No Mention of God

Here is a link to the ELCA’s description of the Highlights of its own recent Churchwide Assembly. Please notice.  Two words are conspicuously absent – the words “Jesus” and “God.” 

One would think that a church body that is holding its triennial, several-day assembly would consider some mention of Jesus and/or God in its Highlights, but not the ELCA.  I have read the Highlights three times, but have found no mention of either.

This is even worse than the ELCA’s own Summary of Actions from its 2019 Churchwide Assembly.  Again, that summary makes no mention of Jesus, but it does make one mention of God, when it says that we are all created equal in the eyes of God.

In the summary of the 2022 assembly there is mention of greenhouse gases, D. C. statehood, diversity, equity, and inclusion, but no mention of Jesus or God.  It is only a matter of time until the ELCA will bear little if any resemblance to a Christian church. 

Updated Understanding

In my August letter from the director I expressed my concern that the 1991 social statement on abortion (which is more conservative than what most in the ELCA would want) could be gotten rid of through archiving.  Actions taken by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly included archiving several social policy resolutions, including a couple related to the issue of abortion.  I knew that it was social policy resolutions (not a social statement) that were archived at the 2022 CWA, but I was concerned that since the 1991 abortion social statement takes a similar position to the social policy resolutions that were archived in 2022, what would prevent the social statement from being archived in 2025?  It is good to know that a social statement which is more conservative than the preferred and prevailing position within the ELCA today cannot just be gotten rid of through archiving.

Note from CORE’s Executive Director: Many thanks to a seminarian, who wishes to remain anonymous, for writing about what it was like to attend an ELCA seminary.  Students considering enrolling in an ELCA seminary, as well as members of orthodox congregations still in the ELCA, need to know what is being taught and what they can expect from their future pastor.  Will this kind of woke educational experience train someone who will provide good pastoral care and leadership for your congregation?  Those who believe that theologically solid pastors are and will continue to be available within the ELCA should know that there are some (Thanks be to God!) but the number is decreasingly rapidly.   

I attended United Lutheran Seminary (United), in Gettysburg, for 3 semesters. My time there led me to realize that there was no place for a confessional Lutheran faith within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Growing up in central Pennsylvania, I knew nothing of the other Lutheran denominations. Every Lutheran church within an hour of my house was ELCA and that was all I knew. Upon entering seminary, I was assured by my synod’s bishop that there was a place for a confessional Lutheran in the “big-tent,” that is the ELCA.

United did not share this view and I realized this in my first semester, when I began questioning the “sacred doctrines” of the ELCA that were invented in the last 10 years. My first semester I took the class Systematic Theology 1: Creation, Sin, and New Creation, which I thought would provide me with a greater understanding of the ELCA’s newly held positions as well as a basic overview of theological concepts and systematics. I hoped that it would answer some of my questions and strengthen my ability to conduct ministry faithfully. I was disappointed to find that much of the class was heavily focused on womanist, feminist, and other niche and modern theological interpretation rather than core or confessional concepts. This was the only theology class that I was required to take. This lack of true theological instruction allows seminarians to believe they understood yet have made strawmen of a Biblical Christianity. Much of what the Church held for the last 2000 years could be dismissed as “privileged,” “racist,” or “sexist.”

My first (and only) sermon I gave at United was for my homiletics class. I was assigned to preach on the first week of Lent, which includes the Gospel reading of Christ being tempted in the wilderness. In my sermon I mentioned, not as the message of the sermon but to highlight the goodness of Christ, that hell was real. I felt relatively proud of my sermon while giving it. Given that it was my first sermon, it could have been better, but I stand by my message today. It shocked me when my homiletics professor opened my sermon up for critique and she implied that I shared a heretical message. I did not realize that the acknowledgement of hell was such a faux pas. After my professor shared that I was a heretic, much of my peers’ remarks echoed her idea. I called my parents as well as a mentor that evening and shared that I wanted to leave seminary because apparently, I did not understand anything about the faith.

Getting raked over the coals for believing that Christ was not lying when He spoke of hell was the straw that broke me. I realized that I could not stay at United, and I would not be welcome in the ELCA, if this is where the publicly acceptable discourse is.

Some of the common talking points that the professors would push in a variety of their classes include: using non-masculine pronouns for God, the merits of a variety of sexual relationships, how the church has been a force for bad in the world, and leftist political talking points.  It is a shame that there could not be serious theological discussions concerning these topics as to disagree with any point carried with it accusations of being “not-loving,” among other unflattering titles, and being shut down by the professor.

When I told my synod’s bishop about leaving the ELCA, I told her how I felt betrayed by a church that I grew up in and how I was lied to when I was told that there was a place for me. She was sorry and could not defend the actions of the ELCA from polygamy to the disbelief in hell. There is no Biblical defense, and she couldn’t spin one. When I went to my home congregation to tell my pastor, whom I grew up with, he was not nearly as cordial. He tried to challenge me as misinformed when I pointed to the ELCA’s radical direction. He accused me of being political for not agreeing with the ELCA.

Although the gospel is not preached there anymore, it is sad to know I am no longer welcome in my home congregation.

Since coming to the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), I have appreciated the professionalism of the professors in the North American Lutheran Seminary (NALS), the comradery among clergy, and general support from congregations. It is refreshing to be able to read the Bible and confessions in a seminary setting and have genuine discussions about the application and use of the concepts. There is a fellowship among the students as members of Christ’s Church, here for Christ, unlike what I have known within the ELCA.

I write this because this is my story. I could have shared more anecdotes about the inability of United to form its students, the unprofessionalism of the professors and ignorance of those who followed the party line, but these examples make my point. I do not want to slander the ELCA or any pastors or congregations in it. I only want to bring light to what is going on in the once great Lutheran seminary of Gettysburg, PA, United Lutheran Seminary.

It breaks my heart to have had to leave but I have found a home in the NALC.

The ELCA held its Churchwide Assembly August 8-12 in Columbus, Ohio.  The gathering sent a strong message to confessional Lutherans with traditional views – You are not welcome.  In this article I will list several ways in which the decisions that were made and the events that took place communicate that message loud and clear.    

First, the resolution concerning human sexuality that came from the Memorials Committee early on in the gathering was bad enough.  The assembly voted overwhelmingly, without discussion, and with no concerns expressed “to authorize a social statement reconsideration to revise Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (2009) so that its wording reflects current church understanding, church policy, civil law, and public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-confirming couples.”  It was obvious where this was headed, and it took only two days to get there.  Towards the end of the week a resolution came through the Reference and Counsel Committee “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” which “reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience.”  At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

I am certain that the ELCA never intended to honor traditional views.  The language regarding bound conscience and the four positions was placed within the 2009 social statement only to obtain enough votes to get the social statement approved.  One needs to look no further than the ELCA’s total embrace of ReconcilingWorks and its choice of keynote speakers for the 2018 youth gathering to realize that confessional Lutherans with traditional views are not welcome. 

David Charlton, vice president of our board, has done a powerful analysis of the possible (even probable) implications of this action. 

