In my office hangs my ordination certificate.  Across it is emblazoned the name of the ordaining body, the body whose confessional commitments I pledged to uphold on the day I knelt and made my vows.  An adult convert to the Christian faith who settled in Lutheranism as the place where I would live out my “mere Christianity” after reading a church library copy of the Augsburg Confession, in the spring of 2016 I had served that denomination in various roles for twenty years.

This spring marks the eighth year since I called my bishop and informed him that I would be serving in a new church body.  Even as an adult convert, I know how painful the process is of leaving a church body you have called home; to cause further fracture to the Body of Christ, to disappoint My Lord by ensuring that His prayer that all His disciples might be one as I will become yet one more piece of living evidence of how little the truth of the gospel seems to change the lives of those who believe it, to serve at least in part as another stumbling block for people who—as did I at one point—hold the Christian faith in contempt, was an exquisite pain… I can only imagine how hard it is for a cradle member of a communion to make a similar choice.

In his classic study of what causes massive shifts in a mindset, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn details how it takes a superabundance of contrary evidence to get people to rethink their fundamental commitments, coining the terms paradigm and paradigm shift.  A paradigm shift, when it occurs, is more than a reordering of the furniture in one’s mental office or even changing offices due to corporate restructuring; it amounts to moving out of the building, watching that edifice be razed, and having a new foundation poured upon which you must tentatively build a new place from which to conduct your business.

It is for this reason that I am uncertain whether my decision to leave the ELCA represents a true paradigm shift or not.  In the words of a Roman Catholic mentor whose specialty was ecumenical theology, with whom I shared the pain of my process, “You aren’t leaving your church; your church is leaving you.”  Though hopefully my thinking has become more refined and nuanced, my fundamental commitments in some ways have not changed since I first knew myself to be a Christian in 1995 and a conscientious son of the Lutheran reformation by early 1996.

Yet once such a choice is made—the choice to leave the home that has nurtured you during your most formative years—once the evidence piles up so high that you cannot ignore it, you begin to rethink many things.  Aspects of your identity you thought unassailable become things you question.  Commitments you thought unshakable bedrock you begin to recognize as issues of secondary and sometimes tertiary importance… sometimes you come to know them as even detrimental to keeping the most fundamental commitments of all.

Such for me has been the issue of inclusive language in ministry, whether for God or people.  The sine qua non of both my undergraduate and graduate education, I have come to question not just its utility, but its very ability to communicate the Word of God, which in turn means its very ability to foster human flourishing… especially for women.

By the time I was being formed in seminary, the use of inclusive language for human beings was a matter of basic politeness and the use of such language for God became mandated as a “justice issue” while I was away from campus on internship.  My early training conditioned me to be okay with the former; indeed I had chosen to pursue ordination in the ELCA over the LCMS because of a precommitment to women’s ordination, a commitment I still hold but should not have then, before I could possibly know the Biblical or theological issues at stake.

My conviction in Christianity as a revealed religion prevented me from embracing inclusive language for God.  Because of an encounter with a cult in my early twenties, I have a sensitivity to when I am only being told one side of an argument, so the aggressive insistence on the agenda second-cum-third wave feminism and the lack of critical presentation of any other perspective set off a voice in my head: “Danger, Will Robinson… Danger!”  The special prominence of this in my liturgics class, where we failed to learn the rudiments of using The Minister’s Desk Edition, made me begin researching the best arguments on the other side.

I was surprised to often find these arguments to be robust rather than reactionary.  An honest reader could disagree with these arguments, but not accuse the writer of bad faith or barely disguised animus against women.  Particularly compelling was an article by Jesuit Paul Mankowski (who often wrote under the pen name Diogenes) entitled Jesus, Son of Humankind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations, which I found in a now out-of-print journal.  (It is still available on the Touchstone magazine website for subscribers.[1])

There is one issue central to our salvation that inclusive language translations of the Bible obscure—even those translations that only use inclusive language for human beings, like the NRSV—that I have never seen referenced in any scholarly work, so I would like to address it briefly here.

“No one comes to the Father but by me,” says Jesus in one of our most beloved funeral readings (John 14:6), but how exactly does Jesus get us to the Father?  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” joyously declares St. Paul. (Galatians 3:27)  Elsewhere he adds, “For if we have been united with [Christ] in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:5)  We have been united with Jesus.

A robust Sacramental theology teaches us that as regards our eternal inheritance, this means that when the Father regards us, He sees Christ, with whom we have been united, and whom we have donned like a mantle.  In other words, He sees not Joe or Sally, merely created in the image of God however pious or penitent, but Jesus, His Son, God Himself, for Whom the entire realm of created reality and uncreated glory is the rightful inheritance.

What this means in contradiction to the polite niceties of post-Christian American cultural religion, each of us is, properly speaking, a child of God only when we share in the sonship of Jesus Christ through Baptism.  It is for this reason—not the misogynistic cultural baggage assumed by feminists of whatever wave—that St. Paul in his letters addresses both the male and female objects of his correspondence as “brothers.”  We are all brothers because we all through Holy Baptism share in the sonship of Jesus Christ.

Inclusive language translations that render St. Paul’s address as “brothers and sisters” obscure this important salvific truth, esteeming the demands of feminist-defined justice as greater than the actual Biblically depicted mechanism of salvation.  Further, it propagates its own fundamentally irreconcilable war between the sexes into the very “beloved community” that is to be the home of “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), fomenting disunity in the Body of Christ. Under such conditions, the uniqueness of Christ as the way to God is necessarily veiled and universalism will proliferate to the loss of the evangelistic impulse.

I count this as a very serious way that the very inclusive language that is purported to be a justice issue for women actually does worse than underserve them; it may fail to call them to Christ and so be positively opposed to their ultimate interests.

