AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT EVENTS

IN THE ELCA’S SIERRA PACIFIC SYNOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * *

ANALYSIS OF BISHOP EATON’S “A PASTORAL MESSAGE ON ABORTION”

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

Please find below my analysis of what she has written. 

Typically misleading 

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

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

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

Lack of clarification 

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

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

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

One-sided concern

Her concern for protection is totally one-sided. 

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

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

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

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

Fearmongering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the draft opinion actually says

A link to the draft opinion can be found here.

Please note these three significant sentences –    

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

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

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

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

Bottom line

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

She needs to be far more careful if she wishes to help contribute to “complex moral discernment” rather than “conflict and moral policing” (sixth paragraph).  Instead of helping to avoid conflict, she has created conflict by releasing a statement that is highly critical of a position held by many within the ELCA.  She is not serving well as presiding bishop of the whole church when she makes such strong statements that do not respect the diversity of viewpoint within the ELCA. 

Once again the ELCA communicates that in spite of all of its talk about diversity and inclusivity, traditional views and those who hold them are not welcome.  

* * * * * * *

VIDEO BOOK REVIEWS

“WHEN HARRY BECAME SALLY” AND “STRANGE NEW WORLD”

Many thanks to NALC pastor Brett Jenkins for his review of two books which give a Biblical response to transgender ideology, a movement that is gaining predominance in our culture.  Brett writes –

Since the advent of the Renaissance, Christian orthodoxy has faced increasing challenges to its beliefs, primarily in the form of alternative spiritualities and, as the Renaissance became the Enlightenment, materialism in its various manifestations, including the Darwinian account of human origins.  The rise of transgenderism allied with postmodern assumptions presents a challenge on a new front, a front for which the Church is ill-prepared: human nature itself.  This fact makes these books worth reviewing.

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment by Ryan T. Anderson

This book details the cut-and-thrust of academic and the politics it has influenced in bringing about a historical moment when the first question asked by new parents since the dawn of time, “Is it a boy or girl?” has become impossible—and in some cases, illegal—to answer.  It does so with evident compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria while making clear that Christians and others sharing the conviction that culturally conditioned notions of gender have their roots in the objective fact of biological sex need to prepare themselves to be cultural pariahs.  They need to take self-consciously active steps to educate their communities in a narrative different from that being imposed by cultural elites.

Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution by Carl R. Trueman

In this book Carl Trueman provides a succinct, easy-to-read history of the ideas and thinkers that have led to the “transgender moment.”  This book was produced at the request of a thinktank for a resource for non-specialist teachers, leaders, and political staffers encapsulating the key insights of his 2020 book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.  The book ends with some helpful suggestions for ways church leaders could contribute to the cultural conversation as well as provide pastoral responses and care for congregation members.

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

Thank you for your partnership in the Gospel. 

April 2022

Dear Friends –

The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4)

He also wrote to his young friend Timothy, “And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.” (2 Timothy 2: 2)

The writer of the Gospel of John penned these words.  “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20: 31)

The witness of Scripture is clear and strong.  It does matter whether the message of the Bible is preserved, shared, heard, and believed. 

The most sacred and precious time of the year for those who love Jesus is Holy Week.  It is then that we hear and read once again of His triumphal entry, last supper, agony in the garden, betrayal, arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection.  The accounts of this one week form the major part of each of the four Gospels, and we are fortunate to have four Gospel accounts.  We know more about what Jesus did for our salvation because we have all four.

And yet what do we see going on now?  A movement to “cancel” the passion narrative in the Gospel of John and remove it from the lectionary readings for Holy Week.  The reason given is that the two chapters of John 18 and 19 are being accused of fostering antisemitism.

There is no doubt but that antisemitism is wrong, just as there is no doubt but that any form of racism is wrong.  Historically, according to the Gospels, it was the Jews who cried for Jesus to be crucified.  It was the Romans who carried out the crucifixion.  But it was my sins that nailed Jesus to the cross, just as much as anyone else’s.

This movement to “cancel” John is “gaining steam” within the U. S. Episcopal Church.  I am alarmed when I read comments also from ELCA pastors who would like to see the Gospel of John removed from the list of Scripture readings for Holy Week.

In my April letter from the director, which will be published in mid-April, I will tell more about this movement and how it is gaining ground within the ELCA.  Here we see just one more way in which the authority of the Scriptures first is questioned and then is rejected.  Anything difficult in the Bible is thrown out, rather than wrestled with and learned from.  Any time when the voice of the Bible is in conflict with the voice of our culture, the voice of our culture prevails.

If the passion readings in the Gospel of John are thrown out, what will it be next?  That is a question we continually ask regarding the ELCA.  What will it be next?  We already know of ELCA pastors who believe that the message of the cross is not that Jesus died for our sins.  Instead it is a challenge to join God in the work of dismantling oppressive, political power structures.  There are others who say that the main message and mission of the church is to support environmental causes and concerns.  What will it be next?  As everyone who has observed trends and events in the last decade knows only too well, it will not stop here.  The departure from and rejection of traditional, Biblical beliefs and values will only accelerate. 

