a jealous lover of the Lord who he knew loved him with the same intensity.

As a speaker, nobody could hold the attention of an audience, lay or clergy, as well as Jim could. His repertoire of Sven, Ole, and Lena jokes along with often-scatological humor (which prevented most preachers from stealing his material) interfaced well with his profound theological insights, always centering on the Word of forgiveness Jesus proclaims through us. His North Dakota Scandinavian farmer persona helped humanize his brilliant teaching, and he could share personal stories of his encounters with real people and how the Word of forgiveness encountered them. Often he and all his hearers were in tears as he recounted these stories, even stoic Germans like me.

I still remember his story of visiting a dying friend, whispering in his ears as he was leaving this life, “The next voice you hear will be Jesus.” That is how real and concrete Jim’s faith was, and I know I became a better pastor because of my contacts with him.

Jim has been bothered these last years by painful ailments, and while he limited his travel he still managed to make it to NALC conferences and events, and to serve on our Commission on Theology and Doctrine (CTD). He arrived early in Dallas for the CTD meeting in November as my deans’ meeting was ending, so we got to spend a little time conversing together. While he was in obvious pain, somehow he found a way to fly there and continue to offer his guidance to the church body he helped bring into existence. I remember with thanksgiving these last conversations I had with him until we two redeemed sinners meet again around the Throne.

His death was sudden, and there was evidently nobody to whisper in his ear, “The next voice you hear will be Jesus.” But Jim already knew the voice of the Good Shepherd whom he loved and served so faithfully, and he surely knew Who was welcoming him into his heavenly home.

Pro-life folks are celebrating the strong probability that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, which as even the late Justice Ginsburg acknowledged was too far-reaching and too sweeping. While she and I disagree on the outcome we desire, I affirm with her that any reforms to abortion regulations (and they were needed in 1973) should have involved legislative processes along with judicial ones (I would say legislative instead of judicial decrees).

But before we party too heartily, this is far from the end of debates over issues of abortion (or other matters regarding the sanctity of life). As Churchill said after the Battle of El Alamein, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will not end abortions in this country, but it will create hundreds of new challenges as the debates move where I believe they should always have been, to the Congress and the legislatures of the various states. And my sense is that most of us are not equipped to accomplish what is needed — to change hearts and minds of those who genuinely believe the debate is about “women’s rights” or “women’s health care.”

The reality is that over the past 50 years, the same arguments have been repeated (ad nauseam, I might add), by those on both sides. Some folks are persuaded by one set of arguments and some by the other. But there is no attempt to find a reasonable place most of us can move beyond our slogans to look for common ground.

As I see the various memes on my Facebook feed, folks are lobbing slogans and in some cases hysterical screeds that have no chance of persuading anybody to look at the matter differently. No, the next step is not to ban interracial marriages (I have actually seen posts to that effect), and no, it is not the end of abortions in America. [As an aside, those who laugh at believers in some massive Q conspiracy seem to be susceptible to their own conspiracy theories.]

A story: Way back in 1984, I was a delegate to the convention of the Lutheran Church in America in Toronto. My bishop assigned us to attend various workshops, and perhaps mischievously and perhaps wisely he sent me to one on the topic of abortion. The room was filled with pro-choice folks. My friends will be amazed that I kept a low profile, and once those gathered realized that the place was “safe,” they started sharing their dismay at the huge number of abortions being performed. Finally I went to a microphone, identified my position, and suggested that we had more in common than it appeared. A reporter for UPI even interviewed me afterwards, and the conversation became much more constructive.

We who are pro-life need to take seriously that many of those holding a pro-choice position are uncomfortable with the death of babies. And we should be uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric on our side which leads people to believe that we have no concern for very difficult decisions women and doctors sometimes need to make on terminating a pregnancy. Burn me at the stake if you wish, but there are times when an abortion may be a responsible decision. I believe this should be rare, but even the Roman Catholic Church permits abortion of an ectopic pregnancy.

