In the September and November editions of CORE Voice, Dennis Nelson analyzed the activist constituency of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). The fact that there are a number of activists on the Commission is not surprising, since the Churchwide Assembly’s directive to the ELCA Church Council was to create a commission to recommend restructuring the church being particularly attentive to the church’s commitment to “dismantling racism.” In other words, whatever recommendations the CRLC makes must take steps to dismantle racism within the denomination.
For many members of the ELCA, the question of racism in the church is confusing. In this instance, why is there a move to restructure the whole denomination around dismantling one particular sin?
To answer this question, it is important to understand the chief philosophical assumption of ELCA policymakers, namely, Critical Theory. In critical theory, the world is viewed chiefly through the lens of power and how some groups use their power to oppress other groups. There are oppressors and victims, especially in the sense that some groups are kept from having full access to the power that opposite groups enjoy. This oppression is racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, etc. This means that oppression like racism is much more than personal prejudice (which is how most of us would understand the term); rather, racism is systemic and institutionalized.
The assumptions at work in the ELCA’s effort to “dismantle racism” rely on a subset of Critical Theory usually called Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory has been popularized recently by books like How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and White Fragility by Robin Diangelo. In Mainline Christianity, Critical Race Theory has long been defended by ELCA Pastor, anti-racism advocate, and author Joseph Barndt. Barndt offers the distinction in his work that power can be used by Christians for good when it is shared without exclusivity.
The modern anti-racist movement based on Critical Race Theory makes a fundamental claim: You are either a racist or an antiracist. Within this framework, you are either supporting racism or you are working to dismantle racism. Because, in this view, racism is so enmeshed in American culture, one cannot simply be “not-racist.” There is no neutrality. If you are a White person, racism is your original sin. Furthermore, because racism is institutionally enmeshed, to be anti-racist is about supporting particular political policy changes that deconstruct supposed hierarchies of power within society.
Connected to this understanding of Critical Theory is the understanding of Intersectionality, which asserts that there are interlocking systems of oppression that affect more than one individual trait. Thus, oppression based on race is intricately tied together with oppression based on sexuality, gender, ability, etc. Under this framework, for example, opposing the full inclusion of practicing homosexuals on the roster of Word and Sacrament is descriptive of institutional racism. To be anti-racist is to support the full inclusion of any group that claims oppression.
Understanding this will help one understand many of the ELCA’s policy commitments. Working to end so-called Global Climate Change is an anti-racist policy, because it is argued that Global Climate Change disproportionately affects minorities. Likewise, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton’s statements such as those regarding Israel and Palestine or the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, which drew the ire of many moderate and conservative ELCA members, can be understood through the oppressor/oppressed framework of Critical Theory.
The question is, what will it mean to restructure a church around the tenet of dismantling racism? Barndt answers this question in his book Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness, providing six steps: Commitment to Institutionalizing, Full Power Sharing, Assured Cultural Inclusion, Mutual Accountability, Multiplying Inclusion, and Restored Community.[1] The purpose of these steps, according to Barndt is, “The ultimate vision that drives the process of institutional change is a future in which both the church and the wider community overcome systemic racism.”[2] Consequently, this means that the fundamental goal of a church restructured to be anti-racist is to be an institution that can partner with the world to overcome systemic racism. In other words, the anti-racist church will be on the leading front of the anti-racist policies that shape the world.
Understandably, when one hears the phrase “dismantle racism,” it is easy to hear it through what we all know: Racism is a sin. There is no question, and the church must always call racism what it is; however, when you hear ELCA policy makers using phrases like “anti-racism” and “dismantling racism,” please understand the goal is to structure a church around political activism. This ought to concern those in the ELCA who understand that Christ has given his church a different commission, a commission found in Matthew 28:16-20 and John 20:21-23.
[1] Barndt, Joseph. Becoming an Anti-Racist Church: Journeying toward Wholeness. 1517 Media, 2011, p. 188-189.