• Candidacy committees and seminaries will no longer need to pretend to work with traditional candidates.  They can reject them outright.
• Seminaries will be able to openly purge any traditional professors who remain, in the name of ELCA policy.
• Synods will no longer need to work with congregations who do not want to call LGBTQIA+ pastors.  These congregations can be told, “Either call an LGBTQIA+ person or you will get no pastor at all.”
• It will be difficult for a pastor who holds traditional views to move to a new synod or a new call.  A bishop will be able to refuse to recommend a pastor for a new call if that pastor is unwilling to do same sex weddings.
• It will be easier to sue congregations for not doing same sex weddings.

Second, during the days leading up to the assembly there was much conversation about calling for a restructure of the governance of the ELCA.  I read comments from many people who believed that the Memorials Committee’s original recommendation to refer the memorials from synods to the Church Council was an act of deliberately stonewalling their efforts.  Some even talked about a showdown at the assembly.  By the time of the assembly the Memorials Committee had changed its recommendation – to one which directed “the Church Council to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” 

One could hope, when this new church is reconstituted, that congregations will be given an opportunity for an “easy exit” because the new church will not be what they had signed up for in 1988.   There is even talk about removing the word Evangelical from the name of this new church.  The claim is that the word evangelical is associated in the minds of many people with right-wing, racist, white-supremacy fundamentalists.   

Prior to the assembly I read much criticism of Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton – some of it even very severe.  Some were calling for her resignation or a vote of no confidence because of the way she initially handled the situation with Meghan Rohrer and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina.  Bishop Eaton survived the assembly (though she did test positive for COVID on the morning of the final day – we pray for her quick and full recovery) and she demonstrated throughout the week her great giftedness for presiding over a large and complex gathering.  But I definitely got the impression that she was not setting the course.  The relentless revisionists were, and they have completely taken over.

Third, the whole assembly was a powerful example of the amount of damage that can be done to and the depth of embarrassment that can be created for a large organization by the foolish and self-centered actions of just one person.  It felt like the specter of former bishop Meghan Rohrer and their termination of Nelson Rabell on the Feast Day of our Lady of Guadalupe hung over the entire week.

Fourth, Bishop Eaton’s apology to Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina was deep and thorough, and the response of the representatives of the congregation was incredibly gracious, but it should be noted that Bishop Eaton apologized only on behalf of the ELCA.  She did not apologize for herself.  It is a whole lot easier – and a whole lot less painful – to apologize on behalf of a large group of people rather than on behalf of yourself.

During the apology she said, “Part of the body was disconnected; the body was not whole.”  She also promised to be “committed to listen to voices that have traditionally been marginalized.”  But what about another part of the body that is disconnected?  What about other voices that are being marginalized – the voices of those who hold traditional views?  During and after the 2009 Churchwide Assembly Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson reached out to those who were feeling alienated by the actions that were taken (even if it was only for the self-serving reason to preserve the organization).  I have not heard of any effort – nor do I expect to hear of any effort – to reach out to those who feel disconnected and marginalized, even more so now because of the vote on the human sexuality resolution.  We are just too few in number and we are seen as insignificant.  Unlike Pastor Rabell and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina, pastors and congregations who hold traditional views do not have well-positioned, powerful, and credible people to advocate for them – and to do so relentlessly – until finally something is done.

Fifth, the overwhelmingly positive vote on the Land Back Memorial is another example of ELCA inconsistency and hypocrisy.  The assembly fully supported a resolution which, among other things, called upon the ELCA to “support creative programs of restorative justice in partnership with Indigenous people, including, but not limited to, whenever considering a transfer or sale of real property, including returning land (and any structures built on it) after satisfying any financial obligations, to the appropriate Native nations, and when direct return is not feasible or not desired by the Indigenous people, to return the proceeds from the sale of the land to the ELCA Native American Ministry Fund or other local Indigenous led ministries or organizations.” 

Several months ago I wrote a letter to the bishop of the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  In that letter I said that if that synod truly believes that the land now occupied by the synod offices and all of the congregations of that synod is stolen land, then they are morally obligated – whenever they close a congregation and sell the property – to return at least the value of the land to indigenous persons, and if they do not do so, then they would be complicit in the stealing of land.  The problem is that the number of congregations in that synod and the size and vitality of the remaining congregations are so diminished.  Therefore, that synod needs considerable funds from the sale of buildings and land of closed congregations to balance the budget. 

Will the ELCA truly want to return land and structures to Native nations if the ELCA is struggling financially, or is virtue signaling something the ELCA does only when it does not cost too much?  Also, will the ELCA be willing to return the land and structures of congregations that had to pay a very high price to leave the ELCA?  And if those congregations no longer exist, will the ELCA be willing to give the land and structures (or the value of that land and those structures) to other church bodies which better reflect the beliefs and values of those congregations that paid a very high price to leave and/or were decimated by the persons whom the synod sent in?

Sixth, those who hold a pro-life position should be deeply disturbed by the action that was taken to archive a number of social policy resolutions. In the ELCA social statements cover broad frameworks and are intended to help God’s people think about their faith in the context of social life.  Social policy resolutions are a much narrower and more focused category of social teaching.   

The idea behind archiving a social policy resolution or social statement is to say that that document is no longer relevant to the ELCA’s mission, does not have continued significance for society, and is no longer congruent with ELCA social teaching.  The ELCA’s abortion social policy resolution states essentially the same thing as the ELCA’s 1991 abortion social statement, and it has now been archived.  It has been ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent with ELCA social teaching.  It is only a matter of time – perhaps at the 2025 churchwide assembly – until the ELCA’s abortion social statement also will be ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent.  After all, as one person said recently, “The ELCA’s abortion social statement was written in the 1900’s.”  I do not remember any explanation of the meaning and significance of archiving prior to the vote to archive.  If anyone who holds a pro-life position happened to be present, there is a good chance that that person would not have understood what just happened. 

Seventh, there was a lot of strange spirituality and even the worship of other gods during the assembly.  The opening focused more on the original inhabitants of the land than on Jesus, and the welcome from the bishop of the host synod focused more on the rivers that flow through that synod than on Jesus.  And the prayer from a member of the prayer team during the vote on the human sexuality resolution was particularly strange.  First, Bishop Eaton needed to be reminded of the importance of having a prayer even though voting had already begun.  And the wording of the prayer was completely irrelevant. A member of the assembly prayer team read from her i-phone an invocation to Mother Earth and Father Sky, concern for all the creatures of the earth, and repentance for our not recycling enough.  The only possibly relevant phrase was, “Help us to dance together,” but even considering that phrase relevant is a stretch.  The thinking seems to be that if we pray prior to a vote, then the outcome of the vote must be within the will of God. 

Eighth, one might wonder how so much groveling, repenting, and apologizing by the assembly could possibly be uplifting for the voting members.  The reason is that they were groveling over, repenting of, and apologizing for what other people have done and not for anything that they have done or ever would do.  A definite characteristic of the whole Woke Movement is an arrogant self-righteousness.

Ninth, in an article entitled “Major Disaster on Its Way,” published prior to the assembly, I wrote of my concern regarding two constitutional amendments that would be considered.  A link to that article can be found here.  The first amendment, which removed proclaiming God’s love for the world from the role of rostered leaders and essentially made them social justice advocates, was originally voted on in 2019.  This amendment was part of a block of amendments that were ratified overwhelmingly.  A motion to ratify previously approved amendments is not open to debate.  ELCA parishioners should not be surprised if their pastors do not preach about Jesus, but instead are only social justice warriors.   

