THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE

The ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) was formed in response to action taken by the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly. The assembly directed the Church Council “to establish a Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” which would be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” and would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”  

As I wrote in my February 2024 Letter from the Director (LINK), the phrase “dismantle racism” is very significant. It reflects the position that racism is not just something that some people think and do. Rather imbedded into the very nature of our society are structures that privilege and empower certain races (white people) and disempower, victimize, and marginalize all other races (BIPOC people). The ELCA is therefore saying that it is not enough to just be non-racist – to not use racist language. We must be anti-racist. We must break down the structures that empower some and dis-empower everyone else. As I also wrote in the February 2024 letter, the report of the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee during the Commission’s November 30-December 2 meeting took the concept even further. According to that committee, it is important that all of the work of the Commission “is completed through an intersectional lens of dismantling racism.” Those also are very significant words. According to the concept of intersectionality, the various systems that privilege and empower some and victimize and disempower everyone else are so intertwined and interconnected that all of these systems need to be dismantled, whether they be white supremacy, male dominance, agism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, heteronormativity, or whatever.

Because of all that is involved with the concepts of dismantling racism and intersectionality, I was alarmed when I listened to a video on the Commission’s Facebook page from the two co-chairpersons, Carla Christopher and Leon Schwartz. A link to that Facebook page can be found HERE.  In that video Pastor Christopher said, “The language of the memorial and the commitment from each of the members of the CRLC also named dismantling oppression and ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” 

Concerned enough about the full and actual meaning of “dismantling racism,” and then being even more concerned by her changing the language from “dismantling racism” to “dismantling oppression,” I wrote to her. Among my questions were the following –

·      What is the difference between dismantling racism and dismantling oppression?

·      Is the focus of the Commission going to be on “dismantling racism” (which I would interpret as more narrowly defined) or “dismantling oppression” (which I would interpret as more broadly defined)? 

·      If the focus is on “dismantling oppression,” how did that change come about and what will it mean? 

·      How will it be determined who is experiencing oppression? 

·      Will the working assumption be that if anyone feels oppressed, claims to be oppressed, and/or identifies as someone who is oppressed, that person is oppressed?

I then concluded by asking – since all the members of the ELCA with traditional views who speak up will probably be among the oppressed (even though they represent the majority of the people in the pews) – what will the Commission be doing to address that anticipated oppression?

I also responded to her saying that each of the members of the Commission is committed to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church.” As glaring examples of inequity within the ELCA I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and Reconciling Works’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while no organization with traditional views is in the same favored, privileged position.

Within less than two hours I received a response which I considered to be very dismissive and sloppy. In her email she backpedaled from dismantling oppression to dismantling racism. She also mentioned the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission, insisted that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified,” mentioned the “diversity of views” among the members of the Commission “regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church,” and stated the desire of the Commission not to “duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality.

In my response to her response, I did not bring up her mentioning the “limited time and finite resources” of the Commission. But I would say that twenty-two months have passed since the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, which directed the ELCA Church Council to form the Commission, while only fourteen months remain until the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, to whom the Commission is to “present its findings and recommendations . . . in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” Unless the Commission does far more in the next fourteen months than it has done in the past twenty-two months, I do not see it as having a report that will satisfy those who were instrumental in the passing of the resolution to form the Commission.    

However, I did respond – in order – to several other things she said in her email.

First, in regard to her backpedaling from “dismantling oppression” to “dismantling racism,” I reminded her of the significance of the “intersectionality” language from the “Dismantling Racism” internal committee (which I discussed in the second paragraph of this letter). I told her that I interpreted her mentioning “dismantling oppression” in light of that statement from that committee.

Second, the major part of my email was in response to her stating that the focus of the Commission “is specifically about structure and governance and constitutional language that may be more helpfully updated or clarified.” I shared with her how that statement reminded me of the comments made by the two members of the Commission who held a Listening Session for members of the Grand Canyon Synod, the Synod in which I am rostered. They said that the work of the Commission is focused on structure and governance and that there is no pre-determined outcome to the work of the Commission.

I wrote to Pastor Christopher, “Personally I find that very hard to believe. Everything from the makeup of the Commission – whom the ELCA Church Council chose to serve on the Commission – to the reports of the work of the Commission points to a pre-determined outcome.”