---

[1] https://touchstonemag.com/archives//article.php?id=14-08-033-f

Almost 30 years ago, I had my first introduction to the tactics of postmodern argumentation.  A professor at Texas Lutheran made the statement that he could not be racist because as a Latino, he had no power.  Racism was prejudice plus power.  I scratched my head.  I had been taught that racism was prejudice towards another person on the basis of skin color or a sense of moral superiority towards one’s own race.  Where did this other definition come from?

Since then, I discovered the origin of the professor’s definition, and I have also discovered that such shifting of definitions are a strategy to shift an argument to heavily favor one particular side by causing confusion, obfuscation, and, in the case of racism, an avenue where one does not need to examine one’s own prejudice towards those of a different color. 

There are times to call such obfuscation out and refuse to play the game.  There are times to say, “I simply refuse to engage your definition of that word because it is not the culturally agreed upon definition of that word.”  However, there are also times to do what apologists call “defeating an argument on the opponent’s terms.”

When you can show that an opponent’s definitions or stances will fail to accomplish what they set out to do, you can cut through the confusion and bring the argument around to your favor.

Such is the case with the definition of racism embraced by those of a more left-leaning bent.  Prejudice plus power is their definition of the word, so logically, if you get rid of either of those things, racism is dismantled.  Get rid of power or get rid of prejudice, and racism comes to a halt. 

So, here is the question to ask in regards to power: has there ever been a system of thought or practice that gets rid of power?  You really shouldn’t have to wait long for an answer.  The self-evident answer is no.  Even that professor from Texas Lutheran was a bit misguided when he said he had no power.  He handed out grades, after all.  One simply cannot get rid of power structures.  They emerge no matter what, and as power shifts and prejudice remains, you simply shift who is racist and never eradicate racism.

Therefore, you must look at the prejudice part of that equation.  How does one get rid of prejudice?  Can one pass any sort of legislation which will eradicate it?  Again, the answer is no as prejudice pertains to the state of a heart and mind.  In order to change prejudice, a heart and mind must be changed.  What is the most effective way to change a heart?

From a Christian standpoint, it is the power of the Gospel which brings to fruition the baptismal promise: “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

As far as I can tell, and please tell me otherwise if not, this particular approach completely dismantles those who would like to excuse racism by changing the definitions, and it brings the discussion to a place where Christianity offers the best answer to truly tackle the problem of racism.

I am very grateful for the recent invitation to have a zoom conversation with the director and associate director of the ELCA’s Reconsiderations process.  This is the task force that has been appointed by the ELCA Church Council to review the 2009 human sexuality social statement and reconsider the provision for “bound conscience.”  I am glad that I was able to share very openly and that they listened respectfully. 

I appreciate the fact that they had read quite a number of articles on our website.  One of their initial questions was what hopes I had for the process.  I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  My understanding is that the concept of bound conscience was first used to justify and defend revisionist views, but over time it came to be used in an effort to calm down and reassure those with traditional views in an attempt to minimize the number of pastors and congregations that would leave.  However, there have been many loud and prominent voices that have been intent all along on eliminating bound conscience.  They sensed at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that the time had come.  They had enough votes to begin the process that would eventually lead to the elimination of bound conscience.  And they were right. 

They then asked me what concerns I had for the process.  I told them that what is at stake is the question of whether the ELCA can be trusted.  If the ELCA cannot be trusted to keep its promise here – to continue to honor bound conscience – then it cannot be trusted to keep any promise anywhere.  I also said that we all should know that no matter what is stated, included, decided, and approved in a reconsidered social statement now, the ELCA is not going to stay there.

I then went through a history of specific times and ways in which ELCA leaders have ignored communication from traditional voices, not remained within the boundaries of what was actually voted on and approved in 2009, and favored revisionist views, such as in the makeup of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and ReconcilingWorks’ being given a non-voting position on the ELCA Church Council.

They asked me to communicate to our constituency (and I said I would) the fact that the vote on the social statement will actually occur in two phases.  The first vote, which they call Reconsideration # 1, will take place in 2025.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “editorial” – “small, clarifying word changes only” – brought about by the fact that “civil law governing same-sex marriages, public acceptance of such marriages, and diversity of family configurations have changed dramatically since 2009.”

The second vote, which they call Reconsideration # 2, will take place in 2028.  They describe the matters that will be voted on then as “substantive,” namely “examining the coexistence in the 2009 statement of four different but valid convictions that Lutherans can faithfully hold about same-gender relationships.” 

They are still saying that the resolution at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly set in motion a process – “a reconsideration of these ideas but does not determine the outcome.”  But we all know that the empowered and preferred voices will work relentlessly until they have achieved their goal of eliminating bound conscience.  We will keep you posted. 

Recently, the ELCA posted the results of a DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) Audit¹ which was authorized by the Churchwide Assembly.  The audit laid out its findings and made numerous recommendations for the church to implement practically and constitutionally.

It would seem as though a move towards DEIA would be uncontroversial.  If you take the traditional meaning of each of those words, arguably every congregation would seek to be: diverse as the Gospel is for all people; equitable as God is just and fair; inclusive as, again, the Gospel is for all people; and accessible as we are called to be hospitable and welcoming.  However, one of the great tricks of the postmodern world is to take common words and redefine them to mean something different.  DEIA in the current secular fashion is less about including everyone and more about pushing out those who are labeled oppressors—usually heterosexual, white men.  And while the audit does go to great pains to try and urge a DEIA policy which is rooted in biblical thought², I cannot help but see a Trojan horse which seeks to formalize secular DEIA within the church.

I believe this to be the case as I see these recommendations centering the church’s focus on DEIA and moving it completely away from its God-given mission to spread the gospel.  I hope to show this in four points.