I was glad to hear considerable concern expressed regarding the role of the ELCA’s colleges and universities as described in the other amendment.  Many felt that the deletion of a certain paragraph from the constitution weakened the church’s connection with those institutions and diminished their Christian witness.  A slight majority voted to approve, but it did not receive the required 2/3rds, so the amendment failed.

Tenth, it was good to see certain issues addressed – such as the evils of racism and abuse of power, the need for fair and adequate compensation for all rostered leaders, and the issue of seminarian debt.  And there were four times when the proceedings made me chuckle.

• When Bishop Matthew Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod responded in the words of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to a motion to eliminate the breaks in order to give more time to the consideration of the memorials.  He said, “If we do not satisfy the lower level needs, we will never be able to self-actualize.”
• When a voting member who made a motion to table the Land Back Resolution was told that a better way to go would be a motion to postpone debate until a fixed time or when certain conditions have been met.  His response was, “I have no idea how these rules of whatever work.”
• When Bishop Eaton said to Bishop Riegel, “I have learned not to doubt you.”
• When a voting member spoke to a certain resolution, using all the right woke phrases but not making any sense.  Bishop Eaton had a very pained and confused look on her face as the voting member was speaking and then said, “Thank you.”

The “Embody the Word” Bible studies prior to the assembly culminated on the second day with a theological presentation by Anthony Bateza, associate professor of religion at St. Olaf College.  He talked about the importance of trust, the lack of trust today, and the question of how do and can we become people who can be trusted.  He told of his having to undergo surgery and physical therapy after tearing his ACL in a skiing accident.  He said that he needed to learn to trust his own body again.

Even more so than ever before – with the motion “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” and reconsider “the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” – the ELCA has totally obliterated any reason why anyone with traditional views would ever trust the ELCA.  The damage to the body is irreparable.  Far more than an ACL has been torn. 

The ELCA will be holding its triennial Churchwide Assembly next week, August 8-12, in Columbus, Ohio.  The Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative body of the ELCA.  There is much coming up which should be of grave concern to Biblically faithful, confessional Lutherans.  I will be watching the assembly online and will report back in my August letter from the director.  But in the meantime, I wanted to inform you of three actions which are on the agenda, which only go to show how far and how quickly the ELCA has strayed from Biblical truth and moral values and the mission that Jesus gave to His Church.

The first two are amendments to the ELCA constitution.  The first one has to do with the mission and purpose of ELCA colleges and universities.  My understanding is that if this amendment is approved, it will need to be ratified at the 2025 assembly.  Here is a link to all of the amendments which will be voted on.

The second amendment has to do with the role of rostered ministers.  This amendment was approved at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly and needs to be ratified at the 2022 Assembly.  Here is a link to all of the amendments which were approved in 2019 and need to be ratified in 2022.

Unfortunately, both of the above are to be passed – or not passed – “en bloc,” meaning one vote on many amendments, so specific discussion about any one amendment is discouraged.  My expectation (and fear) is that many people will not know what they are voting on and for, because there is so much material for them to go through and master in the Pre-Assembly Report.  (The cynic in me believes that part of the ELCA strategy is to inundate voting members with “so much stuff” that the assembly will approve what the “powers that be” want them to approve.)

#1:  The Mission of Colleges & Universities

Here is the text of the first amendment. 

Any section which is underlined is being added.  Any section which is crossed off has been in the constitution and is being deleted.  The implications for ELCA colleges and universities are enormous.

Are ELCA colleges and universities no longer to be Lutheran/Christian?  Are they no longer to be faithful to the will of God?  Are they no longer to provide religious education and worshipping community?  Are they no longer to provide holistic care of students (body, mind, spirit)?  Are they to be reduced to mere vocational training institutes–not distinctive from any other college or university out there–and nothing more?

What impact will this have upon colleges and universities which previously have had a strong Lutheran identity and/or solid confessional teaching?  What will become of colleges and universities when they are no longer held accountable to the godly mission for which they were founded, and which is now being removed by constitutional amendment?

#2: The Role of Rostered Ministers

Something very similar is being done to the role of pastors (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and deacons (Ministers of Word and Service).  Here is the text to the second amendment.  Again, these amendments were approved at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly and will not be made official until and unless they are ratified at the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  (I guess there was so much focus on the ELCA’s declaring itself to be a sanctuary church body and the Declaration of Inter-Religious Commitment back in 2019 that this one “slipped by us.”  Again, this can happen when you inundate people with so much “stuff.”)

Are rostered ministers no longer to be “proclaiming God’s love for the world” and “witnessing to the realm of God in the community, the nation, and abroad”?  This change is rather shocking, and I would assume that even “radical, liberal, and progressive” clergy, with their very different definitions of “God’s love” and the “realm of God,” would generally agree that the role of clergy should include “proclaiming God’s love” and “witnessing to the realm of God.”  Are clergy to be primarily social justice advocates?  How will it go for your congregation if your next pastor is primarily a social justice advocate? 

#3: Revision of Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

We knew it would be coming, and now may be the time.  We knew that the human sexuality social statement which was approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly would not stand.  Eventually this statement, which is far more traditional than current ELCA belief and practice, would fall.    

Memorials have come from three synods, which ask the ELCA to review and revise the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” social statement.  The most extensive wording comes from the Milwaukee Synod.

Although the “resolved” is not clear about what it means when it says “current church understanding, church policy, civil law, and public acceptance,” the activities and advocacy of ReconcilingWorks and Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries give us some hint as to what we might expect from a proposed revision of this social statement.  These two groups are calling for such things as allowing those who identify as polyamorous to be included on the Proclaim roster of LGBTQ+ clergy and seminarians, and redefining marriage as a mere aspiration rather than as a hard requirement for sexually active rostered leaders.

Here is a link to the complete report of the Memorials Committee.

There are seventy-eight memorials coming to the Churchwide Assembly, so it should not surprise us that the recommendation of the Memorials Committee is to vote on most of them “en bloc” – in a yes or no vote on all of the memorials, which, as in the case of the amendments to the constitution would work against any discussion of individual memorials.  Again, things get approved because there is too much “stuff” for voting members to be able to process.     

I believe it is good that the Memorials Committee is recommending that three memorials be removed from the bloc and voted on separately, including the memorials regarding “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”  Therefore, there will be opportunity for discussion on this issue.

However, no matter how the revision process unfolds this time, I am certain that it is only a matter of time until there is no place for traditional views within the ELCA and congregations and clergy in the ELCA will be forced to adhere to LGBTQ+ affirming policies, all in the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

It is now old news that the issue of abortion in the United States, which has long simmered on medium heat in our national discourse, has recently boiled over. Because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe (1973) and Casey (1992), individual states now possess increased ability to restrict abortion, including banning the practice outright. Though this is a significant victory for those who consider themselves prolife, the issue of the legality of abortion now simply shifts to a more local level. Even so, many abortion rights advocates are outraged, which has prompted commentary and statements from many, including church leadership.   

