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.

This research has been done and this article has been written in response to those who have expressed deep concern over the Equality Act, a bill that is now before the United States Congress. 

The Equality Act, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service.

Much like the Supreme Court’s June 2020 ruling in the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia decision, which protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, the Equality Act broadly defines sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, adding “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes.” The bill also defines this to include the intersex community.

While various similar bills have been introduced since the 1970’s, the modern version of the Equality Act was first proposed in the 114th United States Congress. During the 116th Congress, it passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote. However, the United States Senate did not act upon the bill after receiving it. On February 18, 2021, the act was reintroduced in the 117th Congress. The House passed the act by a vote of 224 to 206 on February 25, 2021, with support from three Republicans. The bill then moved on to the Senate for consideration.

While not yet passed into law, the Equality Act continually inches closer to being passed, and each time it becomes more expansive in what it entails.  The latest version of the Equality Act is a grave threat to religious liberty, especially for religious institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, camps, sports, etc.) which hold to traditional views regarding gender and sexuality.  There are wide-reaching implications.  Also, the Equality Act does not stand alone.  It builds upon and forms the basis for other legislation that has come through the executive branch (i.e., executive orders) and/or the judicial branch (i.e., SCOTUS cases).

Much work has been done to survey books, reports, articles, audios, and videos in order to prepare two resources for the friends of Lutheran CORE. 

The first of these resources is a list of quotations from a wide selection of sources, which answer common questions.  A link to that resource can be found here.

The second is a resource list for more information on the subject.  A link to that list can be found here.

Although some information is included about the general implications (i.e., the impact on businesses or adoption agencies), the specific focus of the two resources is on the implications for religious freedom, both for churches specifically and for faith-based institutions generally (i.e., religious schools, religious camps, etc.). 

Please note that the focus is intentionally on religious rather than political concerns. 

Regrettably, there is little information, at this point, about what faith-based (and secular) institutions can meaningfully do to fight back against this legislation and its implications.  The one recurring proposal is to support alternative legislation, such as the Fairness for All Act.  This Act would implement similar LGBTQ+ rights as the Equality Act in the secular and business worlds, but would include specific protections of religious liberties for faith-based non-profits.  Although it is by no means the focus of this report, some information about the Fairness for All Act has been included. 

We would particularly recommend to you two resources, both of which can be found under Reports on the resource list. 

The first is the document, How Religious Organizations Can Understand the Equality Act and Discern Next Steps,by Caleb Kaltenbach of the Messy Grace Group.  It is quite comprehensive, at over 100 pages, and includes not only practical information about the law and its implications, but also suggestions for what churches can do.  In addition it presents religious, legal, and moral arguments against the Equality Act.

The second is the “Protecting Your Ministry from Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Lawsuits” guide jointly released by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and Alliance Defending Freedom.  This document specifically concerns protecting churches from lawsuits.  At this time, the guide has yet to be updated to reflect the Equality Act, but it is useful in drawing attention to the sorts of things which churches will have to worry about, now and into the future, as lawsuits regarding LGBTQ concerns arise. 

I am reminded of how Jesus said in Matthew 10: 16, “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”  We certainly are living and doing ministry in the midst of wolves.  May we be what Jesus has called and empowered us to be.    

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to Dr. Paul Hinlicky, professor emeritus at Roanoke College in Roanoke, Virginia, for giving us a review of Simeon Zahl’s book, The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience.

Prior to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, during the early years of Reformation theology, part of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer was seen to be the giving of a new heart, new emotions, a change in one’s desires.  This book helps regain that emphasis.  Faith is not just a matter of intellectual conviction.  It is also something that strikes home for us personally.  It changes us and what we love. 

Grace can be an abstraction – simply the idea that God is merciful and loving.  Instead grace needs to be and can be a concrete experience of the merciful Jesus Christ, who finds His way into our hearts through the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit. 

