There
is a question I have asked several times, but I have been unable to get an
answer.  The question is this –

How can the ELCA say that 2019 is the tenth anniversary of LGBTQIA+ persons’ being able to serve freely in the church when what was actually voted on and approved at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly was only the ordination of persons in publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationships?

Recently
I was sitting at a table during lunch with several pastors from the synod in
which I have been rostered since retiring. 
When I realized that one of the persons at the table was a member of the
synod council, I figured this was an opportunity to ask my question.  So I did. 
His reply was, “I am new to the synod council.”  He then added, “That sounds like a question
for the bishop.”  To which I responded,
“I have asked the bishop, but I did not get an answer.” 

I
then asked another person at the table, who told me, “I was hoping that you
could answer that question.”

I asked a third person.  His immediate response was, “Cognitive dissonance!”  I answered, “I do not see how this could be cognitive dissonance, and who are you saying is having cognitive dissonance?  The ELCA in its making a claim about a tenth anniversary?  L, G, B, T, Q, I, A, or plus persons, who are now able to serve freely?  Or people like me who are asking the question?”

He
never replied.  Instead he said, “The
world has changed since 2009.”  I said
that I agreed that the world has changed since 2009, but that does not change
what was voted on and approved in 2009. 
He then argued, “Same sex marriage has become legal across the country
since 2009.”  Again, I said that I agreed
that that has happened, but, again, I made the point that that did not change
what was actually voted on and approved in 2009.

He then said, “LGBTQIA+ persons’ being able to serve freely is the logical next step to what was approved in 2009.”  To which I replied, “There were many back in 2009 who were concerned – and who were belittled for being concerned – that if the ordination of people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationships was approved, then that would lead to the approval of the ordination of other persons who were not eligible for ordination prior to 2009.”  I then added, “There are many who believe that they were deceived.  The vote was purposefully defined as being only about persons in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same gender relationships in order to get enough votes to get the resolution approved.  And then once the resolution was approved, then the description of who would now be eligible for ordination would be expanded.”  He replied, “That would be an example of the hermeneutics of suspicion.”  To which I agreed that, yes, many people were suspicious about what was being said back in 2009 versus what was intended for the future.

I
then asked him, “If the ELCA is now allowing LGBTQIA+ persons to serve freely
in the church, what is the standard by which the ELCA will decide what new
sexual identities, expressions, and behaviors – now identified by the “+” part
of LGBTQIA+ – would be approved and what would not be approved for ordination?”  He did not have an answer, nor did he even seem
to feel that there was a reason to be concerned about and ask such a question.  Rather what he said next was, “Where are you
from?”  I was perceptive enough to
realize that the conversation was over.

On August 25, 2010, at a meeting of Lutheran CORE that would at its close give birth to the separate organization of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), I wrote this in my blog:

What the upcoming internet broadcasts and book are sure to fail to convey, however, is the sense of hopeful expectancy that characterizes these proceedings. The Spirit is definitely doing something amazing, as seemingly just the right people with just the precise expertise needed to tackle the issues before us as a church have been assembled from the disparate corners of North American Lutheranism. Not only has this been an immensely satisfying—though extremely challenging—couple of days intellectually, it has also been so emotionally and spiritually. … Simply put, it is humbling to be here.

Because
I had just taken a call at an ELCA church whose statement of faith aligned with
that of Lutheran CORE but who needed to yet have the conversation about whether
they could maintain that position within the ELCA, I would not join the ranks of
the NALC for another 5 years.  When I
finally did become a pastor of the NALC, it felt nice to simply breathe easily
for a while; to not feel like I was fighting every aspect of the institution
that was supposed to help me proclaim the gospel just for the
opportunity to do so.

No More Easy Breathing

Nine years into the NALC’s
life, the time for breathing easy is over.

Oh, we seem to be handling
our inevitable disagreements healthfully, without a trace of the Politburo-style
ecclesiastical maneuvering we all experienced within the ELCA, where, to paraphrase
Orwell, it was clear that “some Christians are more equal than others.”  There is also no hint of doctrinal departure
from Great Tradition Christianity or the revisionist hermeneutics that breed
the same—yet.

I add the “yet” in that last sentence not because I see it happening now but can foresee it happening before my funeral liturgy.  I foresee this as I teach my confirmation class full of 7^th and 8^th graders and my Tuesday morning Bible study full of 70 and 80 year olds, because I see the vast distance between the experiential, intellectual, and imaginative worlds they inhabit.  The older group are largely unaware of how different the world the young live in is from the one they grew up in and they are shocked when I acquaint them with some of its contours.  The young are being trained by their schools, entertainment, and constant diet of technology to view the older as at best hopelessly out of touch with the self-evidently true and even scientifically “proven” categories of the new (liberal) orthodoxy.  At worst, they are being trained to view them as oppressors to be forcefully sidelined, re-educated—and if necessary, silenced.

Oh, the latter, rage-filled
part of that progression will largely not come until their thorough catechesis
into the new civic religion at the collegiate level, but the foundations are being
laid far earlier.  Six years ago, I had a
youth group member inform me that she was an “LGBT ally,” and many more former
youth group members have done the same. 
Some of these had attended the local evangelical Christian high
school.  Others were attending an
evangelical fellowship in college and were even engaged in active Christian
outreach on campus.

Could I have imagined such a reality, coming of age in the 1980’s?  Could my Bible study participants, doing the same in Eisenhower’s America, have imagined it?  Could the founders of the NALC imagine, less than a decade ago, that a local fire company would raise money by offering as bingo prizes not homemade jams and pies but sex toys or the billboard pictured with this article, planted in the heart of historically Pennsylvania Dutch country?  Could they imagine that people could be publicly shamed and careers summarily ended for even questioning whether a person’s experience of being in the wrong body could be anything other than an absolute and legitimate expression of identity?

It is a brave new world.

The Authority of Holy Scripture

I focus on the sexuality issues not because of any inherent interest in them, but because as Dr. Robert Gagnon noted so many years ago, you cannot espouse the new, affirming positions on these issues without evacuating the Bible of its authority as Holy Scripture and the Word of God.  You cannot affirm the authority of Genesis while espousing a “non-binary” (Trans) view of human sexuality.  As the ELCA has recently confirmed, without a high view of Biblical authority, you cannot assert the uniqueness and necessity of Jesus Christ for human salvation.  It was by reflection upon the books that we know as the canonical New Testament that the Council of Nicaea shifted from being predominantly Arian in its view of Christ to articulating the doctrine we know as the Hypostatic Union with near uniformity.  (Not surprisingly, Arius and a close personal friend held out for their own view against the assembly.)  It was fifteen years ago that an ELCA pastor brazenly asserted to me as a seminarian at a regional youth gathering that, “we only know about the Trinity from the Bible; God could easily be more like the Hindu idea of Brahmin, having countless avatar pseudopods to minister to the ‘endlessly diverse people’ s/he has created.’”