#1. The approach is top down.  Don’t take my word for it.  I quote the DEIA report itself, “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”³  Right off the bat, we see that this implementation is not a grass roots movement which most lay people embrace and are calling for.  This is an imposition of thought and practice that begins at the top and is forced upon the whole church, including recommendations for punitive measures for those who do not comply.⁴  Such practice does not exactly have a good track record of success historically and actually ends up being divisive and counter-productive. 

#2. It shifts the primary focus of the church inward instead of outward.  Not that many churches have escaped the problem of naval gazing, but this movement reinforces the tendency to focus on “us.”  What do we look like?  Are we making sure we have proper representation across all groups within our church?  One might argue that this will force the church to look outward in order to check the appropriate boxes.  It is a legitimate argument, but its practical application has been an abject failure within the ELCA for decades already.  What makes us think it will change this time?

#3. It’s the wrong metric to measure congregation viability and engagement.  Here is a suggestion from the audit: “Those incentives might include granting congregations with stellar DEIA achievements greater voting power at the Assemblies, as a form of enhanced membership, or conditioning any grants or other financial assistance to congregations on compliance with the Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards.⁵”  Grant incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores, but not to congregations who are actively feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and visiting the prisoners?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores instead of congregations who are growing in number?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who are actively engaged in their communities and truly making an impact in those communities through their ministries?  This is a bit more worldly, but…granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who give big benevolence dollars to the synod?  Need I go on?

#4 And probably the most damning.  When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel, a very interesting scenario plays out.  As Samuel approaches the sons, he gazes upon their appearance and makes judgments.  Time and again, Samuel is met with this response or a similar one, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”  This is not simply a truism of the Old Testament.  It particularly is emphasized in the New Testament as the result of encountering the overwhelming grace and love of God.  The human heart changes from looking inward (classical definition of sin) to looking outward towards God and neighbor–in that order.  DEIA does not look upon the human heart, but upon outward characteristics.  It completely reverses the stance God takes throughout the Scriptures.  It must be rejected on this basis alone.  To continue down the path of implementation will resort to nothing less than a disaster.

---

1.  REPORT ON THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OF THE ELCA. Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll LLP.  Chief Author: N. NEVILLE REID.  November 2023. 

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_1.pdf

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf

2. Ibid.  p. 4, 6-7.

3. Ibid. p. 3.

4. Ibid. p. 3.

5. Ibid. p. 8.

Many thanks to Kevin Haug for his very insightful article about the DEIA audit which the ELCA recently commissioned a law firm to do of its governing documents.  I hate to think of how many of your benevolence dollars the ELCA spent on this effort.  You will find Kevin’s article in this issue of CORE Voice.  It is a word of warning to all in the ELCA.  You do not need to take my word for it that these recommendations actually are being given as part of this audit.  You can check it out for yourself at DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf (elca.org)

I am an ELCA pastor who has been retired for nearly ten years.  When I read these recommendations, my first thought was, “I am glad to be retired.”  The immediate response of one ELCA pastor in his early 60’s when I shared these recommendations with him was, “How soon can I retire?”

I thought of the strong, negative response I am certain I would have received if and when I would have shared these recommendations with the congregation council of the church where I was the pastor.  I then thought, “We are already facing the challenge of trying to do everything that we are currently doing.  How am I now supposed to get everyone on board, enthusiastic about, and actively engaged in fulfilling these recommendations?”  And what will be the consequences for us in our synod if these recommendations become requirements and we do not meet them?  If congregations that are DEIA-compliant are rewarded with such things as having extra voting members at synod assemblies and greater access to grants and other financial resources, how will congregations that are not DEIA-compliant be punished?  For example, will they not be given any names of possible candidates for call if the congregation is looking for a pastor? 

Here is just a sampling of the audit’s Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations.  A question for all ELCA pastors and congregational leaders is this:  Is this what you want to spend a considerable amount of your time, energy, and resources on? 

1. Upgrade all personnel policies to reflect DEIA values.

2. Require annual DEIA training for all pastors, church staff, and lay leaders, using an Approved (approved by whom?) Provider.  At a minimum this training will cover the following topics:

a.  How does DEIA advance the values of the Kingdom of God?

b.  Is this particular congregation perceived as hostile or unresponsive to members of historically marginalized groups, and if so, how might this congregation reverse that perception?

The ELCA defines “historically marginalized groups” as groups that have for some significant period of history been excluded from participation or leadership in the church on the basis of certain characteristics.  They include racial and ethnic minorities, persons whose primary language is other than English, low income persons, persons with disabilities, gender non-conforming persons, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.  (I have asked ELCA leaders who are so concerned for “historically marginalized groups,” what about “currently marginalized groups”?  Which I would say includes older, white, cisgender, heterosexual males with traditional views.) 

This mandatory, annual DEIA training is also to consider such questions as these –

a.  What additional initiatives can this congregation pursue to promote DEIA values?

b.  What financial resources does our congregation commit to promoting DEIA values and programs, and should we commit more and if so can we do so on an annual basis?

c.  What is Christian White Nationalism, what causes people to adhere to it, and is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings?  How might members of historically marginalized groups be offended by Christian White Nationalism?

d.  What is Black Lives Matter, is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings, why are people drawn to it, what human needs does it address, and can the church do a better job at meeting those needs?

3.  In addition, each congregation is to identify at least one other congregation with opposite or at least very different demographic characteristics and commit to starting at least a one-year relationship with them.  This relationship is to include the following:

a. Periodic meetings between the pastors to discuss ways in which the congregations can get to know each other better and plan joint activities to strengthen mutual understanding on DEIA issues.  These activities may include joint DEIA training sessions with an Approved (again, approved by whom?) Provider and joint Bible Studies or Biblically based book studies on DEIA topics.

b.  Monthly meetings between the lay leaders to plan and administer activities, joint discussions, and ministries.

c.  At least six joint worship experiences, followed by a fellowship social hour.