What is at stake is the very heart of our faith – the message of the cross, the hope of the resurrection, the privilege and joy of knowing God as Father, Christ’s command to His church to fulfill the Great Commission, and God’s call to His people to holy living. 

We of Lutheran CORE have been working hard to show you how the orthodox Christian faith and Biblical moral values are first being compromised and then rejected by such things as the embrace of critical race theory by many Christian leaders, the choice of keynote speakers for national youth gatherings, the ELCA’s full embrace of the LGBTQ+ agenda and values, and the way in which many in the ELCA twist the message of the Bible in order to support that agenda.  Through our being one of the sponsors of the NEXUS Institute at Grand View University, our support system for orthodox seminarians, and our support group for younger persons, many of whom are planning on attending seminary, we are also working hard so that there will be Biblically faithful and Great Commission-minded pastors in the future.  Thank you for your interest in and support of these efforts and your generous gifts to our Pastoral Formation Fund. 

It is your ongoing prayers and gifts to Lutheran CORE that enable us to continue our work of being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Thank you for your prayers for us.  Click here for a form that you can use to let us know how we can be praying for you. 

Giving thanks for the cross and the empty tomb,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Visit our website www.lutherancore.org

Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/LutheranCORE

Like us on Facebook www.facebook.com/LutheranCORE

Join us on MeWe https://mewe.com/p-front/lutherancore

Watch us on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtoknmLRxWxGeLkpBeRjRVA

Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lutherancore/

I would like to tell you about two communications which I recently sent to ELCA leaders.  The first one I sent to Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.  The second one I sent to a synodical bishop.  As usual, I have heard nothing from Bishop Eaton.  I am very grateful to the synodical bishop, who I feel has very graciously and respectfully listened to and heard my concerns.

My communication to Bishop Eaton had to do with the slowness of her response to a crisis brewing within the ELCA’s Sierra Pacific Synod (SPS – northern California and northern Nevada).  Last December the SPS synod council took action to terminate the call of a Latino mission developer, and they implemented their decision on a day that is very special to the Latino community.  Please notice that I am not taking a position regarding the action taken by the SPS synod council.  What I am taking a position on is only the slowness of Bishop Eaton’s response – particularly in light of how quickly she will take a position and send out a communication on other matters that are not within her scope of authority, responsibility, and expertise.  Here is what I wrote to Bishop Eaton.

* * * * * * *

Dear Bishop Eaton –

I was astounded to learn that it took you over three weeks to send a communication to the ELCA Latino Ministries Association regarding the termination of call of the mission developer for the Mision Latina Luterana in Stockton, California. 

You have said that, as presiding bishop, you have no authority to interfere with the actions of synodical councils and synodical bishops, but I do not understand why it would take you over three weeks to reach out to the Latino community and acknowledge their confusion and pain over the loss of their pastor. 

When the verdict regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was announced, you almost immediately had a response and you spoke critically of the judicial system, as if you knew the facts of the case far better than those who were involved day after day with the case.

In your communication on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you did honor the veterans of World War II, and you did honor the memory of those who died in that conflict, including at Pearl Harbor, but you could not let it stay at that.  You also had to speak against racism.

There are plenty of issues, situations, and problems that need your attention in the organization over which you have oversight and responsibility.  I would suggest that you clean up your own house before you claim to be able to speak helpfully, insightfully, and authoritatively concerning matters over which other people have oversight and responsibility.

As one who has a deep love for Jesus,

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

I purposefully signed the letter as “Retired ELCA Pastor” rather than “Executive Director of Lutheran CORE,” hoping that might increase the chances of my receiving a response.  So far it has not.

* * * * * * *

WOKE FRAGILITY

My letter to a synodical bishop had to do with that synod’s joining with the ELCA in making a Statement of Land Acknowledgement as a primary part of all of its communications.

First, some background information.

The February 2022 issue of ELCA Worship News contains a section entitled “Resources for Land Acknowledgement.”  A link to that section can be found here.

Reading that section raised several questions in my mind as I realize that the ELCA Churchwide offices on Higgins Road, as well as the offices of all sixty-five of the ELCA synods, as well as all of the ELCA congregations, are all located on land formerly occupied by native Americans. 

First, the whole matter of land acknowledgement must be very important to the ELCA because its Declaration to American Indian and Alaska Native People commits the ELCA “to begin the practice of land acknowledgements at all expressions of the church.”  The importance of this practice is also displayed in the fact that the introductory letter suggests all kinds of occasions and ways in which land acknowledgement statements could be used – read aloud at the beginning of every worship service, printed at the top of worship bulletins, used to create outdoor signage and a plaque for the narthex, and used at the beginning of zoom meetings.  