It had been over twenty years since I first read the ELCA social statement on abortion when I was recently asked to do so again. The first case was for a class as a college sophomore. The second, the result of which is this reflection, was in response to ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s references to this statement in response to shifting abortion policy in the United States. My reaction after both readings of this statement was the same: Though far from what I would consider a perfect document, the 1991 social statement on abortion is much more life-affirming than one might expect. The development of this statement involved input from people of different viewpoints who listened to each other and worked hard to produce a document that, while not satisfying everyone, incorporated various concerns in a balanced manner.

Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that the ELCA statement on abortion, one of the earliest such social statements considered and adopted,[1] has not been without controversy in the history of the ELCA and has been subject to controversial “interpretation.” The question of how or whether to harmonize the content of this statement with the health plan coverage provided by the ELCA Board of Pensions (now called Portico) was one issue that early on created for some a lack of trust in the leadership of the ELCA. Among these is Russell Saltzman, former ELCA pastor and now member of the Roman Catholic Church, who offered the following comments in 2010 in the wake of the ELCA’s policy change concerning pastors in same-sex relationships:

My real disaffection with the ELCA didn’t start with sex. It began in earnest over the ELCA abortion statement and the subsequent decision by the national council to treat elective abortion for pastors and dependents as a reimbursable medical expense under the church health plan. From the abortion statement, the church said to value my baptism as an infant regards my conception by step-siblings as a morally justifiable reason for terminating the pregnancy that became me at the baptismal font. From the schedule of benefits by the health plan, had my birth-parents in any way been covered under the ELCA health plan, my church would have paid to do it.[2]

Comments such as these, the recent Supreme Court decision, and Bishop Eaton’s communications invite us to explore more fully what the 1991 social statement on abortion really says in its fullness. In fairness, documents such as this touch on a variety of issues and make several assertions. Nevertheless, one must ask whether Bishop Eaton’s comments about the statement accurately reflect the spirit of the document.

Reviewing Bishop Eaton’s Communications

On May 30, 2019, Bishop Eaton issued a communication in response to various attempts by states “to restrict access to legal abortion,”[3] in which she invited her readers to revisit the ELCA social statement on abortion. In the first incarnation of this message, she stated that “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.”[4] This is a fairly accurate summary of what the ELCA statement says. Not long after this communication went public, however, she issued a revised statement, nearly identical, but which omitted the words “for pregnancies that are unsafe or a result of rape or incest.”

In response to the leaked draft of Dobbs in May of 2022, she issued further comments about abortion, including many references to the 1991 social statement. She claimed that the content of the draft opinion “contradicts the church’s teaching” and that the 1991 statement affirms that “abortion must be legal, regulated and accessible.”[5]

Finally, after the actual opinion, which does not differ significantly from the draft, was released in June of 2022, Bishop Eaton emphasized again that the ELCA’s position is that “the practice (of abortion) should be legal” in spite of “deep concern” over the number of induced abortions.[6] Further, she expressed her concern that “Overturning Roe v. Wade and placing decisions about abortion regulation at the state level encumbers and endangers the lives of all persons who need to make decisions about unexpected pregnancies.”[7]

What the Statement Says

How does one effectively summarize the content of a ten-page statement, especially one that seeks a nuanced approach to a difficult moral issue? This is a challenging task, to be sure, and Bishop Eaton does communicate some truth in the parts of the statement that she cites. In her communications, she quotes liberally from the 1991 social statement. Yet there are many things in this statement that she overlooks and in at least one case even misrepresents.

Before addressing the issue of the legality of abortion, it is important to note this statement’s expression of the value of unborn life: “Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity. Guided by God’s Law, which orders and preserves life, human beings are called to respect and care for the life that God gives.”[8] It goes on to state that “We mourn the loss of life (through abortion) that God has created” and that “The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort.”[9] As a consequence of this commitment to preserve and protect life, the statement declares that the ELCA “in most circumstances, encourages women with unintended pregnancies to continue the pregnancy.”[10]

The social statement on abortion does speak of certain situations where it can be “morally responsible” for a woman to obtain an abortion, such as in cases of rape, incest, or extreme fetal abnormality.[11] Even so, however, the ELCA “opposes ending intrauterine life when a fetus is developed enough to live outside a uterus with the aid of reasonable and necessary technology.”[12]

While the social statement seeks to balance the importance of the life of an unborn child and the life of the woman bearing that child, it clearly states that “government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion.”[13] In fact, it states that the ELCA opposes “the total lack of regulation of abortion.”[14] To be sure, it also opposes “legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances” and laws that “deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions.”[15]

This all leads, however, to a concluding paragraph about the regulation of abortion, which reads as follows:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, 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.

Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes laws prohibiting abortion.[16]

I suspect that many would be surprised to know that the ELCA social statement on abortion directly opposes abortion after viability and even supports legislation that prohibits abortion after viability, only considering abortion “morally responsible” in the difficult circumstances above. Bishop Eaton’s assertion that abortion must be “legal, regulated and accessible” can only be responsibly read to apply to these difficult circumstances of saving the life of the mother, rape, incest, and embryonic or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. Similarly, if the Dobbs opinion “contradicts the church’s teaching” as she claims, it would only do so if individual states enact laws that prohibit abortion in these difficult circumstances.

Getting to the Root of the Matter

As mentioned, the 1991 social statement touches on many other important issues involved in the abortion debate, such as supporting pregnant women in their needs, encouraging adoption and foster care, the use of contraceptives, and encouraging congregations to be places of hospitality for women facing difficult circumstances. But the foundational issue for our society in its discussion of abortion is the very thing that leads to the perceived need for abortion: sexual intercourse and its appropriate context.

It might also surprise readers of the statement to learn that the ELCA states the following: “Marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse. This continues to be the position of this church.”[17] Moreover, it affirms that congregations and church schools should emphasize values such as “abstinence from sexual intercourse outside marriage” and that “young men and young women be taught to exercise their sexuality responsibly.”[18]

Clearly, the authors of the 1991 ELCA social statement on abortion recognized the challenges posed by a society that had by then begun to face the shockwaves created by the sexual revolution. The over three decades since 1991 have seen even further movement away from the vision that marriage is the appropriate context for sexual intercourse. Sex is most often portrayed in entertainment media as an inevitable part of taking a relationship to another level and most always as purely a part of adult fulfillment and pleasure, detached from concern for procreation. Any life created by these sexual encounters is viewed as an inconvenience and unfortunate consequence.

I encourage ELCA leadership to study this social statement on abortion and to take seriously what it actually says. I also encourage other Lutherans to do so. There are some aspects of this statement with which I and others disagree, but there are many things in this statement worthy of our consideration and affirmation. Significantly, if our society is to address the crisis of abortion, we must not only address the desire for abortion as it arises. We must address the underlying issue and lift up the call of God for sex to be used responsibly, between a man and a woman who are married and committed to nurturing life created by that loving union. Regardless of what Lutheran church bodies we are members, the ELCA social statement on abortion can be an encouragement to us in lifting up that important vision.    

---

[1] According to the social statement itself, “…adopted by a more than two-thirds majority vote at the second biennial Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, meeting in Orlando, Florida, August 28-September 4, 1991.”

[2] Russell E. Saltzman, “From the ELCA to the NALC,” First Things, https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/from-the-elca-to-the-nalc, Accessed 7/2/2022.

[3] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, May 30, 2019.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, May 17, 2022.

[6] Elizabeth Eaton, open letter, June 24, 2022.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, “A Social Statement on Abortion,” 1991, p. 2-3.