How Did It Happen? The ELCA and Community Organizing – Part One
written by Dennis Nelson | January 11, 2024
Introduction
A question I am often asked by people is this – How did it happen? How did LGBTQ+ values, priorities, and agenda completely take over the ELCA, and so quickly? The purpose of this article is to show how the principles of community organizing were used most effectively to bring about this change.
The ELCA was formed in 1987 and began functioning as a church body in 1988. At the 2005 Churchwide Assembly traditional values prevailed, though just barely. It was not until 2009 that standards changed, and look at all that has happened since. For nearly twenty-two of the thirty-four years that the ELCA has existed, at least the officially recognized position was more traditional. It has only been during the last twelve years that revisionist views have prevailed. Actually and officially, the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly only gave its blessing to (PALMS) publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same sex relationships. But in reality the ELCA has fully embraced the LGBTQIA+ agenda, values, priorities, and lifestyle. The ELCA has completely marginalized anyone who holds to any other view, and it is charging ahead at such a rapid pace that it makes you wonder whether anything could stop it except a total crash.
How did it happen? Part of the answer can be found in the fact that those who have been driving this are super focused and relentlessly dedicated. Part of the answer can also be found in the image of lily pads on a lake. Let’s say that the area of the surface of the lake that is covered by lily pads doubles each year. At first, the amount of increase is small. Then it becomes larger and more noticeable. Eventually lily pads are covering half of the lake. At that point and at that rate how much longer will it take for lily pads to cover the entire lake? One year.
Community Organizing
A more detailed answer can be found in the principles of community organizing and how that methodology has been used extremely effectively by such groups within the Lutheran community as ReconcilingWorks. ReconcilingWorks is an organization that since 1974 “has advocated 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.” Specifically we will be looking at how community organizing is the central approach employed by the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit (BIC) developed by ReconcilingWorks in order to change peoples’ minds, turn the minority position into the majority position, and thereby take over the church. A link to the Toolkit can be found here.
Community organizing is also the primary approach employed by many other social justice activists – in the secular world as well as in the mainline church – in order to push for social change. It is popular because it works. Its techniques are effective, which is why and how the liberal/progressive movement has been so successful in taking hold of the mainline church and secular society.
Lutherans who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture need to be aware of this process, so that we might develop and offer an effective response. Our failure to do so is a major reason why we are losing the battle – in the mainline church as well as in the secular world – to the LGBTQ+ agenda and other liberal/progressive concerns.
Texts
Here are some resources that you can use for further study. Fortress Press is “an imprint of 1517 Media.” 1517 Media is “the ministry of publishing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”
Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit by Reconciling Works
Doing Justice: Congregations and Community Organizing by Dennis A. Jacobsen (Fortress Press)
Faith-Based Organizing by Charles Frederickson, Violetta Lien, Herbert E. Palmer, and Mary Lou Walther (Fortress Press)
Faith-Rooted Organizing by Alexia Salvatierra and Peter Heltzel (Fortress Press)
Theological Education
Several ELCA seminaries offer classes and/or training in community organizing as part of the public theology and/or practical theology components of the seminary curriculum. At one ELCA seminary the “public church” curriculum has become the primary organizing principle around which the degree programs are structured. At other ELCA seminaries, efforts have been made and/or are in progress to expand the “public theology” focus, often at the expense of Biblical and confessional theological content. At one ELCA seminary a career in community organizing is one of the possible career pathways that the Master of Theological Studies (M. T. S.) degree leads to and prepares for.
Background
Community organizing methodology was developed by Saul Alinsky, a secular Jewish man, in the late 1930’s. Although Alinsky never identified as a socialist and/or a communist, he shared in common with them radical left (for his time) ideology, concern for the poor, and support for working-class communities and labor movements. Alinsky saw the need to fight for specific goals and used the principles and techniques of community organizing to achieve those goals.
Overview
Community organizing relies on two main things – strong relationships and shared values. Community organizers use these two things to change the minds of community members in order to get them to support a cause. In this way they build a coalition of supportive people. They then rally these people together and work together to press for change.