Without a high view of Biblical
authority, we can glean from its pages the sorts of vaguely inspiring ideas
about God that are largely our projections in the first place, but we cannot receive
revelations about God—or about God’s will for us, His creatures. 

Danger of Theological Revisionism

And that is exactly what theological
revisionism is all about; it is about recasting God’s revelations as human
conceptions, and once everything is a human conception, all is mere politics,
the rules of which we know well from Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and
Foucault… not to mention Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Alinsky.  In such a world, it is perfectly legitimate
for the philosopher-kings-and-queens to determine which views are “more equal
than others” and to eliminate cross-examination in the interest of “justice.” 

And this is exactly what is
happening.  Consider this letter sent by
‘We, few of the Black students here at Pomona College and the Claremont
Colleges’ to the administration of Claremont McKenna College, who had dared to
permit conservative scholar Heather Mac Donald to speak on campus:

Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth – ‘the Truth’ – is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.[1]

Unlikely Ally

Douglas Murray recounts the
incident in his recent book The Madness of Crowds.  If a gay intellectual from Great Britain
seems an unlikely ally of a Christianity that is both evangelical and catholic,
read the way he goes on to analyze this letter:

“‘The Truth’ is a construct of the Euro-West. It is hard to think of a phrase which can at one and the same time be so wildly misguided and so dangerous in its implications. If ‘the Truth’ (in scare quotes) is a white thing, then what is everyone else meant to live in and strive towards?” 

Stalin pithily noted, “Ideas
are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should
we let them have ideas?”  Our young
people are being deprived of the most important idea ever, an idea that is not
white or black, gay or straight, Christian or otherwise; they are being
systematically deprived of the idea of truth.  Furthermore, they are being taught that the
pursuit of it is disloyal, bigoted, and dangerous.

Future Outlook of the NALC

As a fellow NALC clergyman noted to me recently, “The NALC was formed at the last possible moment it could have been, historically-speaking.”  This undoubtedly displays an admirable ecclesiological instinct, for it is indeed part of Great Tradition Christianity that the Church of Jesus Christ is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”  It also sets forth the challenge clearly before us, as it was founded by people I would categorize as the last well-catechized generations.  Here I refer to their catechesis not only with the Church, but their cultural catechesis as well.  Most of us on the clergy roster of the NALC are still here because we underwent a migration made necessary by counter-cultural convictions.  What will become of the NALC as its first native-born daughters and sons rise to offices of prominence within the church?  Philosophy was once described as the handmaiden to theology because it provided categories of meaning that helped people do the very difficult work of theology.  What will happen to the church’s proclamation when its young pastors have not been formed in the fundamental categories of meaning that make clear thinking about the Bible possible?  What will happen to it if they are convinced by their primer school training that to even consider certain ideas makes them the moral equivalent of a Nazi?

Students of Christian history
can broadly trace the theological revisionism of our day back through the
social gospel movement of the early 20^th century to the “higher
critics” of the Enlightenment.  It is a
history of more than ideas; it is a history of people, of champions of ideas
who viewed themselves as the saviors of a movement with some social utility
(Christianity) whose convictions were hopelessly backwards and out of touch
with the “obvious truths” of the modern world. 
For all orthodox Lutherans, the NALC included, the challenge is to catechize
a new generation of theologians from elementary school age on up in an
intentionally countercultural way. 
We will need to be aware of the prevailing ideas and neologisms that are
being introduced in a deliberate ploy to undermine a worldview congruent with
that of orthodox Biblical Christianity. 
As Christians, we have no stake in Western culture qua Western
culture, but to the degree that what we know as Western culture is the product
of Christian theology, including its emphasis on truth as a fundamental
category of meaning, we need to advocate for what is in imminent danger of
being lost.

Written nearly thirty years
ago, in his classic book The Once and Future Church, Loren Mead noted
that the West was becoming the Church’s new mission field and that state church
traditions like Lutheranism, used as they were to cultural underwriting of
their religious project, were likely to have the most difficulty adapting to this
new reality.  It remains for us to
determine whether his words were merely cautionary… or prophetic.

We Must Teach All Our People

Most importantly of all, we need to communicate to our people from the oldest to the youngest how the orthodox Biblical teachings on creation and fall, judgment and grace, repentance and forgiveness, faith and obedience, spiritual bondage and true freedom are more compelling and truly loving than the secular narratives with which they are being daily indoctrinated.  We must teach them who God is and who we are meant to be as creatures made in His image but defaced by sin almost to the point of being unrecognizable.  We must teach them that because of that reality, no matter the strength of our emotions, our own narratives about our inner lives are not the most reliable story about ourselves, but rather God’s story about us, recounted in the Bible, holds primacy of place.

We must do this knowing
that our work is being undermined both by determined ideologues and
well-meaning people engaged in herd behavior, what Murray accurately deems “the
madness of crowds.”  We must be clear
with them that this dynamic is going to be part of their experience as
Christians in this culture without becoming reactionary or uncharitable toward
those who hate us. 

In one of the responses to my Postmodernism articles, I was accused of being a “reactionary theologian.”  I confess that I have never heard the term before, but it sounds like the sort of jingoistic turn of phrase intended to make the hard work of thinking through complex issues unnecessary—a word like “anti-revolutionary.”  On the August day in 2010 recounted earlier, Dr. Steven D. Paulson reminded the gathered assembly that Martin Luther had noted that “it is a characteristic of love to be easily deceived.”  We must highlight this reality and remind them that their love—especially their love of friends and the consequent alliances they make with them—like the rest of themselves, is fallen, disordered, and so, unreliable until it is conformed to the revealed Word of God.

The Frog

We all know the old saw.  How do you boil a frog?  If you put him in hot water he will jump out
before he gets too injured, but if you put him in cold water and turn up the
heat slowly, he will be boiled before he knows what happened to him.

