Here’s a true story, related to me by someone who witnessed it.  A small church, considering departure from the ELCA, solicited questions from the congregation.  One question surprised people, but it was, apparently, asked in earnest: If we leave the ELCA, will we go back to being a church that bans people of color?

Wait—what?  “Go back”?  “Ban”?  Some questions require their own hour to answer.  Did the questioner believe that her congregation had once banned persons of color?  Why?  Also, had the questioner never heard that the ELCA is “the whitest denomination in America,” as one of its own pastors has called it (not that other Lutherans are far behind)?  What string of pastors had neglected to teach, not only Lutheran failures in racial reconciliation, but also the Lutheran church’s rich contribution to civil rights, refugee resettlement, and the fair treatment of all people in congregation, school, and institutions of care? 

I don’t know how the congregation’s leaders ultimately addressed that question, but it proves that the question of race is on people’s mind.  Lutherans want to know where it resides in their faith and church’s life.

You know this.  You can’t breathe in America and not know it.  It has dominated the news, and one particular development has especially captured recent attention: critical race theory (CRT).  In general, conservatives have balked at CRT, criticizing instances of “CRT training” that seem to demean and unfairly condemn people of European descent.  States have begun passing resolutions banning its use in government and public education.

That criticism has echoed in the church’s halls as confessing Lutherans of various stripes point out where CRT differs from the Gospel’s more liberating message of “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).  Yet a question lingers: if not CRT, then what?

How shall denominations, congregations, and believers critique the biases that linger within their own hearts and minds?  Are there aspects of Lutheran church culture that have made it one of the whitest denominations in America, and how might the Gospel overcome that culture?

Real Forgiveness for Real Sins

I don’t pretend to have hard and fast answers.  But as I’ve reflected on the question—and if you haven’t reflected on the question, it’s time to start, for the sake of the church you love—a few thoughts have struck me as worth sharing.  You probably already know them, but it doesn’t hurt to see them in print.  As St. Paul told the Philippians: repetition doesn’t hurt the author, and it’s good for everyone else (Philippians 3:1). 

It would all seem to start with real forgiveness for real sins.  It’s one thing to say, “We don’t rely on CRT; we preach the Gospel” (and that statement is fair and true enough), but it’s another thing so to preach that Gospel that it forgives a real sin brought to light.  Where have you, your congregation, and your denomination been blind to persons of color?  How have you or your church harmed them or rebuffed them, even if unintentionally? 

These questions are safe for you to ask (that is, they may hurt, but they are ultimately secure and good), because you know the One in whose presence you ask them: Jesus, who has carried the sins of the world.  You may let them have their way with you, critiquing, judging, and enlightening you, because you know that the more real the sin is, the more real the forgiveness that comes in Jesus’ name.  So let the sins take shape, in even startling contour, and then let the grace of Christ clothe them in a brilliant mercy that overcomes them.

The church has its own language for this kind of preaching, distinct from the vocabulary of secular justice warriors.  The Bible may not speak of racism and inequality or inequity, but it does speak of old-fashioned, rotten things like enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, pride, divisions, envy, greed, and the like.  How do these works of the flesh, unearthed for us by the Spirit, illumine our problems with race, and what is Christ’s forgiving word for them? 

Preach it, and expect that preaching to change things, including you.

“You Do Not Have Because You Do Not Ask”

St. James has his moments. The second verse of his fourth chapter might be one of the better ones: have you tried asking?  Once God has spoken to us in our sin, we speak to Him by His generous grace. Only by His Word do we have words to speak, and when His Word calls out our sins and tells us, “These sins are forgiven; there is a limit to their power; you need not live under their bondage,” then we know what to ask.  Ask Him for what He desires; ask Him for the sin to be overcome and healed; ask for your soul, your congregation, and your church to welcome the people of every nation.