This review, as well as twenty others, have been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

Wanting to expand our video ministry and increase the number and scope of resources that we offer, we are now developing another series of videos which will answer the question, What is the core of the Christian faith that we as confessional Lutherans want to maintain, preserve, hold on to, and pass on?  Many thanks to the Lutheran pastors and theologians who will be making these videos, which will deal with such topics as, Is Jesus the only way to heaven?, How to read and understand the Bible, and What does it mean to be confessional?  Each video, which will explore some area of Christian faith and life, will be about half an hour in length. 

The first of these videos will be available soon.  They will be posted as soon as they are ready.  Each month we will be featuring one of them in our monthly publications and various forms of social media.   

One of the familiar clichés within Lutheranism is that making the right distinctions is the key to doing good theology.  Admittedly, clichés are dangerous, as Robert Jenson warned in the book Lutheran Slogans: Use and Abuse. [1]   However, I still believe that making distinctions serves the Lutheran Church well.  Among those that I find helpful are the distinctions between Law and Gospel, and between the first, second and third articles of the Creed.

These distinctions are helpful in evaluating one of the recent declarations made on behalf of the ELCA by its leaders.   The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) met from March 31 to April 2 of this year.  At that meeting, the Church Council adopted A Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community.[2]   Like most of the declarations made on behalf of the ELCA, there are strengths and weaknesses.   Here’s where the distinctions come in.

When it comes to the distinction between Law and Gospel, Lutherans recognize that knowledge of the Law is not limited to the Christian faith.  The Law is accessible to all people, but not without distortions due to sin.  People of other religions, and people with no particular religious faith, have some knowledge of the Law.  Furthermore, we recognize that the Law impacts people in several ways.  We refer to this impact as the “uses of the Law”, but we should remember that we don’t really use the Law.  God does.   There are at least two uses of the Law.  A third use is debated among Lutherans.  However, in this article, I want to focus only on the first use of the Law. 

The first use of the Law is often called its civil use.  This is when the Law gives order to society, restrains evil, and rewards virtue.  No human society can function without some form of law, and regardless of the vast differences between religions and cultures, there are strong similarities as well.  While religions and cultures differ greatly on what is the proper way to worship God or the gods, they have large areas of agreement when it comes to how we ought to relate to fellow human beings.  Respect for elders, prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, lying and warnings against the danger of envy are pervasive.  As a result, the civil use of the law provides common ground between Christians, people of other religions, and with people in civil society.

Another helpful distinction has to do with the Apostles’ Creed.  Following Luther’s Catechisms, we identify three articles in the Creed, one on Creation, Redemption and Sanctification respectively.  It is under the article on Creation that Lutherans find the most in common with people of other faiths.  In particular, Jews and Muslims share similar beliefs with us, including the belief that there is only one God, that God is the creator of heaven and earth, that we are to love God and love our neighbors, and that God has revealed his will to human beings.  The article on Creation is the basis for our understanding of the civil use of the Law. 

When A Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community speaks from the standpoint of the first article of the Creed and the civil use of the Law it does well.  Lutherans should find common ground with other Christians, with Muslims, and with all people, in rejecting “subtle and not-so-subtle acts of aggression and violence, including vandalism against [Muslim] community centers and masjids (mosques).”  We should “assure our Muslim neighbors of our love and respect and reaffirm our commitment to working together in our shared communities for the common good.”  As Christians we are to “pray for our neighbors of other religions and worldviews; to seek understanding; and to stand in solidarity” with our neighbors. 

It is also right to admit and lament the fact that Lutherans have often failed to recognize that the protections of God’s Law extend to all people and not just to fellow Christians.  Jesus clearly taught that our neighbor includes all people, not just those who share our religion, nationality, or language.  (Luke 10:25-37)  Not only violence, but harsh rhetoric and “crude polemics” are a violation of the Law, namely the 8^th Commandment.  Therefore, it is correct to reject the harsh polemics of the past, even when they come from Martin Luther himself. 