Another story: When my mother learned of my pro-life views, she said, “There is something you need to know.” In 1948 she was in renal failure at Geisinger Hospital as she was carrying me, and the doctors told my father they couldn’t save both of us. He told them to “save the baby,” and in his best military veteran’s style would add later, “I don’t know what I would have done with a [bleep] baby.” Now as it turned out, my mother outlived my father by a quarter of a century, and I am still journeying around the sun 74 years later. My mother never had any doubts or reservations about the decision my father made; had she been able, she would have made the same one. But looking back (I hope with gratitude and humility) I do not believe my father could have been condemned had he chosen the opposite. Oh, and this was 25 years before Roe v. Wade but abortion would have been an option.

I have been told that after Roe v. Wade, Senator (and Lutheran) Mark Hatfield was prepared to introduce a human life amendment which probably could have passed. The problem was that some pro-life advocates wanted an absolute prohibition, and others wanted to include exceptions (rape, incest, preserving the life of the mother). Sen. Hatfield knew that he would not have enough votes if either group voted against it, so he told the groups to work out their differences and give him a bill they could all support. Sadly, that never happened, and millions of lives have been sacrificed. As is so often true, the perfect can be the enemy of the good.

We who are pro-life will never win the victories that matter in congress and state legislatures unless we are prepared to address the legitimate concerns of the large number of people who really are “pro-choice” and not simply “pro-abortion.” There are absolutists on both sides, and all they do in either case is radicalize the other side. Again, Justice Ginsburg recognized that Roe v. Wade empowered the pro-life movement (and I suspect, bears much of the responsibility for the ugliness of the political wars wracking our nation right now).

So I would challenge my pro-life friends — Tone down the rhetoric! Listen to the legitimate concerns of those persuaded by the pro-choice arguments. Take seriously the genuine compassion they feel toward women in crisis pregnancies. Be prepared gently to respond to the lies which are widely believed, such as that pro-life people don’t care about the child after it is born. And show by your actions that you do care! The narrative spread by the media and the abortion advocates is that we are a bunch of hateful fanatics (mostly males) who want to oppress women by forcing our narrow religious doctrines on them. You and I know that isn’t true, but sometimes we let ourselves get carried away in the heat of argument.

If in fact the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, our work will just begin. Are we prepared to engage in the hard work of speaking and acting in ways that might change the hearts and minds of those who disagree with us? Are we prepared to listen more than to argue? The lives of thousands, maybe millions of human beings will depend on our answer.

The ELCA has long bragged in its news releases by a tag line reporting how significant it is because of its size. One could cite this as another example of a Theology of Glory, but then ‘God’s Work Our Hands’ sounds rather ostentatious too (not to mention synergistic).

Anyhow, the current tag line reads:
“The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with nearly 3.3 million members in more than 8,900 worshiping communities across the 50 states and in the Caribbean region. Known as the church of “God’s work. Our hands,” the ELCA emphasizes the saving grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unity among Christians and service in the world. The ELCA’s roots are in the writings of the German church reformer Martin Luther.”

Compare this to the tagline in the oldest press release I saved, from August 2016:
“The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with more than 3.7 million members in more than 9,300 congregations across the 50 states and in the Caribbean region. Known as the church of “God’s work. Our hands,” the ELCA emphasizes the saving grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unity among Christians and service in the world. The ELCA’s roots are in the writings of the German church reformer, Martin Luther.”

Since 2021 statistics are not available yet, that means that the ELCA admits to the loss of more than 400,000 members in the four-year period from 2016 through 2020, meaning a hemorrhage of around 80,000 souls per year. The drop of roughly 400 congregations would come out to an average of about 80 per year. And these are “net” figures, after any growth in either category.

As Dr. Phil might ask, “How is all this inclusiveness working for you?”

While I had met Bishop Paull Spring a few times over the years, our real contact began late in 2005. I had made the mistake of not attending a meeting (the Kansas City Conference), and in my absence I was elected to the Steering Committee of the new Lutheran Coalition for Reform (as it was called then).

Before our first meeting, Paull called and asked whether I would be willing to take the minutes of the meeting. And so the journey began, often together.