In regards to the makeup of the Commission, I pointed out that 20% – 7 out of 35 – are DEIA officers and/or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence and that the three members of the Commission who serve as assistants to a synodical bishop all work in the area of social justice activism. 

I then gave her a link to the article I wrote for the September 2023 issue of our newsletter, CORE Voice, where I discussed the makeup of the Commission – Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

Regarding the work of the Commission, I also gave her a link to my February 2024 Letter from the Director, where I did an analysis of their November 30-December 2 meeting. LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – FEBRUARY 2024 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)

I continued by saying, “I do not see any way in which someone could claim that the Commission is merely concerned with governance and structure and its work does not have a pre-determined outcome. Rather the Commission was formed and is working hard to create a whole new church whose values and priorities will be based not upon Scripture, but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.”

Third, I responded to her saying that the Commission was formed so that it would have “a diversity of views regarding institutional structures and the relationships between the current three expressions of church.” I wrote, “The members of the Commission may have a diversity of views on those issues. There is certainly nothing in the reports from the meetings of the Commission that would tell me one way or the other. But the reports of your meetings certainly suggest no diversity of views in regard to the values and priorities that should shape the new Lutheran church.” 

Fourth, in response to her saying that the Commission will “stay within our scope and not duplicate or interrupt the work of other task forces,” such as the task force that is working on the statement on human sexuality, I said, “I certainly understand and would agree with that approach.” I explained that I mentioned the complete lack of speakers with traditional views at youth gatherings and ReconcilingWorks’ having a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council but no organization with traditional views being in the same favored, privileged position not because I believe that these are matters that the Commission should concern itself with. Instead they are examples of how – even though each of the members of the Commission has made a commitment to “ensuring equity wherever possible throughout our governing documents and the structure of the church” – it is abundantly clear that in regard to the various positions on human sexuality, equity does not exist in the ELCA. 

I concluded by saying, “Thank you again for hearing and considering my concerns. Blessings in Christ.” I signed the letter – 

Dennis D. Nelson

Retired ELCA Pastor

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

So far I have not received a response.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

“A SHORT COURSE ON PRAYER”

by CATHY AMMLUNG AND TIM HUBERT

Many thanks to NALC pastors Cathy Ammlung and Tim Hubert for giving us a review of Tim’s book, “A Short Course on Prayer.” A link to their video review and be found HERE. A link to our You Tube channel, which contains reviews of around three dozen books as well as a dozen CORE Convictions videos on various topics related to the Christian faith and life, can be found HERE. 

This review is unusual in that it is more of an interview. Tim and Cathy have been friends for over forty years, and he was her ordination sponsor almost thirty-five years ago. Cathy has used various iterations of his manual on prayer throughout her ministry.

In this video review/interview, Cathy briefly describes the layout of the book. But mostly, she and Tim talk about his inspiration for writing it. They discuss the stumbling blocks to prayer experienced by many people. They examine some of the sixteen “prayer forms” in the first half of the book. And they reflect on some of the weightier issues about prayer: the joys and warnings, the hostility of the devil, and the spiritual warfare we are thrust into. Front and center is the insistence that prayer is a conversation, not a monologue. God himself provides words, topics, and insights for that conversation, and his Word grounds and centers every prayer form, directly or indirectly.

The interview is informal and casual, reflecting their long friendship and years of conversation on prayer as well as many other topics.

Folks interested in Tim’s book, for themselves or as a manual for an adult study group, may contact Cathy at cammlung@gmail.com. She will put you in touch with Tim!

Scripture

Mark 4:35-41

Script

Props: Disciples and boat. You will need the egg carton and the eggs labeled with the names of the disciples. You will also need bookmarks, one for each child. These are simple to make. Simply print the following on a long strip of cardstock. You can laminate, add ribbon, stickers, or an image from the computer on the bookmarks, or you can keep them simple with just the text. You may want to think about giving bookmarks to all members of the congregation as well.

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

Because of Jesus, I don’t have to be afraid.

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

Pastor: Good morning boys and girls! Welcome! Let’s say good morning to our friend Sammy and see if she is there. Ready? One, two, three: Good morning, Sammy!

Sammy: Good morning, everyone! Pastor, let’s get out the disciples and their boat.