Second, this practice is clearly based upon the premise that all land in the United States is stolen land.  The resource document states, “All land is Indigenous land.”  The introductory letter states, “A land acknowledgement is a ritual intended solely to show gratitude to the land and acknowledge the original and Indigenous peoples from whom the land was stolen.”  (A whole other issue is the fact that I do not know what it means to show gratitude to the land – not gratitude for the land, gratitude to God for creating the land and making it a good land, or gratitude to those who developed the land, but gratitude to the land.)

Third, both the introductory letter and the resource document clearly state that the practice of land acknowledgement is only a first step – and an easy first step.  The introductory letter says, “This is arguably one of the easier commitments.”  The resource document adds, “We understand that this protocol is only a first step and that, as we venture into the world, we must learn more, do more and realize healing and justice for the Indigenous peoples whose lands we now occupy.”

In my communication to this synodical bishop, I summed up the content of the introductory letter and resource document.  I then made the following three observations.  I believe that this issue is even more significant and poignant in light of the fact that the congregations in that synod are significantly diminished, the giving from the congregations to the synod has dropped significantly in the past decade, the annual spending plan for the synod is much greater than the anticipated income, and a significant part of the shortfall is made up from funds obtained by selling the properties of closed congregations.  Here is what I wrote to that synodical bishop.

“First, if the synod feels that the land now occupied by its offices and congregations is stolen land, then the synod is morally obligated to return to native American people at least the value of the land whenever a congregation is closed and the property is sold.  If the synod does not do that, then the synod is clearly being complicit in the stealing of land from Indigenous persons.  The word ‘complicit’ is a word that the ELCA uses often to describe those whose attitudes and actions it is critical of.  Before I accuse someone else of being complicit, I need to ask whether there is any area where I am being complicit.

“I can certainly understand the synod’s not returning also the value of the buildings, because the buildings were not present when the land was stolen.  But if the synod does not want to be complicit in the stealing of land by holding onto the value of stolen land, and for the synod to act in a way that is consistent with its values, statements, and priorities, then the synod would need to return to Indigenous persons at least the value of the land.

“Second, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority to have a statement of land acknowledgement as part of its communications and worship services?  Having such a statement without also returning to Indigenous people the value of stolen land gives the impression that the synod is in favor of justice only if being in favor of justice does not cost the synod anything.    

“Third, if the synod chooses to remain complicit in the stealing of land, how could the synod have the integrity and moral authority – along with the ELCA – to advocate for reparations for people of African descent?

“I am reminded of what John the Baptist said to those who came out to hear him and be baptized by him.  ‘Bear fruit that befits repentance.’ 

“When the ELCA, including the (Synod), calls upon our country to repent of past evils and injustice, then the ELCA, including the (Synod), also needs to think through whether there are any ways in which they are being complicit in perpetuating those evils and injustices.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

I am constantly amazed over how arrogant, self-righteous, ungrateful, and inconsistent the “woke” agenda actually is.  You take what they say, bring it out to its logical conclusions, apply their standards and criteria to them, and it collapses.  We hear a lot about “white fragility.”  I think instead we should hear about “woke fragility.”

Several weeks ago there was considerable discussion in Lutheran CORE’s Facebook group in response to a person who questioned whether it is appropriate to call the Bible the Word of God. 

As part of that process, we posted our Statement on Scripture, which was written in 2007.

Because that statement was responding specifically to comments made by former ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hansen and to the ELCA’s Book of Faith initiative, we felt that the document should be updated to reflect our current situation and without reference to that initiative.

We are very grateful to NALC pastor Ken Kimball, who, along with Bishop Paull Spring, wrote the original statement.  Pastor Kimball graciously accepted our request to update the statement.  We are also very grateful to Dr. Mark Mattes of Grand View University for reviewing the statement. 

At its most recent meeting the board of Lutheran CORE unanimously voted to approve the statement.  You can find the full text of that document here. 

As we said in the July 2021 issue of CORE Voice, the real issue behind the issue is more often than not the authority of Scripture.  Refusing to call God Father, rejecting evangelism as part of the mission of the church, seeing faith in Christ as only one out of many ways to God, and embracing the full, radical LGBTQIA+ agenda all result from rejecting the inspiration, reliability, and authority of the Bible.  Therefore, we are glad to be able to share with you this newly updated Statement on Scripture.    

In the words of a hymn that has been set to the tune of “A Mighty Fortress” –

“God’s Word is our great heritage and shall be ours forever.

To spread its light from age to age shall be our chief endeavor.

Through life it guides our way; in death it is our stay.

Lord, grant while time shall last your Church may hold it fast

Throughout all generations.”

A recent discussion in Lutheran CORE’s private and visible Facebook group had to do with whether it is appropriate to refer to the Bible as the Word of God.