Perhaps this is one place where Lutheran clichés have been abused.  We are to distinguish Law from Gospel, and Creation from Redemption and Sanctification.  However, we are not to separate them.  It is possible to become so focused on preaching the Gospel of salvation and the need for redemption that we forget that we still live within this world.  We have no right to abandon the Law in its first use, to fail to care for Creation, to neglect our families, communities, nations and world.  Instead, we are called to do good works that benefit our neighbors in our various vocations within the world.  In the words of the second offertory prayer in the LBW, we are to “dedicate our lives to the care and redemption of all that [God has] made,” not merely to the redemption of all things.  Just as the separation of Old and New Testaments has led to many evils within the Church, the same can be said about the separation of Law and Gospel and the separation of the article on Creation from those of Redemption and Sanctification.  We are not “Unitarians of the Second Article.”  We are Trinitarians. We cannot neglect the Law and the First Article. 

The greatest problem with the Declaration of the ELCA to the Muslim Community comes about when it attempts to talk about repentance and the Gospel.  For instance, in the first paragraph the Declaration says:

As people who know that we live by the grace and in the sight of the one, almighty and merciful God, we have confidence that our engagement will result in mutual learning, growth, and enrichment.

That is a vague statement at best.  What is this grace about which the Declaration speaks?  Is it the grace of creation or the grace of redemption in Jesus Christ?   It’s important for us to know.  To which God does the Declaration refer?  A Muslim might suspect that the ELCA is attempting to get him to affirm the Trinity and salvation in Christ by sleight of hand.  On the other hand, a Christian might conclude that the ELCA is avoiding a clear confession of its faith in Jesus Christ in order not to cause offense.  She might further wonder whether such an avoidance actually constitutes a denial of salvation through Christ alone. 

Later, in the fifth chapter, the Declaration promises to:

“confess when our words or deeds (or lack thereof) cause offense, harm, or violence to our neighbors” and to “repent and seek forgiveness from God and reconciliation with our neighbors.”

The same problem arises as above.  Is this a subtle attempt to coopt our Muslim neighbors into a confession of repentance and forgiveness in Jesus Christ?  Is it a subtle denial that forgiveness from God and true reconciliation with our neighbors is available only through Jesus Christ?  This ambivalence can easily cause offense to Muslims and Christians. 

What’s missing, in other words, is any attempt to address the Elephant in the Room.  Christians and Muslims are divided over the question of who Jesus of Nazareth is.  They are also divided over the doctrine of the Trinity.  Christians can find common ground with Muslims under the first use of the Law and under the article on Creation.  It is the Gospel and the Second and Third Articles that divide us.  How do we live together in a way that asks neither Christians nor Muslims to sacrifice the integrity of their faiths?  Neither orthodox Christians, nor orthodox Muslims, are willing to settle for a vague universalism.  My hope is that the ELCA is not willing to settle for that either.  Doing a better job of making important distinctions (but not separations) would have helped this Declaration a great deal.

---

[1] Jenson, Robert W. Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse.  American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 2011

[2] “A Declaration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to the Muslim Community” 

King Solomon was blessed in many ways with the wisdom the Lord had given him. He asked for wisdom (1 Kings 3:9) and he received it. We must hastily add, he didn’t always use that wisdom in ways becoming a servant of the Lord and as king of Israel. Nevertheless, despite his sinfulness, the Holy Spirit-inspired wisdom he has bequeathed to us is of surpassing value. Some of his wisdom, found in the book of Proverbs, is invaluable in helping to guide Christians in their thinking and in their doing. Perhaps many of you remember this from Proverbs: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (22:6). It’s an important truth to remember in every generation.

A couple of weeks ago I was blessed to spend a few days at Grand View University (GVU) in Des Moines. GVU was hosting its annual NEXUS Institute, a week long program for high school students. Lutheran CORE supports this ministry because we take to heart what Solomon said above in regards to training the up and coming generations. Though these saints aren’t that little, many of them were taller than me (which isn’t difficult to achieve), we still need to train them in the way they should go, the way of wisdom and life (Proverbs 9).

Students began and ended the day with worship. There were plenty of opportunities for them to serve: reading Scripture, leading prayer, communion assistant, and so on. Though things could be awkward at times; what else do you expect from high schoolers? Embrace the youth by embracing their holy awkwardness! “Train up a child in the way he should go…”

Students were daily taught by Dr. Mark Mattes and Dr. Ken Jones. These sessions focused on the Old and New Testaments and how to read and interpret them. Students learned how to distinguish law and gospel, how to read Scripture and view life through the cross, and how to read Scripture with Christ as the center. In other words, they were teaching the students how to read the Bible like the Church has for 2000 years. They were teaching the students how Jesus, Saint Paul, Augustine, and Luther read the Bible.