Most reading this article have spent our lives watching the Lutheran frog being boiled.  Some of us felt the need to “go out and be separate.”  If we hope to not see our frogs boiled in the way other communions have unfortunately experienced, we will need to be intentionally countercultural.  Our catechesis and our sermons will need to be apologetic in tone, whether we are apologists by vocation or not.  We will need to listen carefully to a world that hates us so we may build bridges to their linguistics worlds of meaning and so that we can dismantle Trojan Horses meant to destroy Christianity and its necessarily attendant, coherent worldview from within.

In 1809, biographer Thomas
Charlton popularized the phrase, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance” in
our newly-birthed republic.  The bloody
reign of terror had just recently ended in France, a cautionary tale for those
who might have complacently believed that the new order was enough to insure
against future tyranny. 

We ought to take a lesson from this page of history.  The price of the liberty that the true gospel of Jesus Christ alone can bring is free, but the price of preaching that gospel fully and faithfully is eternal vigilance.

Vigilance Required

On August 26, 2010, as the
theological conference transitioned to the constituting convocation of a
re-visioned Lutheran CORE, I reflected in my blog that “it was time to see if
this dog would hunt.”  Could the ideas we
had bandied about for two days now become incarnate, take on flesh in a living
institution that actually facilitated the living proclamation of “the eternal
gospel” in the ways God has ordained that it should?

As I reflect on the state of the Church and the
nature of its current mission in the wake of Reformation Sunday, I give thanks
that it could happen, but I note that we are sitting in water that seems to be
already getting warm.  Vigilance is
required.

---

[1]
Murray, Douglas. The Madness of Crowds . Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Life Together?

“The Model Constitution is how we have agreed to live together,” she said.  “No,” I thought to myself, “the Augsburg Confession is how we have agreed to live together.”  The conversation arose because the synod office had asked me to update my congregation’s constitution.  I began work on it, but had a concern about a part of the Model Constitution that seemed to require me to violate the Augsburg Confession.  When I shared concern with the synod office, that was the reply.

One of my greatest frustrations serving as a pastor in the ELCA is the feeling that the Augsburg Confession has been eclipsed as the standard for how we will live together.   A perfect example of this is a video greeting given by Bishop Guy Erwin for the Southwest California Synod at the beginning of the 2019 Pride Month.  He said, “Lutherans believe that God’s love and mercy accepts us as we are, with no prior conditions, and then teaches us to love each other in return.  This is what we call the Gospel.” 

Now why get worked up about a message of acceptance to those who often feel unwelcome and condemned?  It is not the idea of acceptance or the audience that causes me concern, but the message.  I only mention Bishop Erwin’s summary of the Gospel, because I have been hearing the same message for several years and in multiple contexts.  I have heard it from bishops, teaching theologians, and churchwide staff.  You might say that it has become the official definition of the Gospel in the ELCA. 

Article IV Defines the Gospel

What is the problem?  There is no mention of sin and forgiveness.  Article II of the Augsburg Confession defines our problem as sin.  This sin separates us from God and one another and leads to eternal death.  Article IV defines the Gospel as the message of forgiveness of sins for Jesus sake that is received by faith.  Article III connects Articles II and IV by speaking of what God has done in Christ to reconcile us to himself and save us from our sins.  A message of welcome and acceptance is surely appropriate, but it is not the Gospel.  The Gospel is about redemption through Jesus Christ from sin, death and the devil.

I can remember a time in my life when I was acutely aware of
my sinfulness.  I would be horrified by
the dishonesty, selfishness, self-righteousness and ill will of others, only to
realize again and again that it was my own sin that I saw reflected in
others.  If you had told me at that time
that God accepted me the way I was, it would have been of little comfort.  I wanted forgiveness, reconciliation and a
new beginning.  That is what the Holy
Spirit, working through the Gospel and the Sacraments gives.

Later on, in the same message, Bishop Erwin says, “We oppose
all efforts to use our ancient scriptures to condemn others or separate them
from us.”  I certainly have no desire to
use the Scriptures to condemn others or separate them from us.  There is only one qualification for those who
would seek God.  That is to be a sinner
in need of forgiveness.  If the Church
took a page from Alcoholics Anonymous, it might look something like this: “Hi,
my name is David.  I’m a sinner.”  “Welcome, David.” 

However, the statement that we do not use the Law to condemn
others sounds strange coming from a leader of the ELCA.  First of all, while we do not use Scripture
to condemn others, we are to use the Scriptures to proclaim the Law.  This Law reveals our sin and makes us aware
of our need for Christ.  It is the
business of the Church to proclaim the Law and the Gospel.

Condemned by the ELCA

What makes that statement stranger still is that the ELCA
has become quite good at condemning others and making people feel
unwelcome.  If you happen to be a person who
isn’t convinced about Global Warming, doesn’t believe Scripture sanctions same
sex marriage, is a police officer, a member of the armed forces, is a supporter
of Israel, supports enforcement of immigration laws, or who opposes abortion,
you are quite likely to feel condemned by the ELCA.  Although I myself am more of a political
moderate than a conservative, I am quite aware of how it must feel for a
conservative member of my congregation to listen to what is said at synod
assemblies, in print and in various messages from this church.  When I raise these concerns, I do not always
get a sympathetic ear. 

What is most disappointing about all of this, is that in all the condemnation of those with wrong political and theological views forgiveness is seldom offered.  The strange, and I assume unintended result, is the loss of the central mission of the Church. In the midst of talk about acceptance, we are a church that is quite good at condemnation. What we fail to offer to either those we accept or those we condemn is the forgiveness and new life that come through Jesus Christ. The Augsburg Confession, which for Lutherans is “how we have agreed to live together,” points us to a better way. 

The word is definitely getting around.  The ELCA’s Office of Research and Evaluation, this last spring, released the results of their projection regarding anticipated ELCA decline over the next 31 years.  The rather shocking projection is as follows, and is based on the starting point of membership and worship statistics as of the end of 2017.    

ELCA Paper Projects Drastic Decline in Membership

So ELCA membership as of 2017 was 3.4 million.  The projection for 2050 is that membership will be only 67,000!  That’s right, 67,000.

And weekly worship attendance?  As of 2017 just under 900,000 people worshiped at ELCA congregations in a typical week.  The projection, which in this case is for 2041, is that weekly worship attendance will be only 16,000.  You read that correctly: 16,000.

Implications for the LCMC and NALC

So what, if any, are the conclusions and/or implications of these predictions when it comes to confessing Lutheran congregations in the LCMC and NALC?  I can think of at least three.