There’s really not too much more to say about this call to prayer, I don’t think, except do it.  Pray daily for the Gospel that we preach and the doctrine we confess to be the means by which the Lord draws all nations to Himself.  Maybe you pray from a place where God’s answer to that prayer won’t change how your congregation or life looks very much—congregations reflect their neighborhoods, after all, and so not every congregation has to be a microcosm of “The Church,” somehow ideally diverse, and thinking that it does actually denies the catholic nature of Christ’s body—but you’re not praying for only parochial concerns.  You’re praying for the whole Church, and for the Fisherman’s net to be cast across the world.

Pray, and say the amen in the confidence of God’s faithfulness. 

The Grass Isn’t Always Greener

This last suggestion (I know: there are lots more things to be said; what we have here is just a smattering) runs afoul of certain strands of church critique.  I call it (fairly, I think) the anti-institutional critique, which insists that buildings and polity and such things are irrelevant to faithfulness in mission, if not harmful to it.  To be sure, the faithfulness of a church is never measured by its stuff.  But stuff is no more irrelevant to the conduct of the ministry than our bodies are. 

What checks the sins of enmity, pride, greed, and rivalry more than for those with the most to take a weekly pilgrimage to gather with those who have the least?

God will raise our bodies, and so He calls us to steward this flesh in a certain way.  So also will He liberate creation from its bondage to decay, and so we steward creation in a certain way.  In particular, the Lutheran church should probably start paying more attention to where it lays its foundations, as in, its literal foundations. 

The church has always needed buildings for its mission.  The fact that the church first met in homes wasn’t a rejection of public buildings as much as it was the commandeering of private buildings for public use.  Throughout the church’s history, wherever missionaries spread the Gospel, they quickly built a shelter for its public proclamation, and they chose the placement of those shelters wisely.  It was an incarnational move, seeking to proclaim by the place wherein the Body gathers who and what the Body is. 

How our churches continue this ethic today may be key to understanding our problem with race.  That is, looking at our buildings and where we put them may be one way both to identify our real racial sin and to welcome God’s gracious balm for it.  For how we build has everything to do with how we use our money and why, and those economics may be the deeper root of Lutheran racial woes.

A case in point (another true story, and one repeated other places): a church in a mid-sized city had a beautiful neo-Gothic church in a busy, even crowded downtown.  Because that downtown had grown so busy, and so few of the people at the church lived there any longer, they decided to sell that building in favor of building a new house of worship far on the city’s margins, surrounded by a lush, green campus—it’s fair to say, not too different from a country club.  I knew this church a few years ago and just recently drove through its city.  I decided to check on it, and what did I find?

I found the downtown church, still a bit crumbly but nevertheless standing and beautiful,  purchased by another congregation with a more evangelical thrust and looking very well visited by a variety of people. As for the new Lutheran church—well, I almost didn’t find it.  Surrounded by beautiful green trees and a busy, suburban commercial center, it was easy to miss.  It would take effort, in fact, to find.  It would also require a car to attend, and it would take some personal courage, I imagine, to drive up to such a very nice church with anything less than a very nice car.

• 

• 

• 

---

So in the city where this church stands, where white people comprise the Very Nice Car classes and blacks and Latinos fill cheaper housing downtown near the bus lines, which of these churches will have a better start to overcoming racial barriers?  In order to overcome such barriers, the church must be present as its Lord is present—and how present is a church hidden behind well-manicured trees?

I’m not saying, “Build it, and they will come.”  We’ve seen that approach fail so many times.  There’s no gimmick here, and the soul-work of preaching and prayer is more than everything else.  I’m also not suggesting that persons of color are always poor or whites always rich.  But I am saying, as many others have said, that racial divisions may find their deeper roots in class divisions, and the Lutheran church’s recent architectural history may illustrate the truth of it (as does the fact that that our churches appear to lack poor and working class whites as much as they lack persons of color!).  The church must be present to those whom it seeks.  It must bring the font and Bible and altar to them, clothed in their own neighborhood. 