Community organizing begins with the following steps –
Gather together a small core team of people who are already committed to your cause. These are the people who will start the process of pushing for change.
Gather information about individual people as well as about the community. Build relationships with people. Learn about what they believe and why. Use what you learn to plan your approach. Identify key influencers and supporters who may be assets to your cause.
Tell stories which evoke sympathy and support for your cause.
Build common ground with your community (shared values and/or experiences).
Educate the community in order to bring its members to your side.
Once the initial prep work has been done, choose a course of action.
Either a conflict approach, where the people in power are seen as your enemy. If so, confront them and take them down.
Or a consensus approach, where the people in power are seen as people who can change their minds. If so, convince them to side with you.
Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit
The Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit from ReconcilingWorks builds upon, and relies upon, the community organizing method. Its approach assumes that there is already support from the leadership (clergy, church council, lay leaders, etc.) and that what needs to be done is to convince the rest of the community – enough to secure a 75% vote for RIC (Reconciling in Christ) status, as required by ReconcilingWorks.
As such, the proposed course of action is similar to the consensus approach. However, normally in community organizing the primary target is people in power (i. e. the clergy). However, in the BIT Toolkit, the primary target is the community at large (i. e. the congregation). The primary target’s minds need to be changed in order to accomplish the desired goal.
A Faith Community Assessment Survey is taken to evaluate the faith community’s current position(s). A link to the survey can be found here. Based upon the results, one of three timelines is suggested – Cautious, Moderatus, and Adventurous. The timetable ranges from six years to under one year. But no matter how long it may take, those working to bring about change are focused and relentless.
Whichever timeline is followed, the process is broken down into eleven steps, and there are six tools that are employed in order to work the process. These steps and tools are described in the Toolkit. Four of the six tools are Graceful Engagement, One-to-One Visits, Public Storytelling, and Scriptural Engagement.
Scriptural Engagement
It is interesting – and significant – that the sixth step – Providing Educational Opportunities – and the sixth tool – Scriptural Engagement – both come so late in the process. Typically, people who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture would begin by focusing on what the Bible says. But that is not what the BIC Toolkit does. Instead the primary means of building community support are finding shared values – such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and welcome – and then engaging in carefully crafted storytelling in order to evoke sympathy and support for the cause. “Scriptural Engagement” does not actively come into play until the steps that build support from the community have already been completed.
It should not surprise us that “Scriptural Engagement” does not come until late in the process. The Bible does not support what ReconcilingWorks is trying to accomplish. The Scripture passages that are included in the BIC Toolkit include Luke 10:29-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan), John 4: 4-26 (Jesus and the woman at the well), Matthew 22: 35-40 (the Greatest Commandment), Matthew 26: 51-52 (Peter’s cutting off the high priest’s servant’s ear), and Luke 23: 34 (one of the words of Jesus from the cross.) There is obviously no way that these passages support the LGBTQIA+ agenda. They do not even address LGBTQIA+ issues. No wonder support and agreement must be built in other ways rather than on the clear message of Scripture. Relying on the principle that feelings are often more important and more powerful than facts when it comes to convincing people to change their minds, the BIC Toolkit focuses on feelings-based approaches, such as storytelling, rather than on facts-based approaches, such as asking what the Bible says, in order to get people to come on board with the cause.
By the time the “Scriptural Engagement” tool comes into active use, the community’s minds and hearts have already been shaped into being LGBTQ+ affirming. Very little of Scripture is engaged with, and the purpose as well as the message of Scripture is distorted. The whole of Scripture’s message is reduced to three themes –
We are called to love God and love our neighbors.
It is not our place to judge.
Treat others as you would want to be treated.
Specific passages from Scripture which appear to support these themes are selectively chosen in an effort to demonstrate that these ideas form the fundamental message of Scripture.