1.  These predictions regarding the rate of the ELCA’s decline are probably based, to a degree, on the rate of decline between 2009 and 2012.  That was the period when ELCA decline accelerated — dramatically — due to the policy changes in August of 2009.  My point?  The ELCA’s rate of decline has not been as dramatic in the last seven years.  Granted, the ELCA continues to lose tens of thousands of members each year.  And granted, the exodus of most of the ELCA’s more evangelistic churches has had a lasting and permanent effect on its statistical “bottom line.”  However, my guess is that the projections for 2041 and 2050 will not be quite as bleak as predicted.  They will still be dramatic, though.  After all, when the ELCA National Assembly passes an amendment questioning whether Lutherans can ethically witness to people of other faiths, we can’t expect their members and congregations to be engaged in evangelistic outreach.

2. We need to acknowledge that these dire projections are emblematic of demographic trends that, to some degree, are impacting all mainline Protestant bodies.  So while I suspect NALC and LCMC congregations will fare better than the ELCA between now and 2050, here is the painful truth: We too are rapidly aging faith communities.  And we, like the ELCA, have a membership that is considerably older than both the general U.S. population and, I might add, older than most evangelical/non-denominational churches.  So we best not smirk or gloat at these projections from the Office of Research and Evaluation.

3. Third, these ELCA projections should serve as a wake-up call when it comes to our generational challenges in the NALC and LCMC.

Keychain Leadership

One of the congregations that is using the Congregations in Transition process recently signed up for the Fuller Seminary Youth Institute “Growing Young Assessment.”  This assessment is based on the Institute’s book entitled Growing Young.  After completing the assessment the Institute suggested this congregation focus on “Keychain Leadership.”  “Keychain Leadership” is about focusing on opportunities to “hand over the keys” of leadership to young adults, teens, and parents with young children.  The Fuller Youth Institute also suggested this church “prioritize” young people in the life of the congregation, and encourage older members to “dive deeper” into relationships with younger members.  One specific example mentioned in the assessment was to have older members enter into “coaching” relationships with teens and younger adults.

I suspect these suggestions might be appropriate for a great many of our congregations.

It Might Be Time

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2034 the U.S. population 65 and older will exceed the population under 18.  One American journalist calls this the “coming gerontocracy.”  Many of our LCMC and NALC congregations are already there.  It might be  time to start “handing over the keys.”

By Pastor Keith L. Forni, STS, Lutheran CORE Board Member & Encuentro Convener

“…Build yourselves up in your most holy faith…”    Jude 20                                              

“…Mantenganse en el amor de Dios, edificandose sobre la base de su santisima fe…”   Judas 20

Walking wet, signed with the cross of Jesus at Holy Baptism, Christians are called, gathered and sent to give bold witness by the power of the Holy Spirit. With the Church of Christ in every age, they give bold witness to their Lord Jesus, the One who has triumphed over sin, death and the power of the devil.

This year’s autumn Encuentro Luterano (Lutheran Encounter) will fortify the people of God in their Baptismal identity, beginning with the opening talk by The Rev. Dr. Maxwell Johnson, an ELCA pastor and faculty member at the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN.  Dr. Johnson will present “Baptism: Walking Wet in the Via Crucis” at the inter-Lutheran gathering, to be held on Holy Cross Day / Dia de la Santa Cruz, Saturday, Sept. 14th at St. Timothy Lutheran Church, 2101 N. Kildare Ave. (corner of W. Dickens), in Chicago’s Hermosa neighborhood. Coffee & registration begin the day at 9:00am.  (For a full Encuentro schedule, please visit the St. Timothy Lutheran Church Facebook page.) A postcard for this event can be viewed here.

Following the morning session, the Misa Panamericana, Spanish language liturgy of Holy Communion will be celebrated with Mariachi Juvenil Tamazula de Joliet.  Affirmation of Baptism will take place in the service, with the rededication of a restored font, originally utilized by the St. Timothy parish in the early 20th century, but stored away and out of use for decades.

In his second talk, Dr. Johnson will draw from his book “The Virgin of Guadalupe: Theological Reflection of an Anglo-Lutheran Liturgist,” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) the Biblical witness of Mary’s Magnificat in positing “Marian Acclamations: Not Just for Roman Catholics Anymore.”

Worship will be led by Pastor Myrta Robles, CORE Board members Pastor Keith Forni and Joel Awes, with area mission partners and members of St. Timothy.  Pastor Dennis Nelson, of Scottsdale AZ,  Lutheran CORE Executive Director, will provide an overview and update of the renewal organization’s work in providing voice and network for confessing Lutherans. Afternoon workshops will accent Resources for Learning Spanish, Neighborhood Ministry and the Advent Tradition of Las Posadas, and the Development of Hispanic-Latino Lutheran Ministries with an overview of the life and outreach of St. Andrew / San Andres Lutheran Church, West Chicago, IL, by Pastor Josh Ebner.

Once again, the Encuentro
will conclude with an outdoor Vigil and Witness for Peace on Chicago’s Streets
with Compline / bilingual Night Prayers and a closing dessert fellowship.

Fairly traded, handcrafted Central American art will be available for purchase, offered by Mr. Tom Hocker of Tree of Life Imports, Hammond, IN. Handcrafted baskets and other items will be available, in support of community initiatives in Ghana, West Africa, presented by Mr. David Jones, Joliet IL. Materials for Lutheran, bilingual / Hispanic-Latino ministry will be available from the Bilingual Ministry Resource Center, Joliet / Chicago.There is no cost to attend the Encuentro, as Lutheran CORE and the host congregations are covering expenses.  Continental breakfast, lunch and supper are provided.  Participants are invited to register by calling or texting Pastor Forni at 815.600.3030 / keithlforni@gmail.com.

Shortly after the ELCA’s vote to change the sexual standards for ordained ministers in 2009, a strong and unexpected wind knocked over the bell tower of Central Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, which was helping to host the churchwide assembly.  Many conservatives interpreted this stormy event as an act of God, expressing His displeasure with the vote.  Revisionists responded in kind, saying it was God unleashing divine joy at seeing an oppressive structure of yesteryear finally knocked over.  The whole thing was a good lesson in why Lutherans generally avoid seeking the clear will of God in natural occurrences.  The Word suffices.