Taking up that calling will mean that those already in the church may have to dedicate their resources and wealth for local ministries and houses of worship either not in service of themselves or at a distance from their own homes, requiring them who are more equipped to travel to do so.  Why not?  What checks the sins of enmity, pride, greed, and rivalry more than for those with the most to take up a weekly pilgrimage to gather with those who have the least?  Wouldn’t such a pilgrimage confess, “These sins are forgiven, and therefore, they no longer set the limits and conduct of our devotion”?

Yes, I know that persons of color are guilty of their own sins of enmity, pride, greed, and the like.  I also know that they aren’t the ones most likely reading this article, and I know it because most of you are Lutherans, and Lutherans are one of the whitest Christian traditions in America.  It needs some new and more Biblical attention.  CRT is not the way, and so what is?  Preaching, praying, and showing up to be present, all of it concrete and real and down-to-earth, seems to be the way I know, the way that I’ve been given to confess.  What are some other parts of that way?  I imagine you know, or that God will show it to you if you ask.

Earlier this year, I noticed that ELCA Advocacy had given the Equality Act its full and unqualified endorsement.   It also encouraged members of the ELCA to write their Senators, calling upon them to support the legislation.  In doing so, the ELCA made reference to the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (HSGT). 

I wrote to Presiding Bishop Eaton, saying:

The ELCA has declared its support of the Equality Act.  It is also urging its members to write to their Senators in support of the Equality Act. What I am wondering is whether the ELCA has given any thought to how the Equality Act will affect those congregations who choose not to call partnered homosexual pastors, or who choose not to perform same-sex weddings.  

As you know, there is debate about whether the act will remove religious freedom protections from congregations and pastors.  Has the ELCA considered this question?  Is the ELCA prepared to defend the right of its congregations and pastors to act in accordance with their “bound consciences” as was promised in 2009

The response came not from Presiding Bishop Eaton, but from Rev. Amy Reumann, Senior Director, Witnessing in Society, ELCA.  She assured me that the ELCA is aware of the “implications with respect to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”  She further stated that the ELCA is “reviewing that language in consultation with a number of our full communion partners and ELCA legal staff.”  Finally, she said that the ELCA hopes “to work with these Senate offices in discerning legislative language that achieves a bi-partisan and fair bill for protecting equal rights and religious integrity.”

I was very pleased to hear this and I had only two requests.  I asked if the ELCA would be willing to reiterate what Rev. Reumann told me in a public statement to ELCA congregations and whether I could share her reply.  She said yes to the latter.  In regard to the former, she asked what kind of public message would be helpful in my context.

It is at this point that our conversation began to go awry.  I gave her a fairly detailed response, clearly stating what I would like the ELCA to reaffirm.  Essentially, I asked that the ELCA publicly restate that choosing not to call a partnered homosexual and not to perform same sex weddings, and teaching in accord with positions 1, 2, or 3 of HSGT are still permitted and encouraged by this church.  Secondly, I asked that the ELCA publicly state its opposition to any language in the Equality Act that would or might punish ELCA congregations for these approved practices.

From that point forward, I received several replies reiterating ELCA policy, along with historical documents that detailed the Ministry Policy Resolutions adopted in 2009.  However, the question about whether the ELCA would publicly reiterate its commitment to those documents and to religious freedom protections for its congregations was not answered.  Finally, after a full week and another e-mail to Presiding Bishop Eaton, I received an e-mail telling me that my concerns would be addressed in ELCA Advocacy materials that would come out in April.

In April, ELCA Advocacy did in fact include the following words in its message:

Some U.S Senators support the intent of the Equality Act but have broader concerns about religious exemptions. There may be amendments proposed responding to these concerns.

As in the Senate, in the ELCA there is a diversity of beliefs and debates about possible impacts of this legislation on religious exemptions.