Pastor: Who here has seen the ocean or the bay before? What is the ocean/bay like?

[Allow time for responses]

Sammy: I love it when Farmer Mark takes me to the ocean.

Pastor: Farmer Mark takes you to the ocean, Sammy?

Sammy: I get around, Pastor.

Pastor: Our gospel reading today is about how Jesus calmed the sea.

Sammy: What happened?

Pastor: Jesus and his disciples were on a boat and Jesus was so tired that he fell asleep in the stern of the boat?

Sammy: What’s a stern?

Pastor: The stern is the back of the boat. Jesus fell asleep and the wind blew and the waves crashed against the boat. Then the boat began to fill up with water.

Sammy: Oh no! That sounds bad. Jesus had to be awake for all of that.

Pastor: He slept through everything.

Sammy: Boys and girls, why do you think Jesus slept through the bad storm with the wind and the waves and the water in the boat?

[Allow time for responses]

Pastor: Great answers, everyone! The disciples did wake Jesus up, and they said, “Jesus, don’t you care about us?” And Jesus told the wind and the waves to be still, and the storm stopped right away.

Sammy: Just like that?

Pastor: Everything was quiet. And Jesus asked his disciples two questions: “Why are you afraid?” and “Have you no faith?”

Sammy: There are many important things for us to remember about this passage from Mark.

Pastor: Well, I have a little gift for everyone. I have a bookmark for you all to remember Jesus’s promises to us based on this story. What does the bookmark say?

Jesus cares about me.

Jesus gives me peace.

Jesus stills me.

Jesus calms me.

Jesus protects me.

Jesus gives me faith.

Because of Jesus, I don’t have to be afraid.

All of creation obeys Jesus.

Jesus loves me.

Sammy: Can I say our prayer? Let’s bow our heads and fold our hands. Dear Jesus, Thank you for always being with us. Thank you for calming us. Thank you for faith. We love you. Amen. Bye, everyone! Enjoy the bookmarks!

Pastor: Bye, Sammy!

In my office hangs my ordination certificate.  Across it is emblazoned the name of the ordaining body, the body whose confessional commitments I pledged to uphold on the day I knelt and made my vows.  An adult convert to the Christian faith who settled in Lutheranism as the place where I would live out my “mere Christianity” after reading a church library copy of the Augsburg Confession, in the spring of 2016 I had served that denomination in various roles for twenty years.

This spring marks the eighth year since I called my bishop and informed him that I would be serving in a new church body.  Even as an adult convert, I know how painful the process is of leaving a church body you have called home; to cause further fracture to the Body of Christ, to disappoint My Lord by ensuring that His prayer that all His disciples might be one as I will become yet one more piece of living evidence of how little the truth of the gospel seems to change the lives of those who believe it, to serve at least in part as another stumbling block for people who—as did I at one point—hold the Christian faith in contempt, was an exquisite pain… I can only imagine how hard it is for a cradle member of a communion to make a similar choice.

In his classic study of what causes massive shifts in a mindset, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn details how it takes a superabundance of contrary evidence to get people to rethink their fundamental commitments, coining the terms paradigm and paradigm shift.  A paradigm shift, when it occurs, is more than a reordering of the furniture in one’s mental office or even changing offices due to corporate restructuring; it amounts to moving out of the building, watching that edifice be razed, and having a new foundation poured upon which you must tentatively build a new place from which to conduct your business.

It is for this reason that I am uncertain whether my decision to leave the ELCA represents a true paradigm shift or not.  In the words of a Roman Catholic mentor whose specialty was ecumenical theology, with whom I shared the pain of my process, “You aren’t leaving your church; your church is leaving you.”  Though hopefully my thinking has become more refined and nuanced, my fundamental commitments in some ways have not changed since I first knew myself to be a Christian in 1995 and a conscientious son of the Lutheran reformation by early 1996.

Yet once such a choice is made—the choice to leave the home that has nurtured you during your most formative years—once the evidence piles up so high that you cannot ignore it, you begin to rethink many things.  Aspects of your identity you thought unassailable become things you question.  Commitments you thought unshakable bedrock you begin to recognize as issues of secondary and sometimes tertiary importance… sometimes you come to know them as even detrimental to keeping the most fundamental commitments of all.