2019 CWA

Now fast forward to the ELCA’s triennial churchwide assembly this past August in Milwaukee.  No tornado struck the Wisconsin Center where the voting members gathered, leaving the question of whether God approved or disapproved in serious doubt for theological interpreters of the jet stream.  In the end, though, no gust of wind was needed: the churchwide organization of the ELCA just may succeed in knocking over its own steeple. 

“We Are Church” was the assembly’s theme, as though the ELCA were trying to assure itself.  Probably, the theme developed under Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s influence, part of her Sisyphean effort to remind the ELCA what sort of thing it actually is.  She almost elicited a crowd gasp when she asserted, in her report, that social concerns were “peripheral” to the Gospel and the preaching of Christ crucified and risen.  The assembly swallowed its gasp, though, having just overwhelmingly re-elected Eaton a bit earlier.  Is she being kept as a token sort-of-traditionalist?  If not, the rest of the assembly’s decisions would suggest that its voting members did not especially share her Christ-and-Gospel-centered vision.

You can read a summary of those decisions here.  I’m not going to re-hash them, as I only attended the assembly for a few days as Lutheran CORE’s observer, being pulled away for parish matters later in the week.  Suffice it to say, the decisions generally represent a socially-conscious array of All the Right (Left?) Things, with condemnations of patriarchy and white supremacy leading the charge.  A few celebrations were sprinkled here and there, a couple new and heresy-ish-sounding strategies, and one change in polity (the ordination of the diaconal office) that would have split the ELCA once upon a time but that barely received notice today.  All those things have already received a host of criticism, online and around the church.  But, in the end, they may not be a breeze that tips the campanile.

Not Much from Churchwide to ELCA Congregations

Through it all, one set of questions kept emerging for me: What is “churchwide ELCA” doing for the rest of the ELCA?  How is it positively affecting congregations?  Don’t read in those questions some sort of anti-institutional bent.  I tend to think that conservatives can be hampered in mission by their anti-institutionalism.   Institutions are dirt: good in some places, bad in others.  Use as necessary.  So of course a church should have some kind of office tending to lists and rosters and things.  But looking over the resolutions and memorials, and listening to the Presiding Bishop’s report, I was struck with how much of the direction was from the congregations to churchwide—please memorialize this, please authorize that–and so little flowed from churchwide back to the congregations.

To be sure, there were likely many congregations, pastors, and lay members who rejoiced at the ELCA’s decisions.  But beyond their rejoicing, how were even the supporters of the assembly’s “actions” seriously affected by them?  Many of the resolutions or memorials seemed simply to affirm things that were already happening locally.  Would any of them have stopped had the churchwide ELCA yawned at their affirmation?  In his rather interesting report, Secretary Boerger noted that less than 6% of the ELCA’s total offerings are headed towards the synods and churchwide offices.  Why, particularly, should there be more?  Does that dearth of offerings signal a sense in the ELCA generally that its synodical and churchwide expressions are—what?  Less than inspiring?               

God Has A Way of Sorting His Church

My point is this: as bad as doctrinal revision may be, it may not be the only reason why a denominational superstructure ends up shuttering its doors (or even the most significant reason). Recent studies have suggested that conservative and liberal Lutherans in America are both shrinking despite their doctrinal differences).  A different kind of decay, the natural mold of bureaucracy and vainglory, may prove equally if not more effective in toppling a tower once considered mighty by men.  For God has a way of sorting His Church, does He not?  He dispenses with what isn’t helping, though He may keep it around longer than we would suppose, simply to heap up glory for Himself on the last day.  

In the meantime, the ELCA’s churchwide actions, as outrageous as some have been, sparked about as much reaction from me as hearing that my fourth child has just shoved a green bean up his nose.  After a few rounds at that rodeo, every parent knows to pinch the opposite nostril and blow out the bean, the tiny action figure, the bead from a broken bracelet.  It’s a problem, but not one that will long endure.   Keep preaching, resisting, and directing the sheep to green pastures; tend the table faithfully; and then pinch your nostrils, carry on, and remember that the Holy Spirit is a wind who blows where He pleases.

Photos of the 2009 CWA are courtesy of Pr. Steve Shipman. Pr. Steven Gjerde took the photo of the 2019 CWA.

Unfortunately,
this has become a regular part of our monthly communications – our asking the
question, “What Will It Be Next?,” as we find the ELCA slipping further and
further away from the historic, orthodox Christian faith, a traditional view of
the mission of the church, and Biblical morals and moral values. 

Relentless LGBTQIA+ Agenda

In
the July issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, I asked the question, “What Will
It Be Next?”, in response to the fact that the ELCA Church Council declined to
act upon the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” even though
it had been recommended to them by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  Instead they sent it back to the Domestic
Mission Unit for revision.  You can be
sure that the process for writing and rewriting and revising this statement of
what the ELCA expects of its rostered ministers will continue until it fully
conforms with everything desired and demanded by the relentless LGBTQIA+
agenda.

Polyamory

In the August letter from the director I wrote of a video in which Bishop Elect Leila Ortiz of the ELCA’s Metro Washington D. C. Synod speaks favorably of polyamory (a relationship in which there are three or more partners).  A link to that video can be found here.

Songs for the Holy Other?

This month’s “What Will It Be Next?” is my response to an August 20 communication from ELCA Worship.  This email included in its list of resources a new hymnal entitled, Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community.  This hymn collection was introduced at the recent annual conference of the Hymn Society of the United States and Canada.  According to the society’s website, TheHymnSociety.org, the volume is intended to be “a toolbox of hymns by and for those who identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, nonbinary, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, aromantic, two-spirit, and other sexual/gender minority (LGBTQIA2S+) community and their allies.”  As explanation for their choosing the name, Songs for the Holy Other, they write, “We continue to be othered for our identities, relationship-styles, dis/abilities, race, economic status, and more.”  So the title is “a self-conscious claiming of otherness as holy and beloved of God. We who have been labeled as ‘wholly other’ are claiming our holiness, and reclaiming our otherness as a prophetic witness to the church.”

The
first thing I noticed is that here once again the ELCA is promoting letters far
beyond what was actually approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  That gathering only addressed the issue of
publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous same gender relationships (L and
G relationships held to a very high standard). 
It said nothing about the issue of B, T, Q, I, A, and +
relationships.  And yet here we are –
only ten years later – and the ELCA feels free to promote a wide variety of
sexual identities and expressions far beyond what actually was addressed and
approved.  “What will it be next?”