[9] Ibid., p. 3-4.

[10] Ibid., p. 6.

[11] Ibid., p. 7.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., p. 9.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., p. 10. Emphasis added.

[17] Ibid., p. 4.

[18] Ibid., p. 5.

On May 17, a couple weeks after the news broke of a leak of a draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton released “A Pastoral Message on Abortion.”  A link to her letter can be found here.

Please find below my analysis of what she has written. 

Typically misleading 

It is very typical of Bishop Eaton to say a few words to make it sound like there is room for traditional views within the ELCA, but then she always comes down solidly on the revisionist side.

In the third paragraph of her communication she refers to the ELCA’s 1991 social statement on abortion and says, “This church holds both women and ‘developing life in the womb’ (page 2) as neighbors.”  She acknowledges “life in the womb” as life and seems to give the impression that that life will be valued, considered, and cherished.  She goes even further in the third paragraph when she adds, “This church longs for a future with fewer abortions every year.”

So far it sounds good.  But in the seventh paragraph, after advocating for a “more just society that cherishes and guarantees the dignity of all,” she expresses no concern for cherishing and guaranteeing the dignity (or even life) of the “developing life in the womb.”  She acknowledges the “developing life in the womb” as life, but then totally ignores any concern for the rights, preservation, and cherishing of that life. 

Lack of clarification 

In the third paragraph she states that the ELCA opposes “the total lack of regulation of abortion” (page 9 of the 1991 social statement) but does not state or affirm what kind of “regulation of abortion” the ELCA would and does support.  As is typical, Bishop Eaton is very careful to make sure that she does not say anything that would lead to her being “blasted” by liberals and progressives.  I understand that that is what happened when she said after the death of George Floyd that rioting was not peaceful protesting.  

In the fourth paragraph she says, “Abortion must be legal, regulated, and accessible,” but she says nothing about how abortion should be “regulated.”  Again, if she were to do so, she probably would be “blasted” by liberals and progressives. 

She says nothing specific and definitive about whether there are situations where abortion would not be a morally defensible decision.  She says nothing about the kinds, timing, and/or circumstances of abortions that the ELCA would not or might not support.  She says nothing about the difference between situations where abortion may be deemed “medically necessary” for the life, health, and well-being of the mother, and situations where abortion is an easy way to get rid of an inconvenience. 

One-sided concern

Her concern for protection is totally one-sided. 

In the fourth paragraph she says, “People who choose to have legal abortions should not be harassed,” but she shows no concern regarding –

• The vandalizing of church buildings or the disruption of worship services for congregations with traditional views.
• The picketing and protesting outside the homes of SCOTUS Justices with the intent to harass and intimidate.
• The long-term effects of allowing people who need to make difficult decisions to be harassed and intimidated – whether at the federal or local level, or even in the church. 

Here is one more example of Bishop Eaton’s being very careful to make sure that she does not say anything that would result in her being “blasted” by liberals and progressives. 

She also does not address the whole issue of the leak of a SCOTUS document and how that kind of betrayal of trust undermines the integrity of our institutions. 

Fearmongering

She engages in the same kind of fearmongering that has been running rampant in this situation.

In the sixth paragraph she says, “Any Supreme Court decision similar to the leaked draft. . . . has the potential to foster communities of conflict and moral policing rather than complex moral discernment.  It will likely endanger or cause the deaths of people who need an abortion.  And the legal bases (sic) established by any such decision threaten people’s access to birth control, same-sex marriage, voting rights and their right to privacy.”

Bishop Eaton makes these statements even though the draft opinion clearly states that the right to have an abortion is “fundamentally different” from “rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage.” (page 5)

She makes strong statements but then gives no evidence for how a change in one area (abortion) would threaten all these other areas.

Those who hold traditional views were belittled and ridiculed for their concerns leading up to 2009 regarding the slippery slope – that changing the ELCA’s position regarding same sex marriage would lead to other changes.  Here we see “the other side” having a major concern for the slippery slope.  

In the seventh paragraph she adds, “Any ruling similar to the leaked draft will . . . damage the health and well-being of many.  The prospect is daunting.”  Again, she is fearmongering. 

In the fifth paragraph Bishop Eaton says, “This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible.”  By combining contraception with abortion within this sentence Bishop Eaton is again engaged in fearmongering – implying that if the Supreme Court takes away your right to an abortion, it may next take away your access to contraception. 

What the draft opinion actually says

A link to the draft opinion can be found here.

Please note these three significant sentences –    

• “The constitution makes no mention of abortion.” (page 1)    
• “No such right is implicitly protected by any constitution provision.” (page 5)
• Therefore, the draft would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” (page 6)  

Progressives/liberals say that the Supreme Court would make abortions illegal.  In actuality, the draft opinion would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

The draft opinion would not make abortions illegal.  Instead it affirms that the constitution does not provide a basis for the right to an abortion.  The right to have an abortion – or the limitations to the right – should be based upon the action of individual states. 

In the sixth paragraph Bishop Eaton makes the statement, “I urge you to work locally to moderate any Supreme Court decision similar to the leaked draft.”  In making that statement she seems to be acknowledging what the draft opinion is actually doing – returning the decision to the states.

Bottom line

Bishop Eaton’s “Pastoral Message on Abortion” makes one wonder whether she actually read the draft opinion before writing a letter about it. 

She needs to be far more careful if she wishes to help contribute to “complex moral discernment” rather than “conflict and moral policing” (sixth paragraph).  Instead of helping to avoid conflict, she has created conflict by releasing a statement that is highly critical of a position held by many within the ELCA.  She is not serving well as presiding bishop of the whole church when she makes such strong statements that do not respect the diversity of viewpoint within the ELCA.  Once again the ELCA communicates that in spite of all of its talk about diversity and inclusivity, traditional views and those who hold them are not welcome.  

For years I have been writing articles about the ELCA – often with the subtitle, “What Will It Be Next?”  The images I have chosen for those articles have often been a car or motorcycle careening out of control, a road with the pavement washed out, a road with a bridge ahead washed out, a road covered by an avalanche of rocks, or a road that goes over a cliff.  I have been certain that eventually the ELCA will crash. 

That “eventually” could very well be soon.  Last December the bishop and synod council of the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod (northern California and northern Nevada) terminated the call of a Latino mission developer, and did so on December 12, the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, one of the most special days for many in the Latino community.  At first Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton did not follow the recommendations of the “Listening Team” which she had convened, but instead felt that the words and actions of Bishop Megan Rohrer of the Sierra Pacific Synod did not rise to the level of initiating disciplinary procedures.  Instead she merely asked Bishop Rohrer to resign because they (Bishop Rohrer’s chosen pronoun) no longer had the trust and confidence of the synod.  A resolution proposed at the June 2-4 synod assembly that Bishop Rohrer resign by the end of the assembly and that they be dismissed from their position if they do not resign failed to pass by a vote of about 56% to 44%.  A two-thirds majority vote would have been required.  The synod assembly ended with Megan Rohrer still serving as bishop, but the fallout continues across the ELCA.  Congregations within that synod have said that they will leave the ELCA and at least one other synod has said that they will stop sending financial support to the ELCA as long as Megan Rohrer continues as bishop.  In addition I read of plans for demonstrations during the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August.