Such for me has been the issue of inclusive language in ministry, whether for God or people.  The sine qua non of both my undergraduate and graduate education, I have come to question not just its utility, but its very ability to communicate the Word of God, which in turn means its very ability to foster human flourishing… especially for women.

By the time I was being formed in seminary, the use of inclusive language for human beings was a matter of basic politeness and the use of such language for God became mandated as a “justice issue” while I was away from campus on internship.  My early training conditioned me to be okay with the former; indeed I had chosen to pursue ordination in the ELCA over the LCMS because of a precommitment to women’s ordination, a commitment I still hold but should not have then, before I could possibly know the Biblical or theological issues at stake.

My conviction in Christianity as a revealed religion prevented me from embracing inclusive language for God.  Because of an encounter with a cult in my early twenties, I have a sensitivity to when I am only being told one side of an argument, so the aggressive insistence on the agenda second-cum-third wave feminism and the lack of critical presentation of any other perspective set off a voice in my head: “Danger, Will Robinson… Danger!”  The special prominence of this in my liturgics class, where we failed to learn the rudiments of using The Minister’s Desk Edition, made me begin researching the best arguments on the other side.

I was surprised to often find these arguments to be robust rather than reactionary.  An honest reader could disagree with these arguments, but not accuse the writer of bad faith or barely disguised animus against women.  Particularly compelling was an article by Jesuit Paul Mankowski (who often wrote under the pen name Diogenes) entitled Jesus, Son of Humankind? The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations, which I found in a now out-of-print journal.  (It is still available on the Touchstone magazine website for subscribers.[1])

There is one issue central to our salvation that inclusive language translations of the Bible obscure—even those translations that only use inclusive language for human beings, like the NRSV—that I have never seen referenced in any scholarly work, so I would like to address it briefly here.

“No one comes to the Father but by me,” says Jesus in one of our most beloved funeral readings (John 14:6), but how exactly does Jesus get us to the Father?  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” joyously declares St. Paul. (Galatians 3:27)  Elsewhere he adds, “For if we have been united with [Christ] in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:5)  We have been united with Jesus.

A robust Sacramental theology teaches us that as regards our eternal inheritance, this means that when the Father regards us, He sees Christ, with whom we have been united, and whom we have donned like a mantle.  In other words, He sees not Joe or Sally, merely created in the image of God however pious or penitent, but Jesus, His Son, God Himself, for Whom the entire realm of created reality and uncreated glory is the rightful inheritance.

What this means in contradiction to the polite niceties of post-Christian American cultural religion, each of us is, properly speaking, a child of God only when we share in the sonship of Jesus Christ through Baptism.  It is for this reason—not the misogynistic cultural baggage assumed by feminists of whatever wave—that St. Paul in his letters addresses both the male and female objects of his correspondence as “brothers.”  We are all brothers because we all through Holy Baptism share in the sonship of Jesus Christ.

Inclusive language translations that render St. Paul’s address as “brothers and sisters” obscure this important salvific truth, esteeming the demands of feminist-defined justice as greater than the actual Biblically depicted mechanism of salvation.  Further, it propagates its own fundamentally irreconcilable war between the sexes into the very “beloved community” that is to be the home of “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), fomenting disunity in the Body of Christ. Under such conditions, the uniqueness of Christ as the way to God is necessarily veiled and universalism will proliferate to the loss of the evangelistic impulse.

I count this as a very serious way that the very inclusive language that is purported to be a justice issue for women actually does worse than underserve them; it may fail to call them to Christ and so be positively opposed to their ultimate interests.

[1] https://touchstonemag.com/archives//article.php?id=14-08-033-f

“WHY ARE YOU FRIGHTENED?”

The Gospel reading from Luke 24 for April 14, the Third Sunday of Easter, tells of an incident that happened on Easter Sunday evening – after Jesus had spent some time with two of His followers on the road to Emmaus.  According to verses 33-35, after Jesus suddenly disappeared, the Emmaus disciples “got up and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven and their companions gathered together.  They said, ‘The Lord has risen indeed!’  Then they told them what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

I believe that this is the same time as the appearance of Jesus to His disciples recorded in John 20: 19ff (the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Easter), when Thomas was not with them.  Luke 24: 36-38 tell us what happened next.  “Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’  They were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.  He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?’” 