The question was raised regarding Lutheran CORE’s position on that issue.

We are fully aware of the fact that the real issue behind the issue is more often than not the authority of Scripture.  Refusing to call God Father, rejecting evangelism as part of the mission of the church, seeing faith in Christ as only one out of many ways to God, and embracing the radical LGBTQIA+ agenda all result from rejecting the inspiration, reliability, and authority of the Bible. 

Here is a link to Lutheran CORE’s 2007 statement, which is entitled “A Lutheran Statement on the Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Church.”  Although it was written within the context of the ELCA’s Book of Faith Initiative, it clearly states that “the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who has revealed himself most fully and completely in Jesus Christ.”  This document can be found on the About section of our website.  Click on About, and then on Historical Documents.

Editor’s Note: The conclusion of this article will be published in a second post on or about September 18, 2020.

Critical Theory—in particular, Critical Race Theory—has recently captured the Church’s attention, and in some corners of the Lord’s vineyard it seems, more significantly, Her imagination.  (For those unfamiliar with Critical Theory, this article will serve as a necessarily incomplete introduction.)  Springing from the same philosophers and theorists (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) who brought us postmodernism, Critical Theory seems to be suddenly taking the whole Western world by storm.

This is an illusion.  Though all but Liberal Arts majors would likely be unfamiliar with the Frankfurt School or even the phrase “Critical Theory,” everyone who has received an undergraduate education in the last thirty years has been familiarized with (and in many cases, indoctrinated into) its basic terminology and the categories of meaning by which it makes sense of the world.  For instance, for every one of my acquaintance at my own undergraduate alma mater of Penn State, the obligatory “professional writing” requirement for non-English majors was used by the professors as an opportunity to force-feed undergraduates Critical Theory.  As an example, a business writing class for music majors taught participants to write personal reflections on books like Stone Butch Blues, a lesbian coming of age story, instead of memos, letters to parents, and departmental requisitions.  Even if you think the exposure salutary, it demonstrates the tactics of Critical Theory, which, as its exponents readily affirm, “contains an activist dimension. It tries to not only understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better.”[1]

Solid introductions to Critical Theory by both its proponents and opponents are now widely available, and I encourage the reader to consult at least one of each to familiarize themselves with its outlines; otherwise, as commentator Phil Blair demonstrated in his response to a recent Christianity Today article, we may find ourselves employing it unbeknownst to ourselves.

Heresy

Though articles abound that are critical of Critical Theory (hereafter referred to as CT) from a Christian perspective, as mine is, I hope to explore the topic from an at least slightly different perspective; I propose that while CT may properly diagnose some elements of our cultural ills, it necessarily misaddresses these maladies because it is in fact a secularized Christian heresy.

The Critic Is Often Right About What Is Wrong, But He Is Nearly Always Wrong About What Would Be Right.

I want to start by acknowledging what CT—and progressive ideologies more generally—often get right.  One of the functions of the people in a society that are typically deemed “liberal,” “left,” or “progressive” is to point out injustices when they accumulate.  Any meritocracy (where achievement or talent is rewarded with social and/or economic upward mobility) periodically and predictably accumulates inequity and unfairness at its margins.  At a biological level, talent and giftedness are inborn traits that often run in families.  Sociologically, families pass on habits and knowledge that maximize (or minimize) inherent capacities for greater achievement and reward.  The greatest patrimony that a family passes on in a meritocracy is not their wealth—though that certainly has undeniable advantages—but rather their knowledge and skills in accessing or leveraging the power structures of the meritocracy.

This does not mean that a meritocracy is inherently immoral. (What would we want, a system where lack of talent, industry, and skill is rewarded?) But it does mean that for all the good it may produce, it is a system that can put real people at a real disadvantage in accessing the social and economic rewards deemed legitimate by the value system at its foundation; it is a system that needs a watchdog that calls for course corrections when the process whereby “the rising tide that lifts all boats” creates eddies and riptides that prevent people from weighing anchor and setting sail.

In his book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt contends that in the same way all the complex flavors of the world’s cuisines are composed of the tongue’s four basic tasting capacities—sweet, sour, salty, and bitter—the great diversity of moralities to which people ascribe are woven from the five basic “cognitive modules” with which we define and evaluate morality and justice.  Defined in terms of their antipodes, these modules are care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.  Haidt names this Moral Foundations Theory.