At best these recommendations will be time and energy consuming.  At worst they will be one more way in which the ELCA is relentlessly being pushed to the extreme left – in the direction of critical race theory and DEIA ideology.

RUNAWAY TRAIN

A pastor colleague recently wrote to me regarding the ELCA – “The question remains as to whether this progressive freight train has any brakes at all.”  I replied, “Absolutely not. The ELCA has no brakes and feels no need for brakes.  The ELCA is bound and determined to go – at an ever-increasing speed – in the direction in which it is going – no matter what.

The ELCA reminds me of the 1976 film “Silver Streak.”  Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor star in this story of a murder on a train traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago.  After the engineer is killed and a toolbox is placed on the dead-man switch to keep the engine running, the Silver Streak becomes a runaway train.  The back part of the train is uncoupled in an effort to trigger the brakes, but the front part retains enough momentum due to the locomotive’s being at high throttle.  The film ends with the Silver Streak’s roaring into Chicago’s Central Station (is the city of location mere coincidence?), destroying everything in its path until the brakes finally take hold. 

With the appointing of a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC), combined with the recommendations of the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit which the ELCA spent who knows how much money on, the ELCA is like a runaway train.

An article by ELCA pastor Kevin Haug in the March issue of CORE Voice will tell more about the DEIA audit and what pastors, lay leaders, and congregations can expect.  Here I will present my review of the latest report from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.   I will be analyzing the Summary statement from the Commission’s November 30-December 2 in person meeting.  A copy of that Summary can be found HERE.

I would like to begin by thanking ELCA pastor Ryan Cordle for his article regarding Critical Race Theory and the Commission.  A link to his article, which appeared in the January issue of CORE Voice, can be found HERE.  What he wrote helped me tremendously in formulating and clarifying my thinking.

On January 16 the ELCA’s Grand Canyon Synod (the synod in which I am rostered) hosted a Listening Session where two members of the Commission gave a summary of their work followed by an opportunity for those attending to share concerns and ask questions.  During the session I made the comment that based upon the language of the resolution from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly which directed the Church Council to create the Commission and upon the fact that twenty percent of the members of the Commission – seven out of thirty-five – are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion leaders and/or officers at their place of employment and/or influence, I am convinced that the purpose and intent in creating the Commission is to re-structure the church according to the principles of critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.  I was told by one of the members of the Commission that there is no pre-determined outcome for the work of the Commission.

After reviewing the summary of the November 30-December 2 meeting of the Commission, which is available on the ELCA website, I then wrote to the two members of the Commission, stating that I did not see how they could make the claim that there is no pre-determined outcome.  I included the Bishop of my Synod among those who received my email.  After thanking them for providing the Listening Session, I wrote, “I would say that the resolution that led to the formation of the Commission as well as the summary of the meeting of the Commission are literally saturated with critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.”

I then wrote the following to support my point.

* * * * * * 

I will begin with the resolution.  This resolution includes the words, “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Those are very significant words.  They reflect the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do.  Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people).  The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language.  We must be anti-racist.  We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else.  The report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee on Day 1 takes this concept even further.  According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.”  Those also are very significant words.  According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.

The only specific instruction that has been given to the Commission is to “dismantle racism.”  Nothing else is of prime importance.  The new church is to be structured not first and foremost so as to position it to fulfill the Great Commission.  Rather it is to be structured first and foremost so as to position it to dismantle racism – as well as every other system of oppression that is interconnected with racism.  The summary of the three-day meeting shows how this top priority of dismantling racism is being pursued and implemented.

• On Day 1 Judith Roberts presented on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Status survey responses from all ELCA synods. I did not see any other area where responses were sought for and/or obtained from all synods. 
• On Day 1 the Commission “voted on and passed language that clarifies the mandate of the CRLC as being focused on governance.” At the Listening Session that I attended several people expressed deep concern for their congregation’s long-term viability.  You did say that the focus of the Commission is on governance.  I wonder how many members of ELCA congregations, once they hear and understand that, will feel that the ELCA is not concerned about the issues that are important to them.    
• On Day 1 the “Why and What” internal committee reviewed the completed DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) audit and discussed “how the recommended edits affect the current purpose statements.” Again, as with the DEI status survey responses from all synods, no other survey responses were solicited and received and no other audit was completed.  All of which shows what is important and what is not.
• I have already mentioned the great significance of the “intersectional lens of dismantling racism” language of the report from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee on Day 1. This same committee has also analyzed “how racism is embedded within the current structures of the ELCA.”  If systemic racism needs to be dismantled – along with all the other systems of oppression that are interconnected with systemic racism – and systemic racism exists throughout the ELCA, then we should not be surprised if in the end the Commission will recommend dismantling the entire ELCA.
• On Day 2 Judith Roberts was back to present the executive summary from the Task Force for Strategic Authentic Diversity. With all that is being said, I assume that the belief is that Strategic Authentic Diversity will never be achieved by the method that the ELCA has been using from the beginning – having and requiring quotas.  Rather Strategic Authentic Diversity will be achieved only by dismantling all interconnected systems of power imbalance and oppression. 
• On Day 2 three people presented on the ELCA Churchwide Office’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility audit. As I remember from the Listening Session, the ELCA is so proud of itself for being the first of its kind of organization to complete a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility audit.
• On Day 2 Vance Blackfox’s presentation on marginalized leadership movements and racial equity in the ELCA again shows the concerns, values, and priorities of the Commission.

So what are we to make of all of this?  I can see only one possible conclusion.  There is a pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission – and that is to create a whole new church that will be structured according to the principles of critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.  The Commission has been appointed to create a whole new church that will be positioned not to fulfill the Great Commission but to be in the forefront of a massive cultural movement to create a whole new society based upon (dare I say it?) Marxist ideology.