That is a good question for all of us – Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 

We all have many reasons to be frightened and many reasons for doubts to arise in our hearts.

1. Afraid of the future

First, many are afraid of the future.  We all have many reasons to be afraid of the future. 

I have talked with many people who are fearful for the future viability of their congregations.  They see their aging and diminishing membership.  They wonder whether they will be able to continue to afford a pastor, and even if they can afford one, whether they will be able to find one.  Many congregations have been without a pastor for a long time.

I have talked with people who face deep financial insecurities.  Inflation has taken a huge toll and they are fearful of what will happen if their financial resources run out.  They do not like the idea of being dependent upon others, and they wonder if there will be someone to depend upon if they do become dependent upon others.  Many are deeply concerned about health issues – their own health issues and the health issues of those whom they love.   

We all have plenty of reasons to be fearful for our country and our culture when the federal government honors the Transgender Day of Visibility instead of Easter and will not allow any religious symbols in its celebration of Easter.

For those who are afraid of the future Jesus gives unmistakable evidence of His resurrection.  In Luke 24: 39-43 He showed them His hands and His feet and then took a piece of broiled fish and ate it in their presence.  In the words of the one Gospel song, “Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.”

2. Afraid of the past

Second, many are afraid of the past.  We all have many reasons to be afraid of the past. 

For those who are afraid of the past Jesus gives the promise of forgiveness of sins.  In Luke 24: 44-48 He opened their minds to understand the scriptures and then said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.”  Repentance and forgiveness of sins.  Repent is what we need to do.  Forgiveness is what we need to receive. 

In contrast, a friend and colleague from the synod in which I was rostered before I retired shared with me a brilliant theological analysis of critical race theory and DEIA ideology.  As the apostle Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 3:6, “The law kills, but the Spirit gives life.”  The demands of the law will always be relentless.  You can never do enough.  In the same way, no matter how much I grovel and repent of my own racism and the racism of my ancestors and no matter how much I try to compensate for all past offenses, grievances, and injustices, it is never enough. 

Paul also wrote in Romans 7: 24, “O wretched man that I am!  Who can deliver me from this body of death?”   If you are white – or even worse, if you are a white male – or worst of all, if you are an older, heterosexual, cisgender, Christian white male – nothing can deliver you.  You are hopelessly racist.  No matter how hard you may try and no matter what you may do, you will always be racist.  You cannot not be racist.  The systems that privilege and empower you must be dismantled.  All power and privilege must be taken away from you.

I recently attended a memorial service where we sang the hymn, “When Peace like a River.”  I was struck by the words of the third verse –

“He lives – oh, the bliss of this glorious thought;

My sin, not in part, but the whole,

Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more.

Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”

With critical race theory and DEIA ideology, there is no possibility of grace, forgiveness, deliverance, and release.  There is only constant confession, repentance, guilt, failure, not measuring up, not doing enough, and groveling.  With critical race theory and DEIA ideology, you will never be able to say, “It is well with my soul.”

How sad and how serious it is that critical race theory and DEIA ideology sell people out to a taskmaster that will never be satisfied.  They imprison people in a system from which there is no escape.

How much better what Jesus said in Luke 24: 47 – “Repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations.”  It is only in and through Jesus that we can and will find hope, grace, peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation.  It is only through Jesus that we can say with the apostle Paul in Romans 7: 25, “Thanks be to God!”    

3. Powerless in the present

Third, many feel powerless in the present.  We all have many reasons to feel powerless in the present.  For those who feel powerless in the present Jesus promises power from on high.

In verse 49 He said to the disciples, “See, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”  Power from on high is what we all need.  And power from on high is exactly what the disciples received on the Day of Pentecost.

In contrast, as I read the resolution that led to the creation of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church as well as minutes of their meetings, it is painfully obvious that they are building a church that is based not upon the Scriptures but upon critical race theory and DEIA ideology.  The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly – as well as the Commission – are making the main mission of the church not to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission but to dismantle systemic racism.  They are making the main mission of the church not what we have been commanded and empowered to do, but instead they are taking on an impossibly huge task with merely human resources.