Paull was, as a friend described in a positive way, a true character. He was a unique individual, and was not bashful about letting people know his thoughts and opinions. But he would also listen and respond rationally to opposing viewpoints.

As an ELCA bishop from a relatively small rural synod (Northwestern Pennsylvania), Paull was known as the theological conscience of the Conference of Bishops. He developed strong friendships and equally strong dislikes among the group. Paull was not one of those boring people who needed everybody to like him, and he did not suffer fools gladly.

Yet it was Paull Spring who met with Pr. Jaynan Clark of the WordAlone Network, as those two leaders who had very different views on many issues in the ELCA realized that the things they agreed about were more important than the ones that separated them. Probably nobody else would have had the credibility to lead the generally eastern and “liturgical” group into an alliance with the mostly-midwestern and “evangelical” (in the American sense) constituency of WordAlone. But thanks to Paull and Jaynan as the initiators, it happened.

I always enjoyed meetings Paull led, because by about the 50-minute point he would shuffle nervously, and soon he would call a recess so he could go outside and puff on his pipe. Of course, his smoking got him in trouble from time to time. Once at the Indianapolis Airport I was sure we would be arrested waiting for a shuttle as he insisted on lighting his pipe beneath a sign threatening prosecution for smoking. And he recounted the time he thought he had found a secret place to smoke during a Pittsburgh Pirates game, but when his family realized he had been gone a long time, they discovered security was in the process of removing him from the stadium.

Paull not only got himself into quite a few mishaps, he delighted in telling about them. As I have heard stories from mutual friends over the years, I realized that I heard most of them from Paull himself. He didn’t take himself all that seriously, but he certainly took his theology seriously.

Riding in a vehicle he was driving was a spiritual experience. I repented of most of my sins on such trips, starting when he let go of the steering wheel at 75 mph on an Ohio Interstate so he could light his pipe. He thought I was kind and generous to do most of the driving; I viewed it as self-preservation.

Paull had strong feelings about hotels and restaurants. He insisted on a hotel where he could smoke his pipe (no surprise there). A glass of wine in the evening with the manager only made the facility more attractive. And he never did like my choice in restaurants. After the biker bar that was recommended to us in Akron (which had great food), I just left it up to him to find our dining places.

Paull also never quite forgave me for a certain church service we attended. I will omit the city and congregation. The congregation was rainbow-friendly, and the liturgy was magnificent until Paull turned around at the sharing of the peace and saw two older men kissing on the lips. The look on his face was priceless. Like at the biker bar.

That said, at Churchwide Assemblies Lutheran CORE usually had a room next to the organization advocating acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships. To most people’s amazement, our groups had cordial relationships. When the folks from the next room invited Paull to their worship service, he accepted. But he was about as comfortable as he was at that biker bar in Akron.

When the time came to choose a bishop for the first year of the NALC, there really was no other option. Paull had the credibility, the respect, and the organizational skills to make it happen. And he had the theological acumen to get us started in the right directions.

Paull and I continued to connect through the years, sometimes at events and sometimes as Linda and I worshipped at the congregation he helped start in State College, Pennsylvania. Paull and I didn’t always agree on things (including politics), but we were always able to share with mutual respect. I wrote a few things along the way that disturbed people in the NALC, but if Paull wrote a response, he always made sure I received a copy directly from him. He was generous with his praise, helpful with his criticisms, and always a true gentleman and a faithful follower of Christ.

I visited him at the hospital in State College earlier this year, and he knew how sick he was. In typical Paull fashion, as I walked into the room, he blurted out, “I almost died, you know!” And the last time we were together, at a worship service in Emmanuel in State College, I asked how he was doing and he barked, “Not as good as I used to be.” That sort of blunt realism characterized so many of my experiences with him.

I will miss seeing him again this side of eternity, and I trust that our Lord has prepared a good supply of pipe tobacco, since near the end he was even unable to enjoy that guilty pleasure.

I thank God for the privilege of knowing and working with this unique and delightful (even when grumpy) saint. His example, his faithfulness, and his hard work will be a blessing to the North American Lutheran Church and beyond for generations to come. My prayers continue for his wife Barbara and for their daughters.