In an April 13 “guest blog” on ELCA Advocacy Blog, ELCA General Counsel, Thomas Cunniff, wrote:

We urge the adoption of legislation that ensures the full rights of LGBTQ+ persons without infringing on religious liberty or permitting improper government interference in the ecclesiastical activities of religious organizations. Blanket exemptions for anyone claiming a religious motive are too broad and would eviscerate necessary civil rights protections for historically marginalized groups. Not providing space in which dissenting religious groups can practice their beliefs free from government interference, however, would gravely damage freedom of conscience. Moreover, fully exempting statutes from RFRA sets a dangerous precedent of permitting the government to forcibly impose the views of the majority on minority religions, a precedent which could easily be weaponized by a future Congress and President. For these reasons, the ELCA is committed to continue working with others, including full communion partners, to find a solution that fully protects the civil rights of our LGBTQ+ siblings while at the same time protecting the free exercise and conscience rights of religious objectors.

That was not the last word on the matter, however.  On April 16, ELCA Advocacy sent an Action Alert with the following apology:

Issuance of the Action Alert related to the Equality Act on April 13 elicited strong reaction communicated through social media and other channels. Anger, deception, confusion, and contribution to a deepening of harm already part of the lives of many LGBTQIA+ members and other siblings surfaced, along with questioning advocacy process and accountability in the ELCA. For presenting a lack of care on these deep-felt issues, we apologize.  [alert]

It further stated that:

The blog post, “Equal Rights and Religious Freedom,” remains public on our ELCA advocacy blog not for prescriptive purposes but as background on “a false choice between equal rights and religious freedom.” Anticipated is a guest blog post that will provide further perspectives.

This seems to indicate that Mr. Cunniff’s blog post does not express the opinion of the ELCA and in no way indicates how the ELCA will proceed in relation to the Equality Act.  So we are left with a deeply ambiguous and equivocal statement of ELCA policy regarding “bound conscience” and religious freedom.  

Sadly, this leaves us where we began.  Any congregation with a commitment to traditional views on marriage and ordination is left uncertain about the future.

Not too far from our home – in the Sonoran Desert outside Phoenix – is the Southwest Wildlife Conservation Center.  This wonderful facility cares for many desert animals that have been injured or orphaned.  The goal is always to be able to return them to the wild.  But that is not always possible, so for some animals this place becomes their permanent home.  Some animals are brought there by people who naively thought that a mountain lion cub would make a great pet.  But mountain lion cubs always grow up, and people come to realize that something they thought would be safe has become a threat.

I thought of people who mistakenly believe that they could tame a mountain lion cub when I read the April 16 letter from ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton addressing racial justice.  A link to her letter can be found here.  In her call for reform to “any institutionally racist system” she essentially endorses Black Lives Matter.  She encourages people to join Campaign Zero, which she describes as “a 10-point policy platform created by the #BlackLivesMatter movement to address and improve relationships between local law enforcement and the communities in which they serve.”  She also urges people to learn more about ELCA resources at elca.org/blacklivesmatter. 

I was relieved to read on the ELCA website that “the ELCA churchwide organization does not provide financial support to this chapter-based organization.”  I have been deeply disturbed to read about some other organizations and businesses that do contribute financially to Black Lives Matter.  It also seemed very reasonable to read on the ELCA website, “This movement does not seek to elevate Black lives above others.  Rather, the movement seeks to help people recognize that Black lives matter no less than other lives.”

The ELCA website is correct when it says, “Scripture tells us that each person is created in the image of God. . . . All of us have integrity and value.”  There is absolutely no question.  Racism does exist, and racism is wrong.  The First Readings for Easter Sunday and May 9 have both come from the account in Acts 10 when God clearly directed Peter to go to the house of Cornelius.  In the First Reading for Easter Peter said, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.” (verse 34) In the First Reading for May 9 “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” (verse 45) Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (verse 47) If God has included them, how could we exclude them?

But for at least three reasons the ELCA’s endorsing and embracing the Black Lives Matter movement reminds me of people who think that a mountain lion cub would be safe.

First, the page on the ELCA website does not address the fact that at least two of the three original founders of Black Lives Matter are self-avowed, trained Marxist organizers.  Marxism has led to political systems that have enslaved people and that have been severely hostile to the Christian faith.