Throughout the day, the students had time to enjoy Des Moines or relax back at the dorms. They would also meet in small groups to discuss among themselves what they were learning. The mentors at NEXUS, college age students, would help in the processing of the information, facilitating the group’s discussion. Most mentors had been a high school student at NEXUS in previous years. One mentor in particular I had the privilege of talking with is a young man supported by Lutheran CORE’s Pastoral Formation Fund.

If you haven’t yet, I encourage you to encourage others to experience the NEXUS Institute, either as a mentor or as a high school student. After all, “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17). The students, mentors, and other leaders are Lutheran – NALC, LCMC, ELCA, and there was at least one LCMS thrown in for good measure. This is another reason why CORE proudly helps to financially support the NEXUS Institute at GVU. The NEXUS Institute helps connect confessional Lutherans from across America, advocating for Biblical authority and confessional fidelity – the very thing Lutheran CORE strives to do.

In closing, it should be pointed out that the verse from Proverbs 22:6 cuts both ways. If we aren’t diligently passing on the faith we have received so that that our youth “will not depart from it when they are old,” someone or something else will. Two brief examples from the recent past: (1) The ELCA has its agenda which can be seen in its various speakers from previous Youth Gatherings (Nadia Bolz-Weber, Jamie Bruesehoff and her son/transgender daughter). (2) The subtle placement of the “Reconciling in Christ” booth at Detroit’s Youth Gathering in 2015 was not so subtly placed in Houston in 2018. I was at both of these Youth Gatherings while still a part of the ELCA. There was a clear catechization going on here, make no mistake about it. “Train up a child in the way he/she/zhe/zir/they should go…”

If you consider yourself and your congregation confessionally minded, treasuring the Book of Concord and its content as a faithful exposition of the Scriptures, and you are dedicated to the Scriptures themselves and how the Church has always understood them, it’s crucial to know to what you are sending your youth. The NEXUS Institute is a wonderful meeting point for Lutheran youth. There certainly are others (LCMC Youth Gathering, LCMS Youth Gathering, Higher Things Youth Gatherings), but this one truly is a gift in the heartland of the U.S. It is a wise investment, for Lutheran CORE, for you, for the youth of the Church. As Jesus once said: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).

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.”

Lutheran CORE continues to provide monthly video reviews of books of interest and importance.  Many thanks to Maurice Lee, NALC pastor and theologian, for doing a review of Mark Mattes’ book, Martin Luther’s Theology of Beauty: A Reappraisal.  Dr. Mattes is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Grand View University in Des Moines.

Dr. Lee begins by referring to Dr. Mattes’ “astonishingly prolific and insightful scholarship over many years.”  He then goes on to mention how Luther would have come to a conclusion similar to that of the philosophical tradition — that truth, goodness, and beauty are closely interconnected — but only on the basis of his rigorously Christological perspective, in that we can rightly see truth, goodness, and beauty only in the light of Christ crucified and risen.

Luther and the Lutheran tradition did not remove music and the visual arts from the church.  In fact, Luther’s praise for music was second only to his praise for the Word of God. This deep appreciation for beauty was in line with Luther’s understanding that God’s Word comes through earthly, physical, and bodily means.  The finite is capable of bearing the infinite.  The body and earthly things can be channels of grace when appropriated by the Word of God.

This review, as well as 18 others, has been posted on our YouTube channel.  A link to the channel can be found here.

PLAYLIST

If you would like to watch Lutheran CORE’s playlist of all of our video book reviews, click here, then scroll down and start the video by selecting the play button or click on the three vertical lines near the top right of the first video to select a new video from the list that will pop up. 

In the January 2022 issue of CORE Voice and the February 2022 letter from the director I had a two-part article entitled, “How Did It Happen?”, in which I explained how groups such as ReconcilingWorks have made use of the principles of community organizing so that they have been able to completely take over the ELCA with their LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda.  A link to the article in the newsletter can be found here.  A link to the letter from the director can be found here. 