One need not agree with Haidt’s thesis about the origins of these cognitive modules to see their utility as an interpretive grid.  In analyzing the political application of the theory, Haidt, who identifies himself as a liberal, discovered that those who measured as the most “liberal” registered highly in the care/harm and fairness/cheating categories but little to not at all in the other three.  Though caring and fairness were also the dominant categories for those who registered as the most “conservative,” people with these political leanings showed a near convergence with the other three concerns of loyalty, authority, and sanctity:

What this means is that if it seems that the proponents of Critical Theory are “tone deaf” to some of the moral concerns expressed by other, more “conservative” people, it is because they are.  For the “liberal” adherent of CT, the mere presence of inequity is all the proof needed that injustice is occurring.  Questions of whether people have demonstrated the social virtues of developing skills (that is, demonstrating loyalty to the system’s values) are largely not considered, or if they are, the need to do so is defined as part of the oppression inherent in “the system.”  Likewise, the need to “pay one’s dues,” which recognizes the system’s authority, is construed as more evidence of injustice rather than a period of necessary apprenticeship during which there is predicted inequity between those who have acquired the sought-after skills and resources and those currently acquiring them.  Finally, the need to exhibit sustained effort with or without immediate reward—the most sanctified value in a meritocracy—is despised most of all as the mechanism of systemic injustice because, although such effort generally yields overall improvement in the socio-economic position of a given class of people, there is no guarantee in any particular instance that the effort so exerted will result necessarily in equity.  The moral concerns of three of the five moral cognitive modules are not only temporarily bracketed to focus analysis on the issue of fairness, for the “liberal,” they quite literally do not register as things worthy of assessment and for the critical theorist, they are merely attempts to obfuscate the real issue, which is measurable equity.

Moreover, the proponent of Critical Theory does not need to provide measurable criteria whereby to evaluate the claims of their analysis.  The existence of the inequity natural to and predicted by a system that rewards merit is the prima facie evidence that revolution is needed.  Whether the proposed system could actually create the desired equity and whether that equity would be balanced with other moral concerns  (everyone living in social and/or economic squalor is, after all, a type of equality) need not be seriously contemplated, because the only value in view is equity, which is defined as fairness that provides the necessary care for everybody.

This is how these critics can be right about what is wrong (that is, in Critical Race Theory, the form of CT most affecting the life of the Church at present, racial inequities), but so wrong about what would put these wrongs right; their theories are not based upon a morality with a complex enough palate, capable of fine enough distinctions.

Eschatology and Anthropology

This is also in part why Critical Theory is a comprehensive worldview; in merely noting inequity, it believes that it has accounted for all the most significant moral variables—the only ones that count.  It must then flatten all human experience into the narrow interpretive grid it deems the only valid one.

Four Fundamental Questions

The late Ravi Zacharias helpfully delineated at least four fundamental questions of human life to which any worldview must propose an answer: human origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.  Because of the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial,” the issue of origins has dominated the intellectual landscape of the Western Church for the last 100 or so years.  First, it dominated the popular imagination as “yet another case” of backward religionists resisting reason’s inevitable march of progress in accord with the Enlightenment’s self-narration.  (Yes, this was first. Scopes deliberately implicated himself so that a trial would need to be held and Darrow deliberately had the trial played out by a sympathetic urbane media in the court of public opinion as part of his legal strategy.)  The attempts to condemn Intelligent Design as veiled religious dogma are the intellectual descendants of that controversy.  Secondly, it precipitated a growing crisis within the Church between Fundamentalists and Modernists, who believed a dating of the age of the earth to greater than 7,000 years was congruent with orthodox Biblical interpretation.  The inheritors of that dispute are the Young Earth versus Old Earth Creationist debates of today.[2] 

“Your theology can never be better than your anthropology,” was one of the favorite axioms my Prophets professor in seminary passed on to us from his mentor.  Of course, being self-consciously orthodox, I thought that axiom got it exactly backward; our theology—specifically our Christology and soteriology—necessarily defines our understanding of human nature, so our anthropology can never be better than our theology.

Unfortunately, the Western Church’s obsession with origins has led to a relative neglect of the way our understanding of who Jesus is and what salvation fully entails informs our understanding of what human beings are (our meaning), how we should live (our morality), and our purpose or telos (our destiny).  The preaching of Jesus predominantly as life coach, social activist, friend of sinners, prophetic preacher, social reformer or even atoning sacrifice for sinners, has led to the neglect of the consistent preaching of Jesus as the God-Man or Theanthropos, a new species in God’s economy of salvation.[3]  “God became man that man might become [like] God,” exulted Irenaeus of Lyons in his second century classic Against Heresies, going on to declare as the soteriological significance of that teaching that “the glory of God is a [hu]man fully alive.”

Great Tradition Christianity proclaims that the ultimate destiny of redeemed humanity is not merely to avoid hell (Jesus as the cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card) or to emulate Jesus as the finest example of a fully self-realized or perfectly moral human person, but rather to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).  Through our Sacramental union with Jesus, who was fully God and fully human, by faith in His promises, we are drawn into the perichoretic inner life of the Godhead, the most Holy Trinity.  As the Theanthropos, Jesus is the “firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29), not the only-born to be admired and worshipped, but whose life remains fundamentally distant from our own.