Second, while the full embrace of the LGBTQIA+ agenda is very strong within the ELCA, I am not aware of any official action taken by the ELCA to affirm that full agenda.  A document recently approved by the ELCA Church Council, “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline,” includes the sentence, “This church’s understanding of human sexuality is stated in its authorized social teachings.” (page 8) The most recent of these social teachings is the social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” which was approved by the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  Actions taken by that assembly provided for the blessing of and ordination of persons in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  They did not embrace the full LGBTQIA+ agenda.  In contrast, Black Lives Matter has said, “We foster a queer-affirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”  It is interesting that the page that contains that wording from Black Lives Matter appears to no longer exist.

Third, what Black Lives Matter used to call its “Full Manifesto” also is on a page that appears to no longer exist.  One of the most disturbing sentences in the “Full Manifesto” reads as follows – “We disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children.”  Every orthodox Christian parent should be horrified over a statement like that, which advocates for the state’s taking over the raising of children.  Every Christian parent needs to do everything they can to keep from losing the ability to influence the faith formation of their children.  To me it is interesting – and I believe significant – that some of the statements from Black Lives Matter that have caused the greatest alarm are on website pages that appear to no longer exist.  If you can find them, please let me know.  Has the Black Lives Matter movement modified and/or softened its position?  I doubt it.  I believe they are just downplaying it.  They want people like the ELCA to believe that there is nothing to fear.  What Black Lives Matter advocates for, every reasonable person should be in favor of.  Mountain lion cubs will stay mountain lion cubs

The ELCA has long bragged in its news releases by a tag line reporting how significant it is because of its size. One could cite this as another example of a Theology of Glory, but then ‘God’s Work Our Hands’ sounds rather ostentatious too (not to mention synergistic).

Anyhow, the current tag line reads:
“The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with nearly 3.3 million members in more than 8,900 worshiping communities across the 50 states and in the Caribbean region. Known as the church of “God’s work. Our hands,” the ELCA emphasizes the saving grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unity among Christians and service in the world. The ELCA’s roots are in the writings of the German church reformer Martin Luther.”

Compare this to the tagline in the oldest press release I saved, from August 2016:
“The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with more than 3.7 million members in more than 9,300 congregations across the 50 states and in the Caribbean region. Known as the church of “God’s work. Our hands,” the ELCA emphasizes the saving grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unity among Christians and service in the world. The ELCA’s roots are in the writings of the German church reformer, Martin Luther.”

Since 2021 statistics are not available yet, that means that the ELCA admits to the loss of more than 400,000 members in the four-year period from 2016 through 2020, meaning a hemorrhage of around 80,000 souls per year. The drop of roughly 400 congregations would come out to an average of about 80 per year. And these are “net” figures, after any growth in either category.

As Dr. Phil might ask, “How is all this inclusiveness working for you?”

 

Editor’s Note: The Rev. Dr. Steven K. Gjerde is a former VP of Lutheran CORE.

“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”  So says our Lord Jesus Christ, and who knows spirit and flesh better than He does?   Through Him and for Him all things were made, and in these last days He has become all that He made us to be: flesh, soul, and spirit, and heart and mind, too — even now He lives and rules in our flesh, His Spirit testifying with ours that we are children of God.  So when this Lord and God says, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” we stop to listen.

 His Special Concern

If the flesh is weak, then our flesh is the object of Christ’s special concern.   “It is not the healthy who seek a doctor,” He reminds us, “it is the sick,” and even so our Good Physician came for the sinful and not the righteous.  Our flesh rests in the perpetual care of Dr. Jesus.   Ages ago He fitted Himself to our embodied life, matching His Word to our speech by means of a mouth and our disease to His health by the touch of His hand.  That same, gracious work continues today as He fits His salvation to our dying flesh, making His grace speakable and edible, hearable and felt.  “Gospel is touch,” a friend of mine likes to say, making even the least gnostic of us a bit uncomfortable and exposing just exactly why quarantines hurt.