Here is a link to a website that contains the most complete list that I am aware of to articles and videos related to the crisis.

I have been reading about the situation and watching it unfold for months, but I certainly do not claim to fully understand it.  Nor is it my role or my responsibility to make a statement about the rightness and/or wrongness of the actions and words of the people involved.  But I would want to make it abundantly clear.  Racism is wrong.  Abuse of power is wrong.  Discrimination and unequal treatment of people are wrong.   

In this article I want to explore two things.  First, Why has this whole situation been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA? (For shock waves have been reverberating not just in one synod, but throughout the entire church body.)  And second, What does this whole situation say about the ELCA? 

First, Why has this situation been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA?  I can think of six reasons. 

First, because the ELCA already was a weakened and injured church body.  The ELCA is painfully aware of the fact that it is significantly diminished from what it was when it was formed in 1988.  The number of members has decreased from over five million to less than 3.3 million in thirty-four years.  The number of congregations has dropped from over 11,000 to under 9,000.  And the congregations that remain are significantly diminished.  Smaller congregations mean less income to congregations, which means less income to synods, which means less money to churchwide.  The ELCA is obsessed with the fact that it has been labelled “the whitest denomination in the United States” (and this in spite of all of its efforts to be inclusive and multi-ethnic).  And the ELCA is constantly apologizing for everything and for all of the ways in which it has been complicit in the mistreatment of all disadvantaged peoples.  How could any organization – or any person – who is significantly diminished, failing to meet goals, and constantly apologizing be healthy and strong?

Second, the ELCA promotes a culture of victimization.  Throughout this whole situation – including at the recent Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly – people have been talking about how victimized they and other people are.  Now, I fully agree that it is wrong to victimize people.  I do not want to deny, minimize, or disregard the pain of those who have been victimized.  But I believe that any organization where such a high percentage of the people see themselves as and will frequently talk about themselves as being victimized will not be healthy and strong.

Third, in the ELCA there is competition for who is the most oppressed, marginalized, abused, and powerless.  For the person or group who is the most oppressed, marginalized, abused, and powerless actually has the most power.  They are the ones who are most to be listened to because that they are the ones who have the most accurate insight into the way things “really are.” 

Fourth, in the ELCA racism and white supremacy are the worst of sins.  A synodical bishop, who a few short months ago was the greatest of celebrities, has become the worst of sinners.  Even the presiding bishop is now being seen as having committed the unforgiveable sin.  Because Bishop Eaton at first did not follow the recommendations of the “Listening Team” and did not see racism as sufficient reason to initiate disciplinary procedures against a synodical bishop, she is being accused of being what she has been speaking most strongly against.    

Fifth, in the ELCA there is an absence of grace.  Oh, the ELCA talks about grace.  But it is the grace of being inclusive.  According to the ELCA, God is inclusive; therefore I need to be inclusive.  And anyone who is not as inclusive as God and me has committed the worst of sins.  If grace is all about being inclusive, then there is no grace for anyone who is not inclusive.  Not being inclusive is the unforgiveable sin.   

I wrote about this in my article, “Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?” which appeared in the May issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice.  A link to that article can be found here.  For many within the ELCA the reason Jesus died on the cross was not to pay the price for our sins (for if He needed to do that, then God the Father would be a Cosmic Child Abuser).  Instead Jesus was killed because His being inclusive was a threat to the Roman empire.  But the problem with that view is that without the blood of Jesus the only resource I have to deal with my own sins and the sins of those who sin against me is my being inclusive and following the example of Jesus who was inclusive and who resisted oppressive, non-inclusive power structures. 

Towards the end of the second day of the Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly there was talk about wanting to be able to find reconciliation and healing.  But without the blood of Jesus to cover over sin – without grace – how would you ever hope to be able to find reconciliation and healing when someone has committed the worst of sins?  

Sixth, there is a real zeal for works righteousness within the whole “woke” movement.  People need to show that they are just as woke as, if not more woke than, everyone else.  Therefore, if someone has committed the worst of sins, I must jump in and show myself to be totally woke.   

Those are six reasons why I believe the whole situation has been so explosive within and damaging to the entire ELCA.

Now I would like to turn our attention to my second question – What does this whole situation say about the ELCA?  I can think of eight things.

First, just being part of a so-called “marginalized” people group does not qualify someone to be bishop.  Enough said.

Second, Bishop Eaton has a habit of being very quick to issue statements and make judgments regarding issues outside the ELCA.  And yet she was very slow – it took her three weeks – to make a statement about and to become involved in this issue within her areas of responsibility.   She has plenty to deal with within her own arena of oversight.  She needs to focus her energy and attention on her areas of responsibility.   

Third, at the Sierra Pacific Synod Assembly Bishop Eaton made a very strong statement against racism and white supremacy.  A similarly strong statement was made by the interim vice president of the ELCA, Carlos Pena, who presided over much of the proceedings.  I wonder whether Bishop Eaton will ever be able to regain full credibility.

Fourth, the vote on the resolution to call for Bishop Rohrer’s resignation or dismissal if they do not resign failed by a margin of 56% to 44%.   (A two-thirds majority vote would have been required.)  A majority voted to dismiss, but not a two-thirds majority.  That alone is a recipe for a disaster.  I think of congregations where the vote to leave the ELCA failed.  A majority voted to leave, but not a two-thirds majority.  There are many tragic examples of what happened next.

Fifth, before the formation of the ELCA, I was a part of the ALC (American Lutheran Church).  The ALC was much more congregational, much less hierarchical, than the ELCA was designed to be.  In the ELCA synodical bishops have been given a great deal of power and authority.

But recently there has been much discussion that there needs to be a curbing of the power and authority of synodical bishops and synod councils, because the bishop and synod council of the Sierra Pacific Synod are seen as abusing that power and authority.  I wonder how many synod assemblies will be working to have that issue come to the floor of the Churchwide Assembly.

Sixth, another dynamic that I have heard mentioned is what has been called the “Purple Code” – the at least unwritten agreement that the Conference of Bishops will circle the wagons whenever there is controversy and no synodical bishop will ever speak against another synodical bishop.  But several synodical bishops have been calling for the need to bring charges against Bishop Rohrer.  The wagons are no longer circled.  Will they ever circle again?  The Purple Code has been broken.  Will it ever be intact again?

Seventh, I have heard that there has been much discussion the last few months that such things as parliamentary procedures and Roberts Rules are all rooted in systemic racism and all promote and maintain white supremacy.  They disadvantage ethnic minorities, people whose primary language is other than English, and people of color.  Therefore, they must all be dismantled.  Again, the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August should be interesting.

Eighth, for months Bishop Eaton has been talking about Future Church and her goal to reach one million “new, young, and diverse people” by the end of this decade.  If people in the ELCA are already calling for a dismantling of everything in the ELCA that fosters racism and white supremacy, what will it be like when one million “new, young, and diverse people” become a part of the equation?  I assume that most of these one million “new, young, and diverse people” will not have a history with the ELCA, will not value the ELCA, and will not have experience in being a part of church life.  Is the ELCA really ready for what it says it wants?    