How could they feel anything other than overwhelmed and hopeless?  I often wonder, if people’s main mission in life is to dismantle systemic racism, why would they focus their efforts in the church?  No wonder there is and will continue to be a huge shortage of pastors.

Because everything is at stake and in the Name of the One who gives hope for the future, release from the past, and power in the present,  

Dennis D Nelson
Executive Director
dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com

Editor’s Note: Full title of the book is Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage: 21Conversations from a Historically Christian View. Also, Spencer Wentland is a former ELCA missionary.

Introduction and Summary

I have not read any of Preston Sprinkle’s other books, including his more famous, A People to Be Loved, but I have been asked to read and review this book. I am writing as a thirty-four-year-old, Side B[*], in process, queer and renewed Lutheran who has believed and contended for a traditional sexual ethic before, during, and after the ELCA’s expansion into its Bound Conscience era. How’s that for a late modern introduction!

Sprinkle sets two foundational premises he wants his audience to be aware of and informed by before he moves speedily through twenty-one commonly made arguments for a [gay] affirming position. Firstly, people don’t usually have a real open mind to ideas, rather ideas usually are manipulated to serve what people already believe to be true, so he wants us to take a full stop and have an open mind. Secondly, the Bible’s vision of marriage is rooted in sexual differentiation ala male and female as revealed in the opening chapter of Genesis and affirmed by Jesus directly in his own understanding of marriage.

So, we already know this book is somewhat of an apologetic against the affirming position. Each affirming argument is followed by his response. He concludes that the church needs to do a better job of being consistently against all sin, more consistently loving, and in particular loving and making space for sexual minorities so they can thrive in a traditional sexual ethic.

Strengths

Sprinkle deals with a lot of arguments, the more popular ones and others that may not have been considered and heard. He shows a careful commitment to the task of exegesis and establishes how the traditional view is the historically Christian view in scripture. I appreciated the way he has worked to champion side B Christians against conservative elements that want to police the language they use to describe themselves or otherwise surround queer Christians with greater scrutiny than straight Christians.

Weaknesses

Sprinkle is writing to a more conservative Christian audience, and this comes at the cost of always feeling like he is dealing with each of the arguments fully in the context of the perspectives from which they come. In many instances he comes across as dismissive. He never really wrestles with hermeneutical questions that are often a crucial component in some affirming arguments. The crux in these arguments is not what the Biblical authors meant in their own worldview but how that translates or fails to translate into the modern world. He does not address this.

Finally, he does not really deal with the moral imagination of those who concede marriage is clearly heterosexual biblically speaking, but that there may be other legitimate covenanted alternatives that could allow for homosexual relationships to be morally acceptable. This point of view is represented in two of the four commonly held understandings in the ELCA Social Statement Gift and Trust.

[*] I am usually not a fan of labels, but Side B represents a category of Christians who hold to a traditional sexual ethic but do not envision following Jesus as needing to claim complete healing from homosexuality or avoiding adjectives like gay, lesbian, queer etc.

Can mainline denominations be reconquered from theological liberalism?  A group named Operation Reconquista has emerged to attempt such a thing, and they are offering tactics on just how to proceed.

I had never heard of the group until asked to write about them and offer some thoughts.  To get the full scope of what they believe and what they are attempting to do, please click here to visit their website.  In a nutshell, their methodology is this: 1. Identify a moderate to conservative mainline congregation.  2. Attend there and become involved in leadership.  3. Work to strengthen that congregation in the orthodox Christian faith.  4. Resist any attempt to inject secular liberalism/progressivism.  5. Let the more liberal/progressive congregations die–as they will invariably do. 

They believe this reconquest is necessary given the historical contributions mainline denominations have made to the American society; their cultural power; the beauty of their traditions and liturgy; and their historic buildings.  “…Restoring them to the Gospel will revive the culture and reverse the persistent decline of religion in the West,” according to their website.¹

The group has targeted seven mainline denominations including the ELCA, and on Reformation day, they “posted” 95 Theses to each of these denominations calling on them to reform.  They reportedly sent these theses to every congregation in these denominations; however, I must also report that my congregation did not receive a copy, email or otherwise.  Perhaps my reputation as a CORE contributor preceded me.