But if our flesh rests in the care of Christ, then so do other things that pertain to the flesh, such as the whole tactile life of the church, with all of its dreaded institution, nearly a byword among the diaspora.  Like it or not, you cannot escape it.  Sure, you can have the Holy Supper in the open air, but you’ll still be standing on ground, ground that can be taxed or untaxed, mowed or unmowed, shoveled or drifted, beautiful or ugly; someone will have to agree to buy the stuff (and you know how it works: once people have skin in the game, it gets serious); and finally, you’ll have to arrange it at a time and a place where all of us little hobbits and earthlings can make our way without too much trouble.   You get the point: if you want Christ, then sooner or later you’ll want that dreaded institution, too, in one form or another, because with Christ the Virgin’s son comes all of human flesh, His special concern, the thing He loves to raise from the dead, and with human flesh comes all of the creation made for it. 

With the Church come buildings that shelter and fellowships that organize and papers that say things in ink to make it all clear and bank accounts, because soon you’ll have real people with real bodies and individual minds and arthritis and hormones and a longing for beauty and health, and most of all, backpacks full of sin and history and grief.  Associations and coalitions follow hot upon their (our) heels, and some of those organizations will become big enough or deluded enough to start calling themselves The Church, this Church, or herchurch, and the pious will start wondering if it’s all just the anti-Church, and maybe life as a spirit would be better?  Some say the angels are bodiless spirits, and they don’t seem to complain (at least not the ones who kept their club privileges).  But no, it’s not better.  There’s a reason why the angels envy you, and the devils hate you, and it’s not your spirit —

–and all this I say by way of introduction as to why my congregation and I stayed in the ELCA, and why we have now left it.

On Being Dust, Soil, and Free

“Why are you still ELCA?”  I think I got Christmas cards with those words embossed in gold.  On the one hand, the only possible answer is that I am a sinner, a rotten sinner lousy with sin, who did it all wrong; and on the other hand the answer is that I’m a saint with the courage of King David (the Early Years).  But really, it’s not even about me, it’s about Jesus and His special concern for the flesh. 

He gave me a call, voted, inked, and delivered, and those votes and ink (that earthiness!) make it no less but all the more the call of God.  I served and still serve a real people with a real zip code, different from yours, and therefore with different longings and gifts and histories and griefs.  Diversity isn’t our strength (saith the Lord), but it is a thing, a flesh thing, and if you’re a pastor who is also a believer, then you’re a priest in the best sense of the word, and pretty soon that diversity of your people is part of you like a country’s soil is part of its wine and cheese.  Within the very real diversity of the church, far transcending the fiefdoms of identity politics, the Lord fits His time to different calendars and lengths of patience.  “The Lord is coming soon!” — it’s true.  But just as soon as a man’s ready to fit that clarion call to his own schedule and jump in the car, he remembers he’s married, and there’s a five year old who has to pee, and the man must wait.  Along with the Church in every time and place, he discovers, after all, that he is but dust.

 I’m not getting into specifics, is the point.  The specifics would only bore you and tempt you to sit in the seat of scoffers, which is very bad.  But you get the drift: there were reasons good enough that they don’t need defending anymore, because it’s all done with, anyway.  We simply pursued our Lord’s path of fitting grace to the flesh, with its drooping hands and weak knees.  We looked on our institution as a gift, not a burden—I mean, what else is it, unless you’re a Manichean? — and by pursuing that God-given mission, we pressed ourselves more and more deeply into the local soil and the call of the neighbors and the catholic stink of evangelical ministry, until pretty soon we became something the ELCA simply didn’t want anymore (“inclusive”), and we said, “Ah!  There it is.  Well, okay, then.”

The Transfigured Flesh Part

You’d have done and said it differently if you’re from Georgia or Albuquerque, but you’d have done it somehow — I know you would have, because you’re all brothers and sisters, believers and sinners and courageous saints.  But here’s the last part, and one of the best parts, the transfigured flesh part: when I first stayed ELCA, it was just my single congregation and me.  We spoke our objections loudly, got picky about the pocketbook, and fenced the altar—and still it was just my congregation and me.  But as the Lord squeezed His time into our time and thus turned our time into His time, and as He led us down deeper into the flesh and the soil over the objections of so many, He changed all that. 