May Paull Spring rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine upon him!

Back in my college days, I was on the debate team. We would be assigned a general topic for the year, and a two-member team from one college would offer a proposal within the topic, while a team from a different college would oppose it. We didn’t know until a few minutes before the debate started whether we would be advocating the affirmative or negative side, nor did the negative team know how the affirmative would frame its proposal.

One of the tricks was to frame the proposal in terms that made it difficult to oppose. Probably we spent more planning time on that than the merits of the ideas at stake.

I have watched how those holding the revisionist position on sexual ethics have brilliantly re-framed the debate in ways that put those of us holding to traditional biblical ethics at a disadvantage in convincing others. They managed to frame the debate in such a way that any opposition to their positions seemed unjust or even sick.

This has been done in two ways. First, sexual orientations and behaviors were turned into issues of civil rights. Think how you see the = sign on bumper stickers; “All we want is the same right you have to be married to the person we love.” And since, as the argument goes, sexual orientations are not a matter of choice but perhaps even good things which God has created, gender identity and sexual orientation should be a protected civil right. So, it is stated as proven and obvious fact that sexual orientation is like race or ethnicity — a matter about which we have no choice. Even though science has failed to find a so-called “gay gene,” the statement that “we are born gay [or whatever]” has been repeated so often that it is generally accepted as true [see Orwell, the “big lie”].

I first heard this contention back in 1983 (yes I am that old) at a Conference on the New Lutheran Church at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. Karen Bloomquist, who at the time served in the social affairs office of the LCA (and would later be the primary writer of the first ELCA sexuality statement, the one that went down in flames) was giving a presentation with a list of groups of people who should be protected, and included along with race, gender, and ethnic origin the matter of sexual orientation. I challenged her, and I still remember Prof. Robert Jenson sitting in the back of the room, grinning I suspect at my naïve surprise at her linking of these topics, for it had been done in the wider society long before I first heard it.

We all have sinful orientations. The Church calls it “original sin.” St. Paul speaks of it as “the flesh,” to which “the Spirit” is opposed. Not all of us are tempted in the same ways, but on other matters nobody will say, “God made me this way, so you have to celebrate it and be proud of me.” For instance, there is a proven genetic connection to addictions including alcoholism, but we would not celebrate drunkenness in an alcoholic. The ethical choice for an alcoholic is not to drink; it isn’t to go around proudly claiming, “God made me this way.”

Once we turn sexual orientations into civil rights instead of behavioral issues, we have been placed at a significant disadvantage in defending the biblical view of sexuality. And that is exactly what has happened.

A danger of seeing sexual orientations as civil rights issues is that this paves the way for the power of government, especially its power to tax, to be used against groups including churches which do not accept this new definition of justice. Already the Supreme Court has declared (I believe disastrously) that tax exemption is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the government to organizations that share its values (the case involved Bob Jones University, and a similar one involved Rev. Moon). Several prominent politicians have publicly proposed that churches which refuse to conduct same-sex marriages should be denied tax exemptions.

A second brilliant move by the sexual revisionists is even more frightening: They have basically declared that anybody who opposes their viewpoints on sexuality is mentally ill.

Think of what that term “homophobia” means: “homo” means “same” and “phobia” is fear. It is a pseudo-scientific term coined to cut off any debate about the rightness or wrongness of same-sex sexual activities. If you disapprove of same-sex sexual relationships, you are obviously homophobic, and shame on you! End of discussion.

In my state, our Secretary of Health started life as Richard but is now Rachel. And the media is trumpeting how those who make unkind statements about her are “transphobic.”

I’m not sure about you, but I don’t lie awake nights in fear that a group of transgender people are going to attack me. Nor do I wake up screaming because of a nightmare that some crazy doctor is attacking me with a knife. I guess there might be such a thing as homophobia, in the sense that a person may be insecure in their masculinity or femininity. But most of us do not go through life obsessed with fear of gay or lesbian people or inclinations. I have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, and they are generally nice people. I just don’t agree with this aspect of their lifestyle. But then there are reasons to disapprove of a lot of things I do too (file that under the topic of original sin, even though most of my sinning isn’t all that original).