This teaching about the implications of salvation through Christ for our destiny as human beings thoroughly conditions and shapes all other elements of our theology.  In other words, remembering the fullness of our destiny as human beings in Christ has far more impact on our understanding of what is the meaning of human life and the morality by which it is to be lived than our understanding of our origins.

---

[1] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. (New York: New York University Press, 2017), page 8.

[2] If you speak the first article of the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed without crossing your fingers, you are a creationist of one stripe or the other; it is important that non-fundamentalist Christians be absolutely clear on this point and think through the consequences of that position as distinct from a functional Deism.

[3] Justification by grace through faith—forensic justification—may indeed be the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls as Martin Luther declared, but it was never meant to be preached denuded of the very Christology that makes it so powerful and poignant.

Editor’s Note: In this article, author David Charlton thoughtfully critiques Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, a commentary on Scripture. It was written by Reconciling Works which advocates “for the full welcome, inclusion, and equity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual/aromantic (LGBTQIA+) Lutherans in all aspects of the life of their Church, congregations, and community.” While independent, Reconciling Works is closely affiliated with the ELCA. 

Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans begins by listing four “common metrics for scriptural interpretation” taken from the writings of Martin Luther.  The list includes:  a) the Law/Gospel Dialectic, b) the Plain Reading of Scripture, c) Scripture Interprets Scripture, and d) Scripture as the Manger that Holds Christ.[1] These are indeed common Lutheran principles for interpreting Scripture.  One principle that I would expect to find, but did not, is was Christum treibt, or “whatever teaches Christ.”   However, I have no objection to the four mentioned.

In general, the description of each is sound.  However, I do have a question regarding the Plain Reading metric.  It seems anachronistic to include the modern historical critical method as part of that principle.  That method would not be developed and standardized for several centuries after Luther’s time.  It is more likely that Luther had in mind what some call the historical grammatical method.  Luther used the best in contemporary textual criticism, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and knowledge of history.  What would Luther know about source, form, redaction, or narrative criticism?  What would he know of the several quests for the historical Jesus?

The real difficulty with these “common metrics” are how they are applied in interpreting two kinds of texts, labeled “Passages Used to Exclude” and “Passages Used to Welcome.”  I will address each section separately, giving examples of how all four metrics are applied to both kinds of passages.

Passages Used to Exclude

There are eight Biblical texts described as “passages used to exclude.”  The intent is to demonstrate how the four Lutheran metrics clear up confusion about the meaning of these texts.  The question for us is whether the Lutheran metrics are applied correctly, and whether they succeed in the purpose for which they are used.

The Law/Gospel principle is used to address Genesis 1:26-29 and Romans 1:22-27.  In the three pages dedicated to Genesis 1:26-29, there is only one reference to Law, and one to Gospel.  The authors make the dubious claim that the phrase “male and female he created them” cannot be taken as Law because it is not grammatically in the form of a command.[2]  They certainly know better than that.  Lutherans have never limited Law to grammatical commands.  The Law is understood more broadly than that.  While including grammatical commands, it also includes anything that is taken as normative, makes demands, accuses or condemns.  The authors undermine this argument three paragraphs later when they refer to “the Gospel in this passage.”[3]  They do not cite a grammatical promise that serves as Gospel.  Instead, they infer a Gospel promise from the descriptive passage in verse 27, which says that humankind was created in the image of God.  If Gospel can be inferred, then so can Law.  On the other hand, if absent a grammatical command, no Law can be inferred, then absent a grammatical promise, no Gospel can be inferred. 

The discussion of Romans 1:22-27 also fails to apply the Law/Gospel principle correctly.  However, it does so in a different way.  It misconstrues Paul’s use of Law and Gospel in a serious way.  Romans 1:22-27 is part of a longer argument extending from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3.  It culminates in the conclusion that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  (3.23)  And yet the authors assert that Paul is not describing the Romans themselves, in 1:22-27, but instead describing a sinful and “unnamed people who are set up as a foil.”[4]  He is doing this, it is alleged, to set up his main argument, that “salvation is based entirely on Christ, and not on our own ability to do good works and follow the Law.”[5]  This is a non-sequitur.  That Paul’s ultimate goal is to show the impossibility of salvation by the works of the Law, does not mean that he doesn’t consider the activities he describes to be sinful.  It would make no sense to use things that are not sinful to convict people of sin.  Nor does it mean that Paul doesn’t consider some in Rome to be guilty of those sins at one time or another.  He seems to assume that as Christians, they no longer engage in those activities.  This does not imply that they never engaged in those activities before they came to faith in Christ. 