At the end of the second part I described the need for resources for parents, church leaders, and LGBTQ+ identified persons which are Biblically sound, scientifically based, and compassionate in their approach to matters pertaining to same-sex attraction and gender identity, and more broadly relating to sexuality and gender.   

Next month – June – the LGBTQ+ community will be celebrating Pride Month.  In anticipation of that event Lutheran CORE has gathered a list of resources that will provide Biblically sound and compassionate answers to such questions as, “What do I do if I am gay?” and “What should I do now that my child or friend has come out as gay?” 

We began the task of developing this list with the clear understanding that the Bible does not allow for same-sex sexual activity and/or misrepresenting one’s biological sex.  No resource that takes an LGBTQ+ affirming point of view would be included unless in that resource the LGBTQ+ affirming point of view is in dialogue with the traditional point of view regarding sexuality.

The goal in providing this list is to reach LGBTQ+ persons for Christ, to acknowledge their struggles with same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria, and to help them find a healthy way forward and assist them in their efforts to live biblically.

We do not believe that the Bible promises that same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria will disappear if only we will _____.   Rather we are reminded of how God did not remove Paul’s thorn in the flesh (whatever it might have been) in spite of his fervent prayers (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10), and we understand that the Christian life – this side of heaven – is a constant struggle between the flesh and the spirit, as Paul describes in Romans 7.  

The goal is to help same-sex attracted persons live according to a Biblical sexual ethic.  We acknowledge that some will choose to live a celibate life.  Some will marry a person of the opposite sex even though they still struggle with same-sex attractions. 

When working with transgender identified persons, regardless of the initial stance taken on identity markers, the end goal is to help them accept their biological sex. 

We commend these resources to you, and we pray that they will help all of us live in the spirit of what the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans –

“I appeal to you, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.  Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  (Romans 12: 1-2)

I have been a subscriber to Christianity Today since the early 1980’s.  I have always appreciated the quality and Biblical orthodoxy of its articles.  Recently both the CT magazine May/June issue, and its quarterly supplement “CT Pastors”, focused on the current challenges facing congregational pastors in the U.S.  These challenges include both increased internal congregational conflict and decreasing worship attendance.  One result of these challenges has been a great many “burned out”, discouraged clergy.

Regarding internal conflict within the Body of Christ, the “CT Pastors” editor, Kelli Trujillo, quoted Clement’s letter to the church of Corinth in 96 AD.  “Have we reached such a height of madness as to forget that we are members of one another?”  Well in some U.S. congregations, especially since early 2020, the answer is apparently an emphatic “yes”.

There is no doubt some comfort in knowing there has always been some level of internal conflict and disunity in the life of the church.  However, many pastors are saying that the last few years have been, by far, the most difficult years of their ministries.  One pastor, who was interviewed for the CT article, “Emptied Out”, described what he has experienced in his last two years of ministry in one word: “Excruciating”.

Scott Thumma, director of the Hartford University’s Institute for Religion Research, recently surveyed pastors.  His survey found that two-thirds considered 2020 “the hardest year in their ministry experience.”  From CT managing editor Andy Olsen: “The past few years of social and political upheaval have taken a particular toll on ministers.  Countless churches are threatened by an epidemic of pastoral burnout.”

So what are some of the causes contributing to both congregational conflict and frustrated, discouraged pastors?  At least two immediately come to mind.

1. Not surprisingly one cause has been pandemic-related ministry challenges since early 2020.  An additional quote, this one from CT writer Kyle Rohane: “The digitization of church services, sped along by the pandemic, has twisted the knife” when it comes to member dissatisfaction with their pastors.  “Since the pandemic, the debate over in-person versus impersonal preaching has been complicated considerably.  For the first time, due to the recent proliferation of live-streamed and recorded services, local pastors are in stiff competition with obscure preachers from other states.”  Kelly Kapic, writing in her “CT Pastors” article, said: “The long COVID-19 pandemic has increased the difficulties for many (churches), resulting in less church involvement and more mental health challenges, less relational connection and more political polarization.”  On a personal note, I know of two pastors—both serving smaller congregations—who have each had five or six active couples angrily leave their churches in the last two years.  Oddly enough, in one church it was because the pastor followed state guidelines regarding in-person worship and masks, while in the other church the couples left because that pastor did not strictly follow those same state guidelines.  A classic “lose-lose” scenario.