Not only does turning traditional sexual ethics into mental illness cut off any constructive conversation, but it puts us in a very vulnerable position, which is exactly the intention. Call me paranoid, but I can see that in a certain cultural climate, folks like me might be compassionately “treated” in a kind and gracious attempt to release us from our bondage to our phobias.

Let’s be clear: All gay and lesbian people, all transgender people, are precious children of God for whom Jesus died, as he died for all us sinners. They are our neighbors whom we are commanded to love as we love ourselves. All of us (including me) need to avoid unkind comments or actions toward these people.

And it is true that there is such a thing as gender dysphoria, where the brain and body fail to communicate accurately in fetal development, so that the brain thinks it is one gender while the body develops as the other. This is tragic, and Christians can and will disagree on how a person deals with this aspect of the brokenness of our fallen world. Similarly, there seem to be very complex factors in a person being attracted to a member of the same sex. I accept that persons normally don’t choose to be gay or lesbian (although today there seem to be some exceptions like Katy Perry “I kissed a girl,” who try it for kicks and to prove their open-mindedness).

What does this mean for us? For starters, I believe we need to repent of any nastiness or unkindness we practice or feel toward what are called “sexual minorities” (I won’t try to name them all). We are not called to hate anybody, and when we come across that way, we simply confirm the opinion of those who believe we have a serious prejudice or mental illness.

And on a societal basis, we need to treat all people with justice and fairness. The time is probably long past when pastors should be agents of the state in officiating at marriages. We should let the government do its thing, and if people want God’s blessing pronounced on their relationship, that would be our role where we believe we can do it with integrity.

But we need to keep reminding ourselves and others that our concern is not with orientations or inclinations but with actions. We can’t always change what we feel, but we can have some control over what we do. I am not saying that this is easy: I think of Mark Twain who said that it was easy to quit smoking; he must have done it a thousand times. And most of us can relate regarding our struggles with our particular temptations.

I am not optimistic that we can change the framework in which sexual ethics is being argued today, but we need to be aware of it and be prepared to challenge it. Once behaviors outside the boundaries of heterosexual marriage are turned into civil rights, and especially when opposition to them is defined as mental illness, we have our work cut out for us. It will require a lot of wisdom and patience to counter those assumptions (for they are assumptions, not proven facts).

And if we fail to love other sinners, we don’t deserve to win an argument either. So let us keep our focus directed toward love for all our neighbors, even as we look for opportunities to account for the hope that is in us, but always with gentleness and reverence (see 1 Peter 3:15-16).

Pastor Steve Shipman wants to be clear that the political statements below are his opinions and do not represent official positions of Lutheran CORE. He served as a pastor in the ELCA for more than 45 years including as Director of Lutheran CORE. He is now an NALC pastor serving an interim pastorate in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. You can contact him at prsteveshipman@gmail.com.

One could almost feel sympathy for ELCA
Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton as she tries to navigate the minefield that is
the current political debate over legislation permitting or restricting
abortions.

As I noted in a previous article, the ELCA published a social statement on abortion a number of years ago, probably the last such statement that truly included a variety of opinions and was not simply stacked on one side along with a token “conservative” or two to make the outcome look legitimate.

Radical Feminist Cabal

The reality is that nobody in the ELCA officialdom seems willing or able to challenge the radical feminist cabal who are evidently the power behind the crozier. The ELCA has become what Secretary Almen warned against when it was being formed: It is the far left wing of a certain political party at prayer.

Correction

At the end of May poor Bp. Eaton issued a
letter on abortion, followed swiftly by a “correction.” Obviously she stepped
over a line on the first try, which did fairly accurately represent the
statement. The original letter from the Bishop said, “Through this social
teaching and policy statement, this church seeks to travel a moderating path by
supporting abortion as a last resort for pregnancies that are unsafe or a
result of rape or incest.” And that is basically true. But less than an hour
later she issued a correction, dropping “for pregnancies that are unsafe or a
result of rape or incest.”