Other themes of Scripture – such as sin and our need for God’s forgiveness, God’s command that we repent of our sins, our need to obey God, and the Bible’s instructions regarding holy living – are minimized or avoided entirely.
The prescribed approach to the so-called “clobber passages” (the passages that clearly speak against same-sex sexual behavior) is to avoid them, or else to minimally engage with them only as needed, until the three themes mentioned above are firmly established in the hearts and minds of the community as the primary message of Scripture. Only then are the “clobber passages” engaged with, under the assumption that, if indeed the primary message of Scripture is one of welcome and inclusion, and the “clobber passages” are neither welcoming nor inclusive of LGBTQ+ identified people who are engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, then either we have misunderstood these “clobber passages” or the “clobber passages” must be wrong in some way.
With so little engagement with Scripture, and with what little of Scripture is utilized being so badly misrepresented, people are left with an understanding that is far from biblically sound.
I will be completing this article in my February Letter from the Director. In that second part I will tell more about how the Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit uses the principles of community organizing to change people’s minds and get them on board with the cause. I will also offer several suggestions as to what those with a high view of the authority of Scripture need to do and can do in order to provide a viable, effective, and convincing alternative.
ELCA: Answer the Question!
written by Dennis Nelson | January 11, 2024
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.
Letter from the Director – August 2019
written by Dennis Nelson | January 11, 2024
PLEASE, LORD, BRING FIRE
For
me one of the most challenging parts of writing an article or a letter is
knowing where and how to start. I know
what I want to say. I know what I want
to include. But where and how do I
begin?
That
is the challenge I was facing with my August letter from the director, where I
wanted to write about and review two church gatherings that took place during
the same week – the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Milwaukee and the NALC Theology
Conference, Mission Festival, and Convocation in Indianapolis. I attended the NALC events. Many thanks to ELCA pastor Steve Gjerde, vice
president of our board, who attended the ELCA event and gave us on Facebook an
account of the proceedings as they occurred.
I
wanted to write about those two gatherings and I knew what I wanted to include,
but for several days I could not answer the question, “Where and how do I
begin?” But then, one week after both
events, during a telephone conversation with a pastor colleague, I was reminded
of the Gospel reading for August 18, the second Sunday after both assemblies –
Luke 12: 49-56. In that passage Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already
kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the
earth? No, I tell you, but rather
division!”
During
the days leading up to and even more so since the 2009 ELCA Churchwide
Assembly, we all have grieved over the relationships that have been strained
and even broken, the damage that has been done to congregations, and a church
body that is going off in the wrong direction. The division is even greater – the lines are
now even more sharply drawn – as the ELCA goes further and further away from a
traditional, orthodox understanding of the authority of the Bible, the mission
of the church, and moral values.
Four days after the close of the assembly, on August 14, the ELCA released a summary of actions that were taken by the assembly. A link to that summary can be found here. The opening sentence stated that the voting members made “a number of key decisions to further the mission and ministry of this church.” Those key decisions included naming patriarchy and sexism as sins; calling on the church to take action against gender-based violence, workplace discrimination, and economic inequality; pursuing racial diversity and inclusion; adopting memorials dealing with gun violence, engagement in the Holy Land, and gender identity; affirming the ELCA’s long-standing commitment to migrants and refugees; declaring the ELCA to be a sanctuary church body; committing the ELCA to support a campaign against rape and violence; and condemning white supremacy.
NO MENTION OF JESUS
Did
you notice that there is one thing missing in all these actions? There was no mention of Jesus. And there was only one mention of God, and
that one mention had to do with speaking “boldly about the equal dignity of all
persons in the eyes of God.” I did see
one other mention of God in one of the daily press releases during the
assembly, but that reference had only to do with using gender inclusive and
expansive language for God. With no
mention of Jesus, there is nothing in these actions regarding telling the world
about what Jesus has done (grace).
Instead they are all about what I need to do (works).
Now
some might say that that lack of reference to Jesus and that minimal mention of
God was only true of the summary of actions taken by the assembly. Certainly Jesus must have had a more
important place during the assembly.