He turned this congregation into this congregation plus another one to serve and love, and a third one who wants to know more; and He turned me into me and another pastor, and then an intern who’s now a pastor, and still another pastor, three good brothers in the ministry who joined me at this address and walked its path, the path right into the ELCA and now out of it, even though they weren’t originally on that path, and they’re pure gold; and He turned all of us into us with all of you, Lutheran CORE and the NALC and the LCMC, and Missouri Synod folk, too, you who are a consolation and strength in all of this.  A seed fell to the earth, died a thousand deaths, and bore a thousand-fold harvest.      

So now we’re LCMC, and probably will be other things, too, and that usually makes lots of folks happy except when they feel we didn’t do it fast enough — but land’s sake, people: the kid had to pee, the car needed fuel, she forgot the casserole.  There were reasons.  Cut us some slack, take our coats, and put on the kettle.  You’re Lutherans.  You know how to be gracious with the flesh, and how to be people of skin and bones, with all the history and grief and institution that comes with it, because you know, as so many other Christians do not know, just what it is for the spirit to be willing, and the flesh weak.  It means showing greater honor and more consideration to the weaker member, because that weaker member is Christ, crucified for the sins of the world.

Where Love Is Known

The flesh is where love makes itself known, see, and that’s why the devil hates our flesh: Christ has shown it such great honor by becoming it and redeeming it.  And that’s why everything, absolutely everything that we face these days, is all about the flesh.  Not only church but also the culture wars and politics, with Trump and Biden and all the rage and spite — it’s all about the flesh, in the end, a heavenly conflict stoked by the bitter disappointment of the devil, that angry, ravenous wisp, howling for the flesh that he is not, frantic to devour it all so that it will no longer be, and (he hopes) the hobbits and earthlings won’t even be bones anymore but pure smoke, having cast themselves into the flames, confusing smoke with spirit.    

Against all that, we devour the flesh of Christ, which only increases the more it’s eaten.  Yes, that’s how it goes: wherever the Supper is, there you find the Words of Institution; and where the Words of Institution, other institution follows, all the flesh and land and shelter and ink that a Supper demands, and through this weakened flesh the willing Spirit has His way, and He knits together the growing body.  For who knows our flesh and spirit better than He who became our flesh and breathes the Spirit?  He makes us bold to bear that weakened flesh, that beloved body, the body that He has so lovingly destined for glory, no matter the times it may bring.

The apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.” (Galatians 6: 7)  From my viewpoint, the ELCA is reaping what it from its inception has been sowing.

Lenny Duncan is an ELCA pastor who describes himself as “the unlikeliest of pastors.”  He is author of the book, Dear Church: A Love Letter from a Black Preacher to the Whitest Denomination in the United States.  We should not be surprised that he quickly became a celebrity within the ELCA – a sought after speaker in congregations and educational institutions.  He sounds exactly like someone to whom the ELCA would give the greatest amount of publicity and visibility. 

There is only one problem.  He has turned on the ELCA and has done so viciously.  Check out his website – https://lennyduncan.substack.com.  There you will find parts one through five of his articles, “Why the ELCA needs to start a reparations process,” which he subtitles, “Why you should defund your denomination.”

What is his plan?  What I really should ask is, What is his demand?  He is demanding that the ELCA set aside $32 million over the next three years to create a reparations fund to right the wrongs of centuries of racial injustice here in the United States.  And if the ELCA does not set aside $32 million over the next three years, then he is challenging people to “defund churchwide” and redirect $32 million in contributions away from the ELCA into his reparations fund.  What is amazing to me is not only the audacity of the way in which he demands that the ELCA make his top priority into their top priority, but also the vicious way in which he speaks of the leadership of the ELCA – a group that gave him support, visibility, and every opportunity to make maximum impact.

But as I think about, I realize that his words and behavior should not be surprising.  I would like to distinguish between the more moderate, pro-organization revisionists, and the more extreme, burn-and-tear-the-organization-down revisionists.