Bp. Eaton’s Political Issue

Let’s review what the ELCA Abortion Statement actually said. It was quite clear: “…this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon. ” And of course the political issue which Bp. Eaton cannot or will not address is that laws are being passed and celebrated in shameful ways which permit any and all abortions up to the moment the baby comes out of the birth canal. Some political figures even leave it up to the mother to decide whether doctors should be permitted to treat a baby born after a botched abortion.

Abortion and Slavery

I personally believe that the
abortion issue in our time is the moral equivalent of the issue of human
slavery two centuries ago. If the Lord tarries, in another century the ELCA and
the other oldline churches will be seen much as we view those Christian groups
that justified slavery, often on biblical grounds.

Incapable of Biblical Truth

It is ironic that while the ELCA eagerly accuses every white person of being a horrible racist who needs to be re-educated to give up our “white privilege,” (which is even worse if you are a male), it is incapable of speaking a word of biblical truth in defense of vulnerable life unless it serves a certain political agenda.

The Science is Clear

And while on other issues the ELCA champions truths of science to support its political lobbying, the science is very clear that the unborn child has a very different DNA from its mother. The unborn child clearly has a higher moral claim than a spleen or an appendix.

So what can you do?

Goddess Choice

First, pray. Pray because just
as we are still experiencing what the prophets would call God’s judgment over
the practice of human slavery, God will not be mocked over the sacrifice of
innocent life on the altar of the goddess Choice.

Second, join Lutherans for Life, support them with your prayers and financial gifts, sign the petition they have recently posted (links are also on our Facebook page), and learn more about what they are doing.

Nothing is More Important

And third, I’m sorry to say
this, but please reflect on this issue when you cast your vote.  I am unapologetically a single-issue voter. I
believe that nothing is more important today as a political issue than the
protection of all life from conception to natural death. Yes, there can be a
few squishy areas on the extremes. But I cannot support any politician or
political party that advocates and even celebrates abortion without any
restrictions whatever.

March for Life 2020

So maybe that brings up a fourth point. I have gotten involved again in political campaigns to support some strong pro-life candidates. And they know why I support them (although they aren’t about to pander to the abortion lobby to save their political careers). Politics may not be for everybody. But at the very least, I hope to see many of you at the March for Life on January 24, 2020 in Washington (or you can look for a local march). We need some ELCA folks too, since I can no longer hold one end of the “ELCA for Life” banner.

Photos of baby in the womb by Life Issues Institute

The annual March for Life is Friday, January 18. We encourage all
Lutherans to meet and march together. More ELCA pro-life people could increase
pressure on that denomination to live up to its social statement on the topic
(imperfect, but better than most realize).

NALC
LIFE Conference

All Lutherans are very welcome at the NALC LIFE Conference the day before
the March, Thursday, January 17, starting at noon with lunch at Trinity
Lutheran Church, 276 Cleveland St., Warrenton VA. And you can’t beat the
registration cost: Free! It would be nice to call them and let them know
you will be there so they can prepare for lunch. The event concludes by 5:00.
It is a great place to connect and have your questions answered before heading
into the city the next day.

Where
to Begin?

The best way to begin the day of the March is by attending the National
Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers. Christian believers and
clergy from numerous denominations, including Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for
Life, will gather for this event at historic Constitution Hall in Washington,
DC, 1776 D St., NW (18th and D St) on the morning of Friday, January 18, 2019.
The interdenominational service will take place from 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Fr.
Pavone will deliver the sermon. Admission is free, no tickets are
required, and large groups are welcome. Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Sandra Merritt will
be our special guest speakers and we will welcome Joyce Im Bartholomew as our
musical guest. See NationalPrayerService.com.
Clergy are invited to vest and sit on the stage (arrive by 8 if you want to
participate).

Text Me

The city will be crowded. You are welcome to text me at 570-916-7780. But be patient; I often can’t hear calls or don’t respond to text messages immediately. Lutherans tend to gather at 12th St. and Constitution Ave to set up their banners and prepare to march the 1.3 miles to the Supreme Court building.

Click to access the 2018 Newsletter for Lent.

Epiphany 2018 Newsletter