New Symbols

The
second thing I noticed is that there was a number and a letter which I had
never seen before in the series of letters – 2S.  Doing some research, I found that 2S stands
for “Two Spirit,” which I discovered is “a term used by some indigenous North
Americans to describe certain people in their communities who fulfill a
traditional third-gender (or other gender-variant) ceremonial role in their
cultures.”  Realizing that the ELCA is
now promoting a new hymnal affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ community, all I could
think of was to again ask the question, “What Will It Be Next?”  What letter/letters will be added next?  

The ELCA document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” says, “Those who serve as pastors and deacons reflect a variety of sexual orientations and diverse gender identities.” (page 11, lines 233-234)  If a document which has been rejected because it is too conservative makes a statement like that, what will be said in the document which finally is accepted because it finally is acceptable to the LGBTQIA+ community?  And if, for the ELCA, the clear teachings of the Bible are not the basis for understanding human sexuality, how is the ELCA going to decide whether to endorse and promote all of the letters and numbers which are going to be continually added to the sequence, LGBTQIA2S+?  The plus sign allows for any and all possibilities.  “What will it be next?”

The board of Lutheran CORE would like to thank Brett Jenkins for the time he has served on the board.  Brett is an ardent defender of the historic, orthodox Christian faith.  He has added greatly to the ministry of Lutheran CORE through the contributions he has made to the discussions at our meetings as well as the articles he has written.  Notable among these articles are the ones he has written about the post-modern worldview which is reflected in the ELCA social statement on “Faith, Sexism, and Justice.”  We wish Brett God’s richest blessings in his continued ministry and are very happy that he is willing to continue writing for Lutheran CORE.

I was pleased that my Postmodernism Gone Viral article garnered a decent amount of response both positive and negative from those who read it.  Though I have no doubt that my rhetorical hacking did not quite reach the “roots of evil” present in the document, that it instigated such responses may indicate that I was at least striking heartwood rather than mere leaves.  In this article I will respond to the criticisms I received as a result of publishing the initial article.  Because these criticisms were received as private correspondence rather than “letters to the editor,” I do not feel I can publish the full texts of them.  I will therefore try to faithfully capture the gist of the criticisms, though I will not reproduce the verbal abuse.

To be sure, the ELCA’s proposed social
statement Faith, Sexism, and Justice
is not a battleground I would have chosen or even expected to engage.  My mother was an original 1970’s feminist and
although as an adult I hardly walk in lock-step with her views any more than your
typical grown child, she raised all three of her boys to see the world in
fundamentally the same way.  I am in deep
sympathy with the impetus behind the social statement, which makes the timbre
of the accusations leveled at me in the negative correspondence more difficult
to bear.  Those accusations included being
motivated by “hate” (this, at least, was expected), not understanding
postmodernism, not having actually read
the proposed social statement (this was incredible), appointing myself the
gatekeeper of what it means to be Lutheran, and acting like an “angry,
resentful spouse after a bad breakup.”

Undermining the Faith Once Delivered

Although, along with the charges of sexism and a fear of white male heterosexuals losing their cultural hegemony, the accusation of hate was anticipated, it does not make it less painful or untrue; my article was clear as to my motivations.  Love, whether agape, storge, or philia, does not affirm or neglect when it finds the beloved to be in serious — let alone, grave — error.  The desire to pursue justice is noble, but the adoption of postmodern categories of meaning in the pursuit of justice (including those advanced by gender as opposed to equity feminism, a distinction I recognize) rather than the use of those categories revealed to us in Holy Scripture is, in my estimation, dangerous, undermining “the faith delivered once for all to the saints.”

It is fascinating for me to speculate on how someone could infer that I have not read the proposed social statement; how could I level the critique I do without reading the document in question?  I must say that it is the emotional timbre of some of my hate mail letters that strikes me as reactionary, imputing to me a lack of knowledge and poor motivation where none is in evidence in the actual text of what I wrote.  While my acquaintance with the reality of postmodernism dates from my undergraduate days in the arts, my acquaintance with its theoretical underpinnings goes back to the required reading assigned to my wife during her doctoral work in the mid-90’s.  I do not claim to be an expert in postmodernism (who can be with its deliberately amorphous categories of meaning?), but I am well acquainted with it.  We can disagree with one another without impugning each other’s character, knowledge, or motivations.

Gatekeeper? Yes!

Who made me “a gate keeper of what it
means to be Lutheran?”  Since the Lutheran reformers rejected the
authority of the Roman Magisterium, that is a responsibility that falls to all who call themselves Lutheran. 
It is our dialogue, what philosopher Charles Taylor refers to as our “web of
interlocution,” utilizing common theological reference points that defines the
“Lutheran family.”  The great majority of the Lutherans of the
Two-Thirds World have been warning us for a long time that we here in the West
are jumping off a theological cliff, departing from the theological fold, using
sophisticated language (that is, sophistry)
to disguise even from ourselves that we are becoming apostates.  I suggest
that it is high time we drop our neo-colonial sense of intellectual and moral
superiority and heed their voices.

Range of Emotions

As for acting like an “angry resentful
spouse after a bad breakup,” while the metaphor is faulty (I initiated the
separation, so the breakup wasn’t “bad” for me), I will own what I
imagine are the emotions of someone in that situation in the following manner:

I am angry that what I describe as a “viral” ideology, foreign to the mind of the church catholic and the Lutheran tradition, largely eclipsed solid confessional theology within my own seminary and professional experience within the ELCA; had I not had theological colleagues and conversation partners with broader experience and advanced degrees, I might have entirely missed the great voice of Christian orthodoxy speaking its Gospel wisdom down the ages.  (I wrote about this in a Forum Letter article in 2010.)  It upsets me that many bearing the name of Lutheran do not (or cannot) distinguish Law from Gospel in a way that engenders sorrow, contrition — and yes, terror — for sin in the hearts of people, that they have no idea that Two Kingdoms theology is inseparable from the broader tapestry of Luther’s thought, and that they do not understand why Luther so stridently rejected all “theologies of glory.”  I confess that I view all forms of “liberation theology” as theologies of glory because they seem to believe that humanity, whose best possible ontological condition is simul iustus et peccator, possesses the insight, wisdom, and character to forge a just system in anything more than the most provisional of ways.  This includes a functional theology that treats our necessary pursuit of justice as a form of realized eschatology.  “God’s Work: Our Hands” is the last motto any church bearing the name Lutheran should ever have considered, let alone adopted.