You might be able to convince me of that possibility if it had not been for the action taken by the assembly to adopt “A Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment” as “church policy for inter-religious relations.” A link to that declaration can be found here. The Declaration said, “We must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding another religion.” It also stated, “Lutheran tradition has understood the word ‘faith’ to mean trust rather than affirming beliefs. Hence, we also must be careful not to judge our neighbors only on the basis of their religious beliefs. . . . All we know, and all we need to know, is that our neighbors are made in God’s image and that we are called to love and serve them.”
I
do not know how anyone could read the Bible and study church history and say
that “we must be careful about claiming to know God’s judgments regarding
another religion.” The prophet Elijah
spared no energy in warning Israel against the worship of Baal. Other Old Testament prophets joined with him
in clearly warning against worshipping the idols of the surrounding
peoples. The apostle Paul warned the
churches to whom he was writing about the other religions of the day. How could we say that the Bible says that we
cannot know God’s judgments regarding other religions? And besides, to argue that faith means trust
rather than affirming certain beliefs does not support the intent of this declaration
because my trust is only as good as the object of my trust. I am not showing love for and I am not
serving my neighbors (which the declaration calls upon me to do) if I do not
warn them that what and/or whom they are placing their trust in is not worthy
of their trust.
We
commend a voting member of the assembly for reminding the assembly that in the
words of Jesus in John 14: 6 we do have “a basis to know God’s views on
religions that do not require faith in Jesus Christ.” This voting member proposed an amendment to
the declaration both prior to and during the assembly. His motion to amend was overwhelmingly
defeated. The policy statement was
adopted with 97.48% voting in favor. How
can we view the fact that the discussion took place in the presence of
thirty-nine ecumenical and inter-religious guests on stage as anything other
than the ELCA’s manipulating and controlling the outcome?
IN SHARP CONTRAST
In
Luke 12 Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.” “I came to bring division.” Contrast the actions and priorities of the
ELCA Churchwide Assembly and its de-emphasis upon Jesus with the clear
statements from the Rev. Dr. Daniel Selbo, who was elected to be the new bishop
of the NALC (North American Lutheran Church).
In answer to the question, “What hopes do you have for the mission of
the NALC?” he wrote, “As a Christ Centered church body my hope is that we will
continue to grow in our relationship with Jesus as our Savior and Lord. I hope each member of the NALC will become
stronger in their own personal faith-walk with Christ. I hope our preaching and teaching will lift
up the name of Jesus. . . . My hope is that Christ will be seen in us because
we have fallen in love with Him and we have no greater purpose in life than to
live for Him. . . . Because ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,’
we must be tireless in our efforts to increase the number of people who come to
know Him as Lord.”
I AM DEEPLY DISTURBED AND
CONCERNED
I
am deeply disturbed by the actions taken, the resolutions approved, and the
memorials adopted by the 2019 ELCA Churchwide Assembly. I am even more concerned when I consider the
percentages of the votes.
The
“Declaration of Inter-religious Commitment,” which we discussed above, was
approved by a vote of over 97%. The
social statement, “Faith, Sexism, and Justice,” was approved by a vote of
97%. Elizabeth Eaton was re-elected on
the first ballot by a vote of over 81%.
She is the first ELCA presiding bishop to win re-election on the first
ballot. How could we expect her to view her
re-election as anything other than a clear mandate to continue leading the
church in the direction in which she has been leading it?
What
is the significance of all of these nearly unanimous or high percentage votes? (Every photo I saw of voting members’ voting
by ballot showed everyone holding up their green cards.) I can think of several probable outcomes from
the ELCA’s leadership and chief decision-making body becoming almost completely
of one mind.