* * * * * *

I then ended by thanking them for hearing my concerns.  I sent this email on Friday, January 26.  I have received a very gracious response from my bishop.  As of February 4 – nine days after sending the email – I have heard nothing from the members of the Commission – not even the courtesy of an email like, “Thank you for attending the Listening Session and sharing your concerns.” 

* * * * * * *

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan, Media Director, Director of International Programs, and Staff Counsel for Trinity Lutheran Church and School in Joppa, Maryland (NALC) for his review of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland.  A link to Ken’s video review can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of nearly three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE. 

According to Ken, this volume is an almost 700-page collection of essays from the brightest minds in the field on the subject. However, for any Lutheran the first question we have to answer is whether Natural Theology has a place in the Lutheran tradition in light of Luther’s views on the limitations of human reason.

In this review, Christian apologist Ken Coughlan first gives a brief outline of the specifically Lutheran question to help you decide whether further exploration of the book is in line with your theological convictions. He then describes the book’s approach as a whole and gives a summary of the pros and cons for particular audiences. This work is not for everyone, but it can be a valuable resource for its intended audience.

For more material from Ken, please check out his website – kencoughlan.org

* * * * * *

May the Lord bless you as you begin your Lenten journey.

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director Lutheran Core

We all remember with horror the ways in which traditional views on such matters as human sexuality were rejected and belittled at the 2018 ELCA Youth Gathering.  Here is a link to an article in the Summer 2018 issue of CORE Voice newsletter about that event, including the way in which ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber led 32,000 young people in a chant rejecting Biblically faithful views as a lie from Satan. I think it is very interesting that as of the time of my writing this article, the website for this summer’s ELCA youth gathering – taking place in July in New Orleans – does not yet include the names of the keynote speakers.  However, in the information for churches that will be sending their youth, there are more than enough reasons for congregations that take the Bible and the historic Christian faith seriously to stay far away.

Here is a link to the information that has been prepared to help youth and youth leaders get ready for the gathering. The theme for the event is “Created to Be.”  The preparatory materials are divided into five sections with two sessions each.  We have been Created to Be Brave, Authentic, Free, and Disruptive Disciples.  Each of the ten sessions starts out with a land acknowledgment, stating who were the original inhabitants of the land on which the gathering will be held, and from whom the land was stolen.  Not only is the ELCA conditioning its young people to think and feel negatively about the country in which they live, they are also displaying their blatant and pompous hypocrisy.  The ELCA is totally ignoring ways in which synods are abusing power and misusing a constitutional provision to take over the property of congregations.  Also I am not aware of any situation where a synod has returned the proceeds from the sale of the property of a closed congregation to the original inhabitants of the land.  Rather synods use this income to fund their radical-left agenda as their congregations, number of congregations, and the income from congregations continue to diminish.

The preparatory materials are filled with examples of ways in which the ELCA is indoctrinating its young people.  For example, the “Go Deeper” section of Session 2 of Unit 5 (Disciples) makes the statement, “Many of our young people have experienced Christians who do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt our neighbors.”  The youth are then asked, “What negative words come to mind when you think of Christians or disciples?  What harm have you seen people do in Jesus’ name?”  In contrast, in the “Go Deeper” section of Session 1 of Unit 5 the young people are asked, “Is your church a Reconciling in Christ congregation?  If so, how long did your church take to make that commitment and adopt a welcome statement?  If not, what would it mean for you if your congregation became a Reconciling in Christ congregation?”  Any pastor who does not want the congregation to become Reconciling in Christ – and/or does not want the issue to be raised within the congregation – needs to be forewarned.  Also, the implication is that people with traditional views do harm, speak hatefully, and work for laws that hurt people, while congregations that are Reconciling in Christ are accepting, loving, and wonderful. 

And how does the ELCA indoctrinate the people who work with its young people?  Information regarding the general session speakers for the ELCA’s Youth Ministry Network Extravaganza being held this month also in New Orleans is available.  Here is a link to the website for this gathering for leaders in youth ministry.

Looking at the bios for the general session speakers, you will see that the overwhelming emphasis is on LGBTQ+ ideology as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Here is information regarding three of the five general session speakers.  If you want your ministry to and with your young people to be anything other than that, you need to look elsewhere.  

• Jamie Bruesehoff is listed as an “award-winning LGBTQ+” advocate.  Jamie and her at-the-time pre-adolescent transgender child spoke at the 2018 youth gathering.  She describes her experiences raising a transgender child as “rooted in her queer identity.”  She is the author of Raising Kids beyond the Binary: Celebrating God’s Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children.
• The Rev. Carla Christopher (she/they) is co-chair of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and chaplain for Proclaim, which her bio describes as “an ELCA ministry that supports LGBTQIA2S+ seminarians and rostered leaders.”  She serves as Assistant to the Bishop for Justice Ministries in two ELCA synods and is a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Consultant for multiple synods and faith-based organizations.
• Deacon Ross Murray is director of the Naming Project.  The website for that organization describes their goal as to “provide a safe and sacred space where youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities are named and claimed by a loving God.”  They also work to “advocate for systemic change in church and society.” 

If that is what you want your congregation’s youth ministry to be all about, more power to you.  If that is not what you want, stay far away from both gatherings and from any potential youth worker who attends or who would promote either or both gatherings. 

“We must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing.” 2 Thessalonians 1:3

The congregation of St. Paul located in Pensacola, Florida began the discernment process of leaving the ELCA in 2018. We had the 2^nd vote to leave the Florida-Bahamas (FB) Synod of the ELCA in 2019. We expected some challenges in leaving because of the small group of members who wanted to remain in the ELCA. The congregation voted with a super-majority to leave the FB Synod. St. Paul applied to and joined the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) in 2020. Shortly after being received into the NALC, the congregation council received a letter from the FB Synod informing us that we could not leave.