How all of this will play out I do not know.  Major new developments have occurred between the time when I started writing and when I finished writing this article.  Bishop Eaton announced that she would bring charges against and would initiate a disciplinary process against Bishop Rohrer and Bishop Rohrer has resigned.  I assume that there will be further developments by the time that you read this article.  Part of the reality of writing an article like this is knowing that it will always be out of date.

Please join with me in praying for all those within the ELCA.  No matter how far they have strayed, Jesus still loves them and He shed His blood for them. 

I am very grateful for all the people who expressed deep concern over the movement I described in my April letter from the director to “cancel” the Gospel of John and remove John 18-19 from the lectionary readings for Holy Week, because of the claim that they foster anti-Semitism.  A link to that letter can be found here.

In that same article I mentioned an even deeper concern – a movement not just to cancel the passion narrative in John, but to “cancel” the passion.  There are many within the ELCA and other liberal/progressive, mainline denominations who reject the teaching that Jesus died for our sins.  Instead they make Good Friday into the supreme example of Jesus’ bold political protest against the Roman empire, even unto death.  And now we need to join in the work of dismantling empires and all other oppressive, political and social power structures. 

One pastor wrote, “Empire killed Jesus for being a good rabbi, telling the truth, and therefore was a threat to the power structure.”  Unfortunately, many agree. 

Another pastor offers the following rewrite of two verses of the hymn, “O Sacred Head Now Wounded.”

Verse 2 –

What you, dear Jesus, suffered casts light upon our way,

We see the cost of loving and living for the day

When all God’s children flourish in justice and in peace,

When hungry mouths will be fed and warring ways will cease.

Verse 3 –

What language shall I borrow to thank you, dearest friend;

For this your selfless living, your love that did not bend?

May my life bless all people, may my love bring you praise,

That all might share God’s blessing, that all would know God’s grace.

According to this approach, I do not need a Savior to die in my place, forgive my sins, break the power of sin, and defeat the great enemy death.  Rather I just need to be inspired and motivated to join in the effort to oppose all oppressive power structures.

But the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus died for our sins.

In 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4 the apostle Paul emphatically states, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.”  Paul clearly states that not only did Jesus die for our sins, but also that that teaching is “of first importance.” 

Revelation 1: 5 – part of the second reading for the second Sunday of Easter – says, “To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood.”  First John 2: 2 describes Jesus as “the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”  In John 1: 29 John the Baptist calls Jesus “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”  Is there any way to interpret that verse except to say that John is comparing Jesus with the Old Testament lambs upon whom the sins of the Israelites were laid and who died in their place?  Paul also wrote to the Corinthians, “He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5: 21).     

Now certainly there are many additional ways to describe the saving work of Jesus.  He came to seek the lost (Luke 19: 10).  He rejoices when He finds us and when we come home (Luke 15).  He forgives, restores, and gives power for new living (John 8: 3-11).

I think one of the best passages for describing the rich variety of ways in which God has acted in Jesus can be found in the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. 

We were buried with him in baptism and raised with him through faith in the power of God (v. 12).

When we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ, when he forgave us all our trespasses (v. 13).

He erased the record that stood against us with its legal demands (v. 14).

He set this aside by nailing it to the cross (v. 14).

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and triumphed over them (v. 15).  (Based upon my reading of Ephesians 6, I am certain that Paul meant the spiritual powers of evil, not the political powers of Rome.) 

He made us alive. The charges against us were dropped.  The powers of evil were defeated.  All this Jesus did through the cross and the resurrection.  And that is a whole lot more than just calling on us to join with Him in His struggle against oppressive political and social power structures. 

Those who reject the teaching that Jesus as God the Son died for our sins do so because they claim that that teaching makes God the Father into a cruel, vindictive child abuser.

I would reply that rejecting the teaching that Jesus died for our sins is missing the whole point of the seriousness of our sins and the depth of God’s love.  Romans 6: 23 clearly says that “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.”  It is not that the Father inflicted His wrath upon the Son in order to satisfy the anger that He felt towards us.  Instead in giving His Son, God out of His great love for us gave Himself.  He Himself paid the price for us.  He satisfied His own requirements of justice.  And He won the victory over death and the power and penalty of sin.

But how widespread is it in the ELCA to reject the teaching that Jesus died for our sins?  I am not aware of any official doctrinal statement that has been approved by the ELCA Church Council, the Conference of Bishops, and/or a Churchwide Assembly which says, “We no longer believe that Jesus died for our sins.”  But evidence of how widespread this belief is is abundant, and it seems to be growing.  Here are some examples.  I will begin with two more extreme examples.

1.

Illustrated Ministry is a curriculum company whose faith formation resources are popular among many in the mainline denominations, including the ELCA.  Here is a link to an Easter resource. 

This resource describes itself in this way.  “This script outlines the way in which Jesus upended corrupt systems of power.  Because of his power, popularity, and message, those systems retaliated.”  It also says, “The good news of Jesus is often bad news for those who would like to accumulate power over others.  But in the end, death was not the end of Jesus!  We witness how Jesus lives.  His message of love and justice gives us hope.”  Did you get that?  Jesus dies only because he “upended corrupt systems of power.”  It is not that our sins need to be and are forgiven.  Rather we are to go and do likewise.

2.

Daneen Akers, author of the highly popular progressive/liberal curriculum, “Holy Troublemakers,” is another person who believes and who spreads the belief that Jesus died because he upset the status quo.  Here is a link to her article.

In this article she quotes another person as saying, “Jesus’ death was an interruption in his ministry, not the point of it.  His message of love-your-enemies, the last-shall-be-first, and God’s-realm-is-for-all was deeply threatening to the status quo.  So he was executed by the state as a cautionary tale for those who would follow his teachings.  This is why Jesus died: His teachings upset powerful hierarchies and status quos, so he was executed by the state.  The good news is that death and violence didn’t have the last word.  It’s a love-ultimately-wins story.” 

Many of the books in the picture in the article are published by Augsburg Fortress and/or are assigned or recommended as texts in ELCA seminaries.   

But some might say, But that does not mean that anyone in a leadership position in the ELCA is saying anything like that.  Is anything like that being said by anyone who would officially represent the ELCA?  Here are three examples. 

1.

Here is a blog post from the Rev. Dr. Kristin Johnston Largen, president of Wartburg Seminary, in which she condemns Isaiah 53 as “abusive” in theology.

2.

Here is a Huffington Post editorial by the Rev. Dr. David Lose, former president of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia and author of “Making Sense of the Cross” (published by Augsburg Fortress).  Dr. Lose also condemns “Christ died for our sins” as abusive theology.

3.

Here is a video from the “Animate: Faith” curriculum, published by Augsburg Fortress, in which famed ELCA pastor and public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber condemns the idea that Christ died for our sins as divine child abuse.

I do not hear what Drs. Largen and Lose, and Pastor Bolz-Weber are saying as going as far as Illustrated Ministry and Holy Troublemakers are going in totally reinterpreting the life, death, and ministry of Jesus, but I also know that things never stay where they are now.  What is extreme now will soon become norm.  There is nothing about the ELCA that would tell me that the ELCA is able to go “just a little bit off base” without soon being “very far off base.”  Especially if more popular and accessible materials like those from Illustrated Ministry and Holy Troublemakers, and the content of books which are assigned as seminary texts, have a far greater influence on the average person and seminary students/future pastors than the writings of current and former seminary presidents. 