The more moderate, pro-organization revisionists are the ones currently in power in the ELCA.  They have three top priorities – their relentless agendas, their own power, and the preservation of the churchwide organization.  For them it seems that anything goes – you can believe and advocate for anything you want – even the rejection of basic, Biblical moral values and the foundational tenants of the historic Christian faith – as long as you are loyal to the organization.  For them preservation of the organization is paramount.

The problem is that they are now running into – or maybe I should say that they are being run into by – what they have been enabling and empowering – extreme revisionists who feel no loyalty to and do not value the organization.  Rather these extreme revisionists would be just as happy to burn or tear the organization down.  As it is happening in our nation, so it is happening in the ELCA.

Here is another example.  In 2019 the ELCA Conference of Bishops recommended to the Church Council a document entitled, “Trustworthy Servants of the People of God” as a basic statement of the ELCA’s expectations for rostered leaders.  Extremists, who do not want pastors and other rostered leaders to have to be married (by any definition) in order to be sexually active, objected so strongly that the ELCA Church Council declined to consider the document and instead sent it back to the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit to come up with a new document that would not be so hurtful and harmful for people who had been deeply wounded by former ELCA statements that held to traditional Biblical standards for behavior and relationships.  The latest I have heard is that the ELCA’s Domestic Mission Unit has not yet come up with a new document because it wants to give the ELCA a “breathing space.”  Here also the extreme revisionists have been enabled and empowered.  You can be sure that they will not rest until the document that is approved by the ELCA Church Council is one that reflects the most extreme, revisionist view of human sexual relationships and identities.  

And what about the ELCA’s refusal to stand up to the “We Are Naked and Unashamed” movement, which arose out of one of the ELCA seminaries and which rejects marriage by any definition as normative for sexual activity?  Or what about the people who are chosen to be keynote speakers for the ELCA’s triennial youth gatherings?  The last time – in 2018 – one of the keynote speakers – another pastor whom the ELCA has chosen to make into one of its greatest celebrities – led 31,000 young people in rejecting traditional Biblical standards for morality as a lie.  What will the ELCA do as it continues to experience the effects of what it has been enabling and empowering?  How will the ELCA respond as it continues to reap what it has been sowing?   

The Great Commission Society of the North American Lutheran Church is to be commended for the three-day, online missions conference which they held in early November under the theme, “Unveiled: Shining Light in the Darkness.”   The comment was made at the beginning of the event that the only person that the conference organizers wanted to lift up is Jesus – not the structures of the church, not our own resourcefulness or efforts, but Jesus.  I need a faith that focuses on Jesus.  That is the kind of faith that I found nourished and sustained at the Unveiled Conference from the NALC’s Great Commission Society.  I also give thanks for the gift of today’s technology, which made it possible for us to be blessed by such an event, even during the time of a pandemic. 

Later in the day of the third session of the “Unveiled” conference I watched a webinar with Dr Thom Rainer of Church Answers.  You can learn more about his ministry at https://churchanswers.com.  His webinar was entitled, “Preparing for Revitalization in a Post-COVID World.”  One of the points that he made that I thought was most insightful was his comment about how much COVID has accelerated change.  Whatever dynamics and trends a congregation was experiencing prior to COVID have been accelerated by about four years.  If a congregation was in decline, its decline has been accelerated by four years.  But he also gave hope.  He gave strategies for revitalization, and he is working to train coaches who will work with congregations in the process of revitalization.

Both of those webinars were life and hope giving.  But what do I receive from the ELCA?  A word that tells me that I need to repent of systemic racism and white supremacy. 

The law is not life and hope giving.  The law rightly applied shows me my sins and drives me to Christ.  But the law wrongly applied only crushes, demoralizes, and discourages.  If the main message the ELCA has to give is all of the ways in which I need to repent because I have acted contrary to all of their chosen priorities, then how can I ever expect that the ELCA knows how to renew congregations and help them recover from COVID? 

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.