The congregation council of that period were faithful in their commitment to Christ. They had a strength in faith that was unwavering. It proved to be a blessing for us as the FB Synod attempted to stop the people of God from leaving. To resolve the issue of St. Paul leaving the ELCA, the congregation council filed a motion in court. This was to maintain our rights to the building and the financials of St. Paul. During the legal process, letters with false statements were sent to the church members of St. Paul (NALC). Slanderous statements were made against the council and me. The ugliness of letters from the FB Synod showed a lack of Christian love for others and did not speak the truth of the intentions within the ELCA. The object of the ELCA was and I believe still is to “suppress the truth” of what they are doing or what they have done. We had suggested that the majority (us) and the minority (them) could share the building. But that was met with another ugly response. The Bishop of the FB Synod stated in words like these: Any other denomination but the NALC would have been okay. But not the NALC.

Eventually after many legal disputes the FB Synod Bishop filed a summary of judgment with the claim of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Taking the matter away from the civil court and giving it back to the FB Synod to make the final determination. The ruling gave our building, bank accounts, and endowment funds to the FB Synod and the small group of people who wanted to stay in the ELCA.

This could have been crushing for us if it were not for “faith.” Instead, the ruling of the judge based on the ecclesiastical hierarchy was freeing! Shortly after we lost everything to the ruling, God founded a new name for us. Led by the Spirit, Epiphany Lutheran Church became our new name. In 2021 we sought and found a new location for worship. I was introduced to Rabbi Tokajer in September, and we began worshipping at the Synagogue on Nov. 7, 2021.

In faith we left the building in Pensacola for a new beginning. With our vision clear and our faith steadfast in Christ, we began rebuilding and evangelizing for God’s church in the new location. With little financial stability we stepped out. In our faith journey, we didn’t think about what was lost. Instead, we recognized how much God was providing.

I encourage pastors discerning their call to contact the General Secretary of the NALC. The threats from the ELCA that place fear into individual pastors is nothing more than evil. If you want to remain faithful to the Word of God, I encourage you to place your assurance in Christ not the ELCA. The letters I received informed me that I was nothing without their endorsement. The ELCA didn’t call me into ministry. God called me into the ministry of Word and Sacrament. What about my pension and medical benefits? Have faith! As God is my witness, this question came to my mind too. It was a fleeting thought as I discerned the call to serve in faithfulness. 

In March of 2023, I spoke to the congregation about our faith walk. I referred to the summary of judgment and the loss of our assets and property. In the message of faith I said, “We lost everything for the sake of Christ.” It is in this loss that we found out just how strong and faith filled we were. As I’ve said many times, “It’s easy to have faith when everything is going well in your life.” With the help of God, we’ve grown in number, in spirit, and in faithfulness. Like the letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, we lift up the church and all those who continue their journey in “faith.” We share the love of Christ with new believers and all visitors at Epiphany Pensacola. All are welcome to experience the love and joy of Christ in worship.

As I am writing this article it just dawned on me that on Nov. 7, 2023, when we break ground on a new church building it will be our 2^nd anniversary of this new start congregation in Pensacola, Florida. God has blessed us with generous financial support for the church property. The mission and ministry have been financially supported by several NALC churches. We’ve received domestic mission partnerships from other NALC churches. The congregation has grown, and the people of God have been generous in supporting the mission and ministry of Christ. Losing everything for the sake of the Gospel has been transformational to the members of Epiphany Pensacola.   

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

Photos courtesy of Brenda Ekstrom and Donna Busarow.

Director’s Note: Spencer Wentland is uniquely qualified to write this article analyzing the ELCA’s concept of global mission as accompaniment rather than evangelism – as responding to requests for help from indigenous churches rather than being concerned to share the message of Jesus with unreached peoples.  Spencer is a member of our young adult group, which meets via zoom about once a month for fellowship and support.  He is passionate about reaching people who do not know Jesus.  He has much international experience, including studying and serving in a discipleship community in Denmark.  He has served as an ELCA lay missionary in Japan and has written on the theology of global mission of different Christian groups. 

The ELCA defines accompaniment as “…walking together in a solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality[*]” (Global Mission, emphasis in original). Although often portrayed as a biblical theology coming out of the disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, it is strongly influenced by and rooted in liberation theology[†]. My immediate concern with it, as a heuristic to the what and where of mission, is that it is antithetical to the Pauline priority on unreached places.

The Apostle Paul emphasized not building on another’s foundation but to establish the Church where it does not exist. Combined with Jesus’ teaching that the Gospel must be preached in all nations (Gk. ethnos, often understood as ethno-linguistic people groups by many missiologists) and then the end will come, there has been a strong emphasis on sending missionaries to work amongst unreached and unengaged people groups[‡].

While working as an ELCA missionary, I heard about experienced mission personnel being sent home while the Japanese Evangelical Lutheran Church was told how they were going to become less dependent on the ELCA. In the name of being post-colonial, it was an ironically patronizing execution of implementing an accompaniment model.

Accompaniment is actually very good in shaping how we do mission. We should not ignore the presence and work of indigenous Lutherans. If consistent with the values of accompaniment, it’s a good way to think about working together in the larger context of God’s mission. It reminds us that the task of mission must be informed by the catholicity of the Church as well as its apostolic nature. It also informs us to do mission in the pattern and practice of Christ himself who is Immanuel.

The problems with accompaniment are when it determines what the content of mission is and where it is done. When applied to the what of mission, it frames the whole task into a ministry of presence. This collapses into the problem that when everything is mission, nothing is mission. The primary task of establishing the Church in unreached places, making disciples and evangelical mission is diminished into almost oblivion by tasks being determined by the partner denomination. True accompaniment would involve both churches determining the content of mission work in the light of both Scripture and context. Working together is key, not completely abrogating task criteria to the partner church.