In my view such people—many of whom I love
deeply at a personal level—are Lutheran by connection to historically Lutheran
institutions rather than historically-conditioned theological conviction. 
It is why they work so hard to redefine or “re-imagine” Christianity
as a thing no Christian prior to their own historical moment would recognize as
bearing any resemblance to their own.

I resent what the ELCA is
increasingly becoming because in my estimation it besmirches a solid
theological tradition. I love many, many people who gather at its Communion
rails and I am afraid for them… afraid that they are being convinced that an
alien cultural ideology can be “baptized” and made authentically
Christian.  And because this ideology often takes the place of authentic
proclamation of the Gospel “whereby sinners may repent and have
life,” I am afraid that the salvation of such people may even be imperiled,
for faith means nothing without its object.  As Pr. Tim Keller (a Reformed
theologian) puts it succinctly, “Strong faith in a weak branch is
infinitely inferior to weak faith in a strong branch.”

Theologians Call Out Theological Errors

The first great theologian of the Church after Paul was Irenaeus, and his seminal treatise was entitled Against Heresies.  Augustine fought against the error of Pelagius, and Luther disputed both the Roman Curia and the Anabaptists.  It is part of the catholic tradition of the church to call out theological error when one sees it with a force in accord with the depth of the error perceived.  Because the categories endemic to postmodernism undermine and effectively preclude the Church’s traditional theological discourse as a thing engaged with categories of Truth rather than mere political power, it is quite possible that my article may actually have been too tempered and moderate in its timbre.  Theology is not mere “word games” nor is it predominantly “metaphorical” as Sally McFague would have it; it is the use of words with real referents to describe (or attempt to describe) genuine realities.  Theology is properly understood as “the queen of the sciences,” not some sort of “me too” liberal art that can hope to do no more than follow gratefully where her social and intellectual betters, philosophy, anthropology, and psychology, lead the way.

Fatal Flaws

One piece of negative mail I received ended by asking me “in the Love of all that is Holy, [to] read the document (FSJ) with an open mind.”  It seemed to assume that the only reason an open-minded, Gospel-motivated individual would fail to embrace Faith, Sexism, and Justice was a predisposition against it.  I remember David Mills once writing something to the effect that, “A person properly opens their mind for the same reason they open their mouths; to bite down upon something.”  I bit down upon FSJ and found it wanting in both substance and taste; I have explained my reasons — I hope persuasively — so that some with open minds will be persuaded to vote against it or at least amend it to correct the worst of what I view as its fatal flaws.

So, I end this series of articles by paraphrasing
my critic and begging people, for the love of Jesus, who with the Father and
the Spirit alone is Holy, to read
again my critiques with an open mind… and read the work of the French
Structuralists I referenced to see whether I have misrepresented the
implications of their work.[1]  If I understand them
right, postmodernism is acid to the foundations of Christian theology and faith…
and is to be utterly rejected in all its forms.

---

[1] As an introduction to the topic of
postmodernism, I suggest the book by Frederic Jameson of the same name with the
subtitle The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism; it is an oldie but
goody.

Note from CORE Executive Director, Dennis D. Nelson: Congratulations to Mark Mattes, Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa, for being chosen to give the commencement address at the recent graduation ceremonies for Leadstar Theological College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  Our prayers are with the faculty, staff, and students of that school, as well as with all of the graduates, as they serve God in a part of the world where the Holy Spirit is moving in a most powerful way.  We are very grateful to Dr. Mattes for reminding us that we need to read, heed, believe, and obey the entire Word of God for it is there that we find assurance of His love, His will for our lives, and the message of salvation.

Leadstar

Graduation Address

In Jeremiah we read of one of the last kings of Judah, Jehoiakim, and his response to the word of God.  After Jeremiah dictated to his scribe Baruch the words of prophecy given to him by God, Jeremiah instructed him to read this document in the temple.  Jeremiah himself was restricted and forbidden to enter the temple.  When the king’s officials heard these words, Baruch’s document was taken and he and Jeremiah were told to hide.  The official Jehudi was told to bring the book before the king and read it to him.  “It was the ninth month and the king was sitting in the winter apartment, with a fire burning in the firepot in front of him.  Whenever Jehudi had read three or four columns of the scroll, the king cut them off with a scribe’s knife and threw them into the firepot, until the entire scroll was burned in the fire.  The king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes. . .” We learn that several leaders urged the king not to burn the scroll, but he would not listen to them.  Instead, the king commanded the police “to arrest Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet.  But the LORD had hidden them” (36:22-26)

Enlightenment Perspective

This is one
response to God’s word when it challenges us: whittle it down, reject it, even
burn it.  Especially if what it says
accuses us, we want to get rid of it. 
Unfortunately, Europe and North America have a long history of copying
King Jehoiakim’s attempt to eliminate the word whether they admit it or
not.  One of America’s greatest
presidents, Thomas Jefferson, during his tenure in the White House, took scissors
to the Gospels and cut out all those passages which he felt no rational person could
believe.  So, Jesus walked on water?  Out that goes.  Or, Jesus turned water into wine?  Well, no scientific person can believe
that.  So, it goes away too.  But the biblical injunction to love your
neighbors as yourselves?  That stays
because any rational person can figure out that it is in their self-interest to
be kind to others.  After all, if you are
charitable to them, then they will be nice to you.  And, you never know when you might need a
favor.  Jefferson represented what is
called the “Enlightenment” perspective.

Not only
Jefferson, but the major universities in the West, for well over a century have
supported a scholarly industry to foster a skeptical attitude toward the
scriptures.  It goes without saying just
how off base this antagonism toward the word is.  God’s power shouldn’t be pitted against our
own, unless of course we want to sin. 
Instead, a faithful approach understands that God’s power is the power
upholding created powers within all things, allowing everything to be.  Apart from God’s power we wouldn’t exist; nor
would we be able to claim any freedom whatsoever.  The heirs of the Enlightenment surely
misunderstand the whole dynamic between God and people.  On top of that, the Bible shouldn’t be sliced
and diced as so many critics do—as if the Bible were like a dead specimen dissected
in a scientific lab.  Instead, the Bible
is God’s word, God’s inspired message to people, first to his old covenant
people and then of course to us, his new covenant people, always coming to us
with the divine promise in Christ.  It is
a living, powerful book; it provides meaning, purpose, and identity to those
who find themselves described in its pages. 
It accuses sinners in their sin and gives mercy to all those who need
it.  It provides purpose and meaning to
all who find their lives scripted in its pages. 
It empowers you in ministry.