2. A second cause contributing to both congregational disunity and pastor “burn out” is an accelerated decline in worship attendance.  While the pandemic contributed to this decline for most churches, the majority of these congregations were unfortunately already in decline before 2020.  A 20-year study from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that small churches (100 or fewer in weekly attendance) now make up 70 percent of US congregations.  According to one “CT Pastors” article, “The median crowd at church on a Sunday morning is half what it was 20 years ago.  In 2000, the median worship attendance at US congregations was 137; now it’s down to 65.”  My own observation, after consulting with hundreds of pastors and congregational leaders over the last 30 years, is that congregational decline often increases the likelihood of internal conflict, and directly contributes to the discouragement and stress experienced by pastors.

Not surprisingly, these ministry challenges are contributing to many pastors re-evaluating how long they want to remain in the ministry.  From writer Kyle Rohane: “What’s unusual about our current situation, is the sheer number of pastors wanting to leave ministry simultaneously throughout the US and across demographics and traditions.”  He also writes, “The aging of American pastors is a well-established phenomenon.  Baby boomers have stayed in ministry longer than expected, and we should expect to see a natural rise in retirements as they finally transition out of lead roles.  But the pressures of the past two years could cause many to retire early.” (Emphasis mine) Even more specific to our immediate challenges, author and pastor Dane Ortlund tweeted, “A tidal wave of pastor resignations is coming in 2022.”  And one last quote from Kyle Rohane: “A nationwide pastor shortage could be a death knell for many smaller churches.”

So what can be done; whether at the direction of pastors or lay leaders?  To begin with, there needs to be awareness that a significant percentage of serving pastors are dealing with an “affirmation deficit”.  Given the realities of pastoral ministry since early 2020, a pastoral support group is more needed than ever in congregational life.  (And this is at least one group of lay leaders that should be hand-picked by the pastor.)  Given the current clergy supply crisis, I can state unequivocally that you do not want your current pastor to be retiring or leaving sooner than necessary.  This is a good time for lay leaders to step up and provide emotional and spiritual encouragement for their pastors.

In addition, pastors and lay leaders alike need to address the issue of congregational unity.  Granted, this might be more challenging now than it would have been a few years ago.  However, this makes it that much more urgent and necessary.  Kelly Kapic writes, “When things are especially challenging for church leaders, it can be hard to even see the good that has been given, because we feel overwhelmed by the hardships and disappointments.  Maybe we need encouragement to look again with grace…Jesus promises to meet us in and through his imperfect people…Our confidence is not in our faithfulness but in God’s.  God knows our limits better than we do, so by loving others well, limits and all, we participate in God’s work without being crushed by it.”

To end this column, here is one specific and particularly practical suggestion that can contribute to congregational unity.  It was hi-lighted in Ike Miller’s article (in “CT Pastors”) entitled, “The Myth of Thick Skin”.  The subtitle to this article is “The surprising cure to painful criticism: Invite more feedback”.  The concept is straightforward.  Congregations need regular, healthy ways for members to voice their concerns to lay leaders.  And these listening sessions need to be done without the pastor present.  The lay leaders — perhaps those who are also in the pastoral support group — take notes during these listening sessions; notes that will be passed on to the pastor while not revealing the individual “source”.  In these “listening sessions” disgruntled and/or concerned members can be heard without being challenged.  Additionally, the pastor can learn of their concerns in a manner where he or she is less likely to feel unfairly and personally criticized.  A final quote from Ike Miller:

However tempting it may seem, the secret to dealing with criticism as pastors isn’t to avoid it     or hear less of it. The secret to handling criticism well is to create channels and practices that allow for more of it, but in healthier ways…Healthy feedback tools provide less-personal pathways for this communication to take place so that we, as leaders, can remain humble, teachable, and receptive to wise counsel without being destroyed by the emotional blows that often accompany it.

Ike Miller