The ELCA’s requirement that pre-existing Lutheran churches request the ELCA to send missionaries (an effort in being post-colonial) assures that no missionaries will ever be sent to unengaged people groups. The Japanese are the second largest unreached people group, so there is an odd and good anomaly that work is going on there. During my missionary orientation, I asked if someone had a vision like Paul of a man from Macedonia, saying come here, would that qualify a call (Acts 16)? Is the Holy Spirit leading with the Word, or are we reducing the idea of being spirit-led to a democratized principle of the external call coming through partner churches?

In conclusion, accompaniment is a mixed bag. It’s great for the how of mission, and it is a true gift. However, it needs to be understood in the larger context of the ELCA’s constitution and statement of faith, including its responsibility to work for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. To do this, the primary tasks need to be strategic partnership for the purposes of mission development/evangelical mission and a willingness to send people to places where no Christians, let alone Lutherans, exist.

Photograph courtesy of Spencer Wentland; it is of a protestant church in Okinawa.

---

[*] “Global Mission.” Elca.Org. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Accessed November 5, 2023. https://www.elca.org/Our-Work/Global-Mission.

[†] ORDÓÑEZ, CLAUDIA. “Public Health Needs Liberation Theology.” Aquinas Emory Thinks. Aquinas Center at Candler School of Theology, February 15, 2021. https://aquinasemorythinks.com/public-health-needs-liberation-theology/.

[‡] Unreached: relative to the population living near a gospel witness. Imagine an American city of about 250,000 people and if there is only about three or four churches of twenty people and no youth groups. Unengaged: has any effort been made by Christians to bring the Gospel and make disciples among this particular people group?

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? –Mark 4:30

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness* with our spirit that we are children of God. –Romans 8:15-16

The first time I read the phrase “kin-dom of God,” I rolled my eyes. It looked to be another attempt to make Christian terminology politically correct—something I have a personal aversion to. So, when I was asked to write a piece on this particular phrase and its usage, particularly amongst progressive Christian circles, I thought I now had an opportunity to academically hammer the phrase.

However, after research, I have become a little more sympathetic to the term. Although, as the title indicates, there is no “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God. Explanation is in order.

The Origins of Kin-dom

Multiple sources trace the origin of “kin-dom” to Georgene Wilson, a Franciscan nun, who spoke it to her friend, mujerista theologian, Ada María Isasi-Díaz.¹ Isasi-Díaz then incorporated it into her theological framework and wrote about it in her work “Kin-dom of God: A Mujerista Proposal.”² Unfortunately, I was unable to find this primary work online, so I am dependent upon a lengthy article by Bridgett Green, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Austin Presbyterian Seminary for insight into Isasi-Díaz’s thoughts.³

For Isasi-Diaz, “kindom” better reflects Jesus’s familial understandings of the community of disciples. Jesus envisioned an extended family with God as father. He announces that all who hear the word of God and do it are his family (Luke 8:21; cf. Mark 3:31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50). Further, Jesus links discipleship to membership in the family of God, saying that any who have left their blood relatives for the sake of the good news will receive back hundredfold in relationships and resources now and in the coming age (Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30, and Matthew 19:29). Jesus creates and grounds his community of disciples in the principles of kinship—and kinship with God comes not through blood relations but through participation in the duties and responsibilities proclaimed in the Torah and by the Prophets. “Kindom” evokes these values in horizontal relationships among all God’s beloved children, calling disciple communities to live into familial ideals of inclusion, mutual support, and sharing of resources.⁴

---

Professor Bridgett Green

I am quite sympathetic to this understanding of how disciples of Jesus interact with each other. St. Paul is emphatic that when we trust in Christ, we are adopted sons and daughters of God. Paul incorporates familial language throughout his letters, in the same vein Isasi-Díaz highlights. If highlighting this aspect of Christian thought was all that was going on, I don’t think there would be much of an issue with using the terminology of “kin-dom” as it would simply be an emphasis of the language of family used throughout the New Testament. However, there are proponents of this terminology who want to get rid of kingdom language totally and replace it with kin-dom. I find this problematic.

Why Erase Kingdom?

According to proponents of “kin-dom,” the language of kingdom presents multiple problems. It has been used by the church to make itself an earthly kingdom with earthly power and might.⁵ It tends towards exclusivity and can foster competition between kingdoms sometimes leading to violence.⁶ It is patriarchal in nature.⁷ And it “includes the specter of humiliation, subordination, punishment, exile, colonialization, sickness, poverty, as well as social, political, economic, and spiritual death.”⁸

In their view, “kin-dom” represents a much better understanding of what Jesus taught about God’s overall rule and what Jesus’ parables lead us toward.

Let’s work through a few of these things and offer some critique. First, I think we must separate the intent of Jesus’ teachings on God’s Kingdom (and the vision of how it works when God rules) from how sinful human beings have appropriated it. Many of the critiques of kingdom language resonate with the experience of human history, and one needs only pick up a history book to see the truth of what is being said. However, does human failing nullify biblical intent and understanding? Hardly.

Several years ago, I attended a mandatory boundary training in my synod. We were cautioned and steered away from using familial language to describe the church. The reason? Because families are places where abuse takes place; where neglect happens; where harm and pain are caused. It was not until a day or two afterwards that it hit me: not a single good thing was shared about what happens in families. No one spoke about parents who lovingly raise and sacrifice for their kids. No one said a word about how spouses care for each other and build one another up. No one spoke about the emotional support and foundations that are laid to help us cope with things that happen in life. No one said a thing about how the vast majority of parents feed, clothe, shelter, and spend hours upon hours of time with their children raising them to be productive citizens of society. All of the focus was on the bad, and not a single thing was said about the good. Do we abandon the metaphor because there are times of failure? Absolutely not!! Especially when the biblical witness emphasizes the metaphor so much.