The Metaphor of the Manger, is used in interpreting Genesis 2:22-24, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Its application to these texts is puzzling.  My understanding of that metaphor is that it teaches us to ask, “Where is Christ in this passage?”  It calls for a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. The problem is that in the discussion of Genesis 2:22-24, this principle is never mentioned.  No attempt is made to show how a Christological interpretation helps us interpret those texts.  Instead the argument relies entirely on a discussion of the meaning of “one flesh.”[6] 

In addressing the texts from Leviticus, only one mention is made of the Metaphor of the Manger.  We are asked to compare these texts with what we know of Christ, to see whether they correspond to him, or whether they are straw.[7]  Is this really what the Metaphor of the Manger teaches us to do?  In fact, in his Preface to the Old Testament, Luther tells us not to despise or be offended by the Old Testament.  It is as precious as the manger that held the infant Christ.[8]  Nowhere in that writing does Luther refer to the Old Testament as straw.  The authors seem to be conflating Luther’s view on the Book of James, found in his Preface to the New Testament[9], with his words about the Old Testament. 

The principle of Scripture Interpreting Scripture is used to interpret Genesis 19 and Deuteronomy 23:1.  They make a good use of this principle in discussing Genesis 19, using multiple references to Sodom in the Old and New Testament to show that homosexuality was not the primary focus when the sin of Sodom was discussed.  In a similar manner, they show that the attitude toward eunuchs changes as we move through Scripture, so that Deuteronomy’s exclusion must be balanced with the inclusion found in other places.  I agree that neither of these texts can be used by themselves to exclude homosexuals or eunuchs.

As for the Plain Reading of Scripture principle, I have the objection that I mentioned earlier.  I think it tends to be anachronistic, as if Luther had the historical critical method in mind.  On the other hand, lexical objections to traditional interpretations seem to be more in line with the tools that Luther had in mind.  In discussing Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, the authors raise appropriate questions about the proper translation of key words.  We should not assume that modern notions of homosexuality or transgenderism are what the original reader would have had in mind. 

Passages Used to Include

The authors use the Metaphor of the Manger to interpret the story of Ruth (1:16-17) and Psalm 139:13-14.  In both cases they interpret the text Christologically.  In Ruth they find a foreshadowing of Jesus’ welcoming of outsiders.  They also imply a connection between Ruth’s loyalty and God’s faithfulness in Christ.  In interpreting Psalm 139 Christologically, they lift up the Incarnation itself, reminding us that God embraces our humanity fully, not just in part.  They rightly highlight the importance of recognizing the many ways that loyalty can be expressed in human relationships, the importance of welcoming and including the marginalized, and of embracing people as they are, following the example of Jesus.

The Plain Reading principle is used to interpret Isaiah 56:3-5 and Acts 10 and 11.  They use the plain meaning of each text to illustrate the way that God breaks down walls of ritual purity that exclude those who were considered unclean because of sexual or gender status, diet, or nationality.  They rightly conclude that such categories no longer apply in the Church.  One is justified and therefore included in God’s family by faith in Christ, not by any outward status or action.  Whether one is circumcised or not, follows dietary laws or not, is male or female, Jew or Gentile, eunuch or not, is not relevant. One is acceptable to God by faith alone.

The sections on Scripture Interpreting Scripture focus on Galatians 3:26-29 and Matthew 22: 34-40.  In both cases, the principle is able to raise questions, but not able to provide answers.  Does the dual commandment of love of God and neighbor help us interpret passages like those in Leviticus 18 and 20?  To some degree. Does Galatian 3:26-29 help us determine which Old Testament laws are no longer relevant in the eschatological community of the Church?  In part.  What complicates things is the fact that the Lutheran confessions put the laws of the Old Testament in three categories, 1) religious or ceremonial law, 2) the civil law of the nation of Israel, and 3) the moral law that applies at all times and places.  Many laws that applied in ancient Israel no longer apply to us today, but some of them do.

This leads us to the final category, Law and Gospel.  This is where things tend to get complicated.  In their discussion of Acts 8 and 1 Corinthians 12, the authors are not careful to distinguish the many ways that Lutherans speak of the Law.  As I mentioned above, Lutherans have distinguished between different kinds of Old Testament laws.  The proper distinction between Law and Gospel does render Old Testament religious or ceremonial laws obsolete.  The laws that once distinguished between clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile, are no longer in effect in the Church.  The same is true for civil laws that applied to the nation of Israel in the era of Moses, the judges, the kings, or the Second Temple. 

However, the moral law, as described in Romans 1:19-20, still applies today.  It has a twofold function, the so called civil use and theological use of the Law.  In its civil use, the Law defines the boundaries that are necessary for any healthy community.  The Law in its civil use finds many forms of expression, but some things remain the same.  Murder, adultery, theft, lying and envy are universally detrimental to community. 

The theological use of the Law is to expose sin and reveal the wrath of God.  In doing this, the Law reveals that all fall short of the glory of God.  It undercuts all attempts to justify oneself through works.  In doing so it drives a person to Christ, who through the Gospel grants forgiveness to all who have faith. 