God is not a cosmic child abuser.  God is not wrathful and vengeful and anxious to take out on Jesus the anger He feels towards us.  But the Scriptures are very clear in teaching that Jesus died for our sins.  Any theology of what Jesus did on the cross must take that clear teaching into account in order to remain faithful to the Bible.   

There are many things that these people are saying that we need to hear, such as –

• The cross is God’s greatest expression of love rather than an expression of God’s wrath.
• The cross shows that when humans do their worst, God can bring about His best. 
• The cross shows that God is with us in all of our suffering.
• God is on the side of those who are the victims of the abuse of power, rather than on the side of the abusers of power.

From the cross Jesus cried, “It is finished.”  He did say that those who wish to follow Him must take up their cross.  But from the cross He did not cry, “Go and do likewise.”

Speaking of “oh, what a mess,” here is the latest from Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minnesota.  Awhile back the board of Luther voted to continue to not be RIC.  RIC stands for Reconciled in Christ, which means that a synod, congregation, seminary, or other organization fully embraces the beliefs, values, agenda, and priorities of ReconcilingWorks.

According to its website, ReconcilingWorks advocates “for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.”

They define their mission in this way.  “ReconcilingWorks advocates for the acceptance, full participation, and liberation of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions within the Lutheran Church.”

At this time Luther is the only ELCA seminary that is not RIC.  The board feels that their current welcome statement is sufficient. 

Immediately there was an uproar.  Students threatened to boycott the school.  There was conversation that the president should be removed from her position.  Please remember that it was not that long ago that the students at another ELCA seminary, United Seminary in Philadelphia and Gettysburg, were able to force the firing of the president because someone discovered that twenty years before she had been director of an organization that held and advocated for traditional views on human sexuality.  She was fired even though she is totally LGBTQ+ affirming now.

Members of the non-faculty staff wrote and signed a letter in support of the student movement to cause the seminary to become RIC.  Now a letter has been written and signed by most of the faculty members, again supporting the movement.  Here is a link to the letter. Talk about groveling. Talk about one more example of the ELCA’s encouraging, enabling, and empowering extreme progressive elements.  Do the seminary faculty really think that good will come from their talking, acting, and handling a situation in that way?  Do they really think that it will stop there – with the seminary’s becoming RIC – and the students – thus emboldened – will not go on and demand something far more? 

Last September the ELCA celebrated the election and installation of its first transgender bishop,

Meghan Rohrer of the Sierra Pacific Synod.  ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton served as the lead consecrator and preacher at the service.  Bishop Eaton had a very interesting and typically ELCA way of twisting the Bible and distorting theology in order to justify what her presence and actions were legitimizing.   In her sermon message, Bishop Eaton noted that Jesus Christ’s identity as both fully human and fully divine were not an “either/or” but a “both/and”.  It is absolutely astounding to me to think that a church leader would believe that the two natures of Christ – His being both fully divine and fully human – are somehow support for transgender and non-binary ideology.     

It gets even worse.  Bishop Eaton went on to challenge those attending – both in person and remotely – to continue watching in the months ahead.  “You’re going to see a grace-filled, Gospel preaching, Jesus-loving servant of the Word serving everyone, all people. You’re going to see someone and a synod being transformed in order to invite people into the complete, the infinite, and the intimate love of God.  We’ll continue to work for those on the margins.  We do it surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses and we do it by a God who was not either/or but both divine and human.”

But all that changed, and it changed dramatically and rapidly within three months.  On December 12, 2021 – the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a very special day within the Latino community – the synod council of the Sierra Pacific Synod took action to remove Pastor Nelson Rabell-Gonzalez from his position as mission developer of Mision Latina Luterana in Stockton, California.

Lutheran CORE very intentionally and deliberately takes no position on these actions.  It is not our place, nor would we make any claim to know all the facts.  Rather what we want to do is to point out the significance of this entire event.  For those who would like to know more, here is a link to an article written by a friend of Pastor Rabell.  At the end of the article you will find links to more articles.  It is obviously written by a person who strongly favors one side in the struggle. 

For the first several weeks it appeared that Bishop Eaton was hoping that the whole thing would just blow over and go away.  As presiding bishop she claimed that she has no authority to interfere in the actions of a synod council.  But as the turmoil continued to spread and as the crisis continued to escalate, she eventually took action to appoint a three-person listening team, which would help her in determining what to do.  In the first link she tells about forming the team.  In the second link she gives an update. 

What was supposed to be so wonderful very quickly became not wonderful.  What was supposed to be continuing to work for those on the margins became accusations of severe discrimination against those on the margins. 

What is the significance of what is going on here?   The ELCA is experiencing the consequences of what it has been enabling, encouraging, and empowering.  Or, to put it another way – in terms of Galatians 6: 7 – the ELCA is reaping what it has been sowing. 

What else would you expect to result from the ELCA’s full embrace of critical theory?  What else would you anticipate when everything is viewed in terms of power/abuse of power, oppressor/oppressed, victim/victimizer, and privileged/marginalized.  It is only a matter of time until something blows and/or a single spark sets the whole forest aflame.  Please see below the review by Dr. Robert Benne of the book by Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.  This seems like a most appropriate time to have a review of a book like that.     

One of the things that is interesting here is that ELCA congregations in the Sierra Pacific Synod are taking action against the synodical bishop and synod council.  I am aware of congregation councils that are passing resolutions to have no dealings with the synod until and unless the synodical bishop and synod council all resign or are terminated.  And if they do not resign or are not terminated, these congregations will initiate the process to leave the ELCA.  One such resolution can be found on the website of Our Savior’s Lutheran Church in Fresno.  

There are a couple very interesting things going on here.  First, it is not – as in the past – orthodox, confessing congregations that are leaving the ELCA.  Instead it is among the most actively, aggressively, and outspokenly progressive congregations that are threatening to leave the ELCA.

Second, the recently approved version of the ELCA’s document, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” provides for the discipline of rostered ministers who “actively and affirmatively incite, initiate, or encourage a congregation to leave the ELCA” (page 11).  Since the ELCA is saying that it could discipline an orthodox, confessing pastor for encouraging a congregation to leave the ELCA, should not the same standard apply to a progressive pastor?  And if it does not, then is the ELCA not guilty of discrimination and “discipline inequity”?  (Which is one of the things that the ELCA is being accused of because of the Sierra Pacific synod council’s removal of a Latino mission developer.) 

If progressive congregations in the Sierra Pacific Synod are “able to get away with” no longer functioning as part of the synod, then should not the same standard apply to confessing congregations that no longer function as part of their synod?  (Which is the approach that some confessing congregations are taking because they are not able to “get enough votes” to leave the ELCA.) 

And if the Sierra Pacific synod council disciplines a pastor for inciting a congregation to leave the ELCA because the bishop and synod council have neither resigned nor been removed from their positions, how will all that play out? I also am aware of confessing congregations that were forced to repay their synods large sums of money in order to receive permission to leave (which is required of ELCA mission starts and was demanded of some former LCA congregations before they received the required permission to leave).  Will the Sierra Pacific Synod congregations that leave the ELCA if the bishop and synod council neither resign nor are terminated be treated in the same way?  And if they are not, would that not be another example of discrimination and “ELCA inequity”?  Oh, what a mess!