I believe the same application is warranted here. Yes, there are, but the vision set forth in the Gospels, epistles, the book of Revelation, and even in the Old Testament lead us to use kingdom language. Why? To emphasize the goodness of God’s rule, and to show that there is a future hope which is a corrective to the failings of humankind.

Second, the kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, and I do not think this is something we as Christians should feel shame about. Paul is explicit in his writings that a person is either “in Christ” or “in Adam.” There is a strong line of demarcation, and the only way to go from one side to the other is through the cross. Essentially, a person either trusts in Christ’s work for salvation (in Christ), or they trust in themselves (in Adam). Either one trusts in grace for one’s righteousness, or one trusts in one’s works. There is no middle ground.

When you trust in Christ and His works, you shift your allegiance. No longer do you live for self: for self-indulgence; for self-affirmation; for self-preservation. Instead, you live for Christ. You live for God. No longer do you lay claim to the throne, but the rightful, righteous ruler is now seated upon the throne of your heart. You now serve a new master. (Romans 6) This is at the heart of the Christian creed, “Jesus is Lord.” You are announcing that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. You no longer rule over your life. Jesus does. And when He is king of your life, you enter into the Kingdom of God.

If you do not trust in Christ’s work, then you are not in the Kingdom of God. You are consumed by other hungers. You are on the outside looking in. In this fashion, the Kingdom of God is indeed exclusive, but, this does not lead to violence and conflict. It is self-righteousness which leads to such things, and a person who knows God’s grace is not self-righteous. They know they have no righteousness of their own. They know their sin. They know their dependence upon God and Christ’s grace. They also know they are commissioned to make disciples of all nations. They know the great command to love their neighbors as themselves. They do not seek to impose the faith or the Kingdom by imposition, but rather by invitation. The doorway to the Kingdom of God is always open, and the desire is to welcome all. Even though it is exclusive, it seeks the inclusion of all. This is not something to be ashamed of in the least.

A final word about patriarchy. Please know that I am using the following definition of patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. The Kingdom of God is a patriarchy since God is our Father. As such, this is a rather neutral understanding.

However, there is another definition of patriarchy which oftentimes gets applied. “A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” The Kingdom of God was never meant to be such a thing. One would garner that self-evidently from Jesus’ own teachings on the Kingdom as well as St. Paul’s baptismal theology. However, living this ideal out on earth has proven to be quite difficult, and the Church has fallen very short of the ideal.

But again, the question must be asked: do we abandon the language because the ideal has not been met? No. There is no justification for that. You cannot change reality just by changing language.

Embracing Kingdom

And the reality of the Christian faith is this: you cannot have the “kin-dom” of God without the Kingdom of God.

As I hinted at previously, our Christian faith begins with God’s great grace poured out through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This grace captures and changes our hearts so that our allegiance shifts from ourselves and the desires of the flesh to allegiance to God and the desires of the Spirit. This is a vertical relationship, and it is primary. It must take place first. For through it, we actually fulfill the first and greatest commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Everything starts with this vertical relationship.

Then, it moves to the horizontal. Then, it moves into our relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Then, it moves to the second great command to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is where “kin-dom” language can come into play, but again, we must be careful.

Our neighbors may not share the same allegiance that we do. Our neighbors may not have Jesus as their King. They may still be “in Adam.” They still may belong to the kingdom of the world.

I was struck by a paragraph in Professor Green’s article:

This is the expansive sense of family to which Bishop Oscar Romero appealed when he exhorted the soldiers in El Salvador in 1980 before his assassination. He reminded them of Jesus’s vision of kinship, reminded them that we are all children of God, that we are connected through an honor code that values all, that provides security and a foundation for each person to be able to extend themselves into the community without losing their identity and sense of self.⁹

---

Bishop Romero appealed to the idea of “kin-dom” with the soldiers of El Salvador, but they still assassinated him. Why? Because they were serving a different master. They were serving a different king. They were not serving the King of kings and Lord of lords. Their hearts had not experienced the grace of God which would lead them away from committing such a heinous crime. The vertical relationship must always come first, and the Church’s primary job in the world is the proclamation of the Gospel which makes disciples of all nations–which calls our neighbors to have the same allegiance as we do.

To erase kingdom and replace with “kin-dom” means to place the second commandment above the first. It seeks to establish the kingdom without the King. That is not an option within the Christian faith, and it ultimately leads to failure. You simply cannot have the “kin-dom” without the Kingdom.

---

1. Florer-Bixler, Melissa. “The Kin-dom of Christ.” Sojourners. Nov. 20, 2018. https://sojo.net/articles/kin-dom-christ,

Green, Bridget. “On Kingdom and Kindom: The Promise and the Peril.” Issuu. Fall 2021. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

Butler Bass, Diana. “The Kin-dom of God.” Red Letter Christians. Dec.15, 2021 https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

2.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid.

5.Butler Bass. https://www.redletterchristians.org/the-kin-dom-of-god/

6.PCUSA. “Bible study at GA223 will Explore ‘kin-dom’ versus ‘kingdom.’” Feb.12, 2018

https://www.pcusa.org/news/2018/2/12/bible-study-ga223-will-explore-kin-dom-versus-king/?fbclid=IwAR2fVkwtu41Zps66Wvxa_QdQfqVUiMrPeb96vhyHxKSNYAwPCFDQLv4dJuc

7.Montgomery, Herb. “A Kingless Kingdom.” Renewed Heart Ministries: eSights and Articles. May 31, 2019. https://renewedheartministries.com/Esights/05-31-2019/

8.Green. https://issuu.com/austinseminary/docs/insights_fall_2021_i/s/13746319

9.Ibid.

---