Testimony

Nor are the
Bible’s miracles to be suspect.  The
truth of biblical events comes to us as testimony.  Unless we have compelling evidence otherwise,
we should take such testimony at face value. 
Miracles are no affront to science, since science acknowledges the fact
that we can’t assume that the past is like the present or that even other
places conform exactly to how things happen here.  It is entirely possible for a thoughtful
person to believe in the Bible’s miracles, and if Jesus is in fact risen from
the dead (and he is), then we should believe the testimony that the prophets
and apostles give us.

In a word, we
should be like neither King Jehoiakim nor President Jefferson!  In those countries where so many people have become
beguiled by biblical skepticism, church attendance has gone dramatically down.  That said, the true gospel of Jesus Christ is
to forgive sins and grant life and salvation. 
All this empowers men and women in Jesus’ name so that they can live
full and free, abundant lives, experiencing the full gamut that life has to
offer. 

God Authors Life

Obviously the heirs of the Enlightenment have a hard time with authority.  They see it as a threat to their own power.  But they are off base.  Look at the root word in “authority”; it is “author.”  What God is doing in scripture is exhaling an authoritative word that crafts our lives.  God is working through scripture to bring you to Jesus, to empower you with the Holy Spirit, to lead you to acknowledge and praise the Father—and in fact the entire Holy Trinity.  God authors your life in scripture by leading you to the manger where the infant Jesus lay and to the cross where he died for your sins and to the room at Pentecost when he poured out the Holy Spirit on the disciples.  God gives you the promise in the scriptures that he is for you.  And, as Paul puts it:  if God is for us, who can be against us?

My teacher, a Frenchman, Paul Ricoeur, did not share in these views which disown the Bible.  In contrast, he said in the Bible we are to look for matters that lie behind the text, within the text, and in front of the text.  Yes, with respect to “behind” the text, he said, look for the history described by the Bible.  He felt that that was important, but not nearly as important as “within” and “in front of” the Bible.  By “within the text,” he said look for the patterns repeated through the Bible across its many authors and pages so that, for example, we see Jesus as the Lamb of God not just in the Passover meal but also in the Gospel of John.  Finally, by “in front of the text” he said, “Ask yourself just how different your life would be if you believed God’s word and took it at face value?  How would you change your life?”

Dynamo of Salvation

The Bible, after all, is a powerful book.  It conveys a mighty gospel—one which Paul calls the dynamis (dynamo) of salvation.  The Bible gives us the truth both of who God is and who we are, and it empowers us to make a difference in this world.  I love the description to the Psalter which the great Reformer Martin Luther gives:

Where does one find finer words of joy than in the psalms of praise and thanksgiving?  There you look into the hearts of all the saints, as into fair and pleasant gardens, yes, as into heaven itself.  There you see what fine and pleasant flowers of the heart spring up from all sort of fair and happy thoughts toward God, because of his blessings.  On the other hand, where do you find deeper, and more sorrowful or more pitiful words of sadness than in the psalms of lamentation?  There again you look into the hearts of all the saints, as into death, yes, as into hell itself.  How gloomy and dark it is there, with all kinds of troubled forebodings about the wrath of God!  . . . . when they speak of fear and hope, they use such words that no painter could so depict for you fear or hope, and no Cicero or other orator so portray them.

In other words, the scriptures give
voice to our affections, our greatest joys and our deepest depressions; our
feelings are comprehended and given meaning in light of the Psalter.  It is the foundation and basis of your
ministry.  It is truth.  Through the Bible our lives make sense even
in confusing times and under heavy burdens, and when the power of the word is
challenged even by well-meaning thinkers who peddle an alternate and weak
approach.

Africa’s Moment

This is Africa’s moment.  God’s Spirit is powerfully using Africa to make the fire of Christian faith burn bright throughout the world.  African Christians have a voice to speak to what ails many in the West.  As the Psalmist says, God’s word is lamp to our feet and our light to our path.  As the world moves forward into the future it is from Africa, from you, that the torch of faith and truth shines through your fervent speaking the good news.  God’s word is living and powerful.  From the word you will comfort the dying with Jesus’ promise “I am the resurrection and the life.”  For those confessing their sins you will guide them with the promise “create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.”  For those grateful you will share “Oh give thanks to the Lord for he is good and his mercy endures forever.”  It is God’s creative and empowering word which has brought you to this moment — your graduation — and it will empower you as you move forward into your new steps in life.  Continue to let God’s word shine in all you say and do.

In an article in the June letter from the director I outlined some of the ways in which the ELCA is fully embracing and constantly promoting and empowering the entire LGBTQIA+ agenda.  A link to that article can be found here.  One of the ways is the fact that the ELCA Church Council declined to consider the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” even though it had been recommended to them by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.  Instead they referred it back to the Domestic Mission Unit for revision.  We all know that the process for writing and revising this statement of what the ELCA expects of its rostered ministers will not be complete until it fully conforms with everything desired and demanded by the relentless LGBTQIA+ agenda.

Too Conservative

We also have been wondering
all along when the ELCA would decide that the Human Sexuality social statement,
which was approved by the Churchwide Assembly in 2009, is just too conservative
in its allowing for and even giving a place of respect to traditional
views.  Lo and behold.  It looks like that time is coming.

Update on the Revision Process

By going to https://elca.org/rosteredlife you can find an update on the revision process for
the “Trustworthy Servants” document.  At
the bottom of the page you can find a link to FAQ’s – Frequently Asked
Questions.  One of the Frequently Asked
Questions is as follows –

“Does ‘Human Sexuality: Gift
and Trust’ need updating too? The Northwest Washington Synod Assembly has
submitted a memorial to revise the social statement on sexuality, and the
proposal to reopen this social statement will come before the 2019 Churchwide
Assembly.”

What Next?

Did any of us actually
believe that what was approved in 2009 would be where it would stay?  Were any of us actually naïve enough to
believe that the “bound conscience” argument that was used to gain support for
the human sexuality social statement would actually provide for the protection
of the bound conscience of those with traditional views? 

After the ELCA human sexuality social statement and the document
describing the ELCA’s expectations for its rostered leaders fully conform to
the desires and demands of the radical, relentless LGBTQIA+ agenda, what will
it be next?  Will the ELCA then rewrite
and revise its doctrinal statement – its confession of faith – so that it
actually conforms to what the ELCA actually believes and what the ELCA allows
its pastors to believe and teach? 

Photo by Robert Vergeson on Unsplash