Clearly, the Law that declared the Ethiopian unclean because he was a Gentile and a eunuch no longer applies today.  He was justified and made part of the Church by baptism and faith, as all Christians are.  In a similar manner, Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that membership in the Body of Christ is not based on which gifts a person has been given, but on the confession that Christ is Lord, i.e. faith.   This faith, in turn, is a gift of one and the same Spirit.  Anyone who confesses Christ as Lord is already part of the Body of Christ, through the power of the Spirit. 

The question remains whether the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage is part of the obsolete ceremonial and civil law of ancient Israel, or whether it is part of the moral law, which remains valid today.  If it is part of the ceremonial law, it is no longer mandatory for Christians.  If it is part of the civil law of ancient Israel only, then it need not apply to us today.  However, if it is part of the moral law inscribed in the human heart, then it still applies in both its civil and theological uses. 

If so, then there are two implications.  First, the prohibition of sex outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage remains the standard for leaders in the Christian community. (civil use)  Secondly, it still accuses those who violate that prohibition. In that case, the proper response of the Church is not to abolish the Law, but to preach the forgiveness of sin for Jesus’ sake to those who sin.

Where Are We?

I do believe that Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans makes a convincing case that Old Testament rules of exclusion and punishment need not apply today.  They made a good case that distinctions between clean and unclean no longer apply.  Their Christological interpretation of Scripture is convincing in its argument that all people should be welcomed, and that all people should be treated as whole persons created in God’s image.  No person should be unwelcome in the Church or excluded as recipients of its ministry.

What the authors failed to do was to show that the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture were able to solve the key question.  Is the prohibition of sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage a part of the obsolete ceremonial or civil law of ancient Israel, or a continuing part of the Law which even today continues in its civil and theological uses?   In the end, we are right where we began.  The ELCA decided in 2009 that it could not decide which was the case.  Instead, it identified four possible conclusions and chose to allow congregations to choose the answer that suited them.  Meanwhile, it called on people to respect the “bound consciences” of others.   

The authors were not able, on the basis of the four Lutheran metrics for interpreting Scripture, to resolve this dispute.  More importantly, they have failed to show why pastors, seminarians and congregations should be required to abandon the traditional position of the catholic Church. 

Final Thoughts

One further Lutheran metric that I believe applies to the question is what I would call the metric or principle of Scriptural Authority.  The principle here is twofold and is related to the understanding of God’s Word as Law and Gospel   The Church may only command what God commands in the Word.  It may only bless that which God blesses in the Word. 

In the Large Catechism, Luther makes the case for clerical marriage based on the fact that throughout Scripture God both gives commands that protect marriage and promises blessings to those who enter into marriage.  Meanwhile, God never commands men and women to take vows of celibacy, to become monks or nuns, or enter monasteries.  Neither does God promise to bless those who do.  The Church does not have the authority to prohibit marriage, nor to require people to keep monastic vows.  

The same is true today.  The Church has no power to require people to enter same sex marriage, or to perform same sex marriages.  It has no authority to bless such unions, nor the authority to require its pastors to bless such unions.  The Church has no authority to exalt a man-made institution, whether celibacy or same sex marriage, to the level of an institution that has both God’s command and blessing.

Pastors, congregations and seminarians who adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage have not violated Lutheran metrics for Scriptural interpretation.  They have not violated their ordination vows or the Confession of Faith of the ELCA.  They should be under no pressure to adopt the position of Reconciling Works on same sex marriage or be under the threat of retribution for failing to do so.

---

[1] See Reconciling Scripture for Lutherans, pp. 9-11.

[2] Reconciling Scripture. p. 16.

[3] Ibid, p. 17.

[4] Ibid. p. 23.

[5] Ibid, p. 23.

[6] Ibid, p. 19-20.

[7] Ibid, p. 24.

[8] Lull, Timothy F. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (p. 98). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

[9] Ibid, p. 96.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017 Devotion

“Once God has spoken; twice I have heard this: that power belongs to God; and lovingkindness is Yours, O Lord, for You recompense a man according to his work.”  (Psalm 62:11-12)

We vie for power.  But all power and authority belong to God.  Content is the one who knows this and rests in the Lord’s power.  But His lovingkindness is yours and each may bask in His love and know that He loves all whom He has made.  Trust in the One who holds all power and loves us, for He will accomplish what He has purposed.  Know that the Lord is good and He will do what He promises.

Lord, help me stop playing the games of this world for power.  It all belongs to You and the powerful of this world are just an illusion when compared to You.  Guide me in Your ways that I may walk in them and help me live according to Your purposes.  Keep my mind clear and my sight upon You that I would forever hold fast to Your promises.  Let me be about Your business, doing Your will.

Lord Jesus, You demonstrated that You were not anxious for anything.  You have declared that all authority is Yours.  Help me simply take Your hand and walk with You all the days of my life, learning from You how to walk in the eternal way You have established.  Guide me according to Your principles to be faithful to all that You command and help me walk in Your ways.  Amen.