An increasingly intolerant attitude towards and eventual suppression of any dissenting position. They are well on their way to eliminating anything other than the preferred view. If they are already at 97%, and there were about nine hundred voting members, they only have to eliminate twenty-seven people in order to be at 100%. Why would they even bother to pretend to honor bound conscience and listen to and give a place for traditional views if the prevalence of revisionist views is so strong? Even though the ELCA leadership and makeup of the churchwide assemblies will be increasingly out of synch with the majority of congregation members sitting in the pews and supporting the work of the church, those in power will fully be able to implement their agenda and priorities.
An even stronger trend to promote only the official ELCA values and views at the ELCA seminaries. While we are very thankful for every orthodox ELCA pastor serving in an ELCA congregation and as Lutheran CORE want to do everything we can to support them, it is only a matter of time until every ELCA rostered leader will have attended and graduated from seminary post 2009. Orthodox churches who are blessed to have an orthodox pastor and who believe that all of this cannot and will not affect them are in for a rude awakening.
An even easier path for positions that a few years ago would have been unthinkable to become acceptable, mainstream, and even preferred. For example, there is 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. With the churchwide assembly being so strongly of one mind, what is to prevent an even further erosion of Biblical views and values from taking place?
TRUSTWORTHY SERVANTS
In the July 2019 issue of CORE Voice we wrote about the document, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God,” which was written in order to express what the ELCA expects of its rostered leaders. A link to that article can be found here. As we mentioned, the document was recommended to the ELCA Church Council by the ELCA Conference of Bishops. But after hearing from many who objected to it, the ELCA Church Council declined to consider it and instead referred it back to the Domestic Mission Unit, who had originally written it, for review and revision. In our opinion it was rejected because it was just too traditional and conservative. We believe that the review and rewriting process will continue until it is exactly what the LGBTQIA+ agenda and community want it to be.
There was a very interesting email that was sent out
to some ELCA rostered leaders on August 3, in which Pastor Phil Hirsch,
executive director of the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit, asked for input. He said that the review and rewriting
committee wanted to hear from “various communities,” including “the
confessionally conservative” and “those from all four convictions identified in
the social statement ‘Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.’”
On the one hand, we are encouraged by the possibility
that an ELCA task force might actually want to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and those who hold to more traditional views. But then we wonder whether traditional views
will actually be taken seriously and whether this is only a way so that they
will be able to say, “We heard from all sides.”
We are reminded of how strongly some people objected even to Lutheran
CORE’s presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly. Some people said that even our presence made
them feel unsafe, to say nothing about the willingness on the part of the
leadership of the assembly to announce our evening hospitality gathering twice. One person asked, “Who will they allow to be
here next? The Taliban?”
If even our presence at the 2016 Churchwide Assembly
was so strongly objected to, how much more of an outcry will there be against
the review and rewriting committee’s wanting to hear from “the confessionally
conservative” and from those who hold to positions one and two as identified in
the human sexuality social statement?
And will it be even easier for the objecting voices to prevail given
that the votes at the 2019 Churchwide Assembly were so close to being unanimous?
Still, if you have received one of those emails from
the Domestic Mission Unit, asking for your input, we urge you to respond.
IS
THERE ANY HOPE?
Many
times I have been asked by people, “Is there any hope that the ELCA will turn
around?” I always tell them, “It would
take a major intervention on the part of God.
It would take a powerful working of the Holy Spirit.” Jesus said, “I came to bring fire to the
earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! . . . . Do you think that I have
come to bring peace to the earth? No, I
tell you, but rather division!”
We
pray for a sending of the power and fire of the Holy Spirit, to convict us of
error and to bring us back to Biblical truth.
We pray that we will not be comfortable and at peace until the church
returns to recognizing Jesus rather than a social activist agenda as its
Lord. We pray that the church will be
united under the authority of God’s Word, which is living and active, sharper
than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4: 12), and able to pierce and divide truth
from error, true worship from idolatry, true values from misplaced
priorities.
Jesus
said, “I came to bring fire to the earth.”
Jesus, we need Your fire. We need
Your fire to reform, renew, reorient, and redirect Your church. Please, Lord, bring Your fire. How we wish it were already kindled!