For the remainder of this article, I would like to affirm the goals of this group and share my positive reactions.  I also found numerous things to critique, and I will share those in the next CORE Voice newsletter.

I truly admire the chutzpah of this group and their goals.  I too share with them the thought that most mainline denominations have departed from the orthodox faith and are in major need of reform. 

Like them, I agree that the liberal/progressives played the long game in their takeover of the mainline.  In a way, this group is seeking to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Like them, I agree that schism is not the optimal response, and neither is leaving except in extreme circumstances.  An extended quote from the Lutheran subgroup is appropriate here:

Stay in the ELCA. By leaving your church you let it dissolve into Liberalism, and eventually die out. The percentage of churches without pastors is noticeable, and because of this, entire churches, congregations, and even denominations simply melt away to Atheism or other denominations such as becoming an Evangelical.

If your church is truly very heretical and you are not being fed, go to your nearest Lutheran church, especially if its [sic] in the ELCA, rinse and repeat until you find a church you are comfortable retaking. If this means you must go to a WELS or LCMS church, then that’s fine, but if possible, go attend an ELCA church.²

No small amount of digital ink has been spilled by those who have advocated for orthodox Christians to leave more liberal/progressive denominations and congregations, and I get it.  I know that some have faced pressure from bishops and pastors to leave, and others have been kicked out.  If that were happening to me, I would get out as well.  However, I am also of a mind that the greatest weapon we wield is the Word of God and its preaching.  That Word can and does change hearts and minds even within more secular progressive/liberal denominations, and this group shares that conviction.

There is a real sense of conviction, daring, steadfastness and a willingness to go to battle, that Operation Reconquista seems to embrace.  This, in my estimation, is particularly appealing to men, both young and old, who have been dismissed, vilified, and objectified by a great majority of leaders in mainline churches.  In fact, young men currently are the majority of members in Operation Reconquista, and given the lack of young men’s involvement in the mainline, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

It shall be interesting to see if this group has the stamina to have long-term success in their endeavors.  If it is indeed powered by the Holy Spirit and is a movement of reform, they will eventually become a force to be reckoned with–and so I leave with a partial quote of the great rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5, “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

1. https://www.operationreconquista.com/blank-1

2. https://sola-elca.squarespace.com/faqs  SOLA is the Society of Orthodox Lutheran Advocates.

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.

^[2] p.194

Director’s Note: Spencer Wentland is uniquely qualified to write this article analyzing the ELCA’s concept of global mission as accompaniment rather than evangelism – as responding to requests for help from indigenous churches rather than being concerned to share the message of Jesus with unreached peoples.  Spencer is a member of our young adult group, which meets via zoom about once a month for fellowship and support.  He is passionate about reaching people who do not know Jesus.  He has much international experience, including studying and serving in a discipleship community in Denmark.  He has served as an ELCA lay missionary in Japan and has written on the theology of global mission of different Christian groups. 

The ELCA defines accompaniment as “…walking together in a solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality[*]” (Global Mission, emphasis in original). Although often portrayed as a biblical theology coming out of the disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, it is strongly influenced by and rooted in liberation theology[†]. My immediate concern with it, as a heuristic to the what and where of mission, is that it is antithetical to the Pauline priority on unreached places.

The Apostle Paul emphasized not building on another’s foundation but to establish the Church where it does not exist. Combined with Jesus’ teaching that the Gospel must be preached in all nations (Gk. ethnos, often understood as ethno-linguistic people groups by many missiologists) and then the end will come, there has been a strong emphasis on sending missionaries to work amongst unreached and unengaged people groups[‡].

While working as an ELCA missionary, I heard about experienced mission personnel being sent home while the Japanese Evangelical Lutheran Church was told how they were going to become less dependent on the ELCA. In the name of being post-colonial, it was an ironically patronizing execution of implementing an accompaniment model.

Accompaniment is actually very good in shaping how we do mission. We should not ignore the presence and work of indigenous Lutherans. If consistent with the values of accompaniment, it’s a good way to think about working together in the larger context of God’s mission. It reminds us that the task of mission must be informed by the catholicity of the Church as well as its apostolic nature. It also informs us to do mission in the pattern and practice of Christ himself who is Immanuel.

The problems with accompaniment are when it determines what the content of mission is and where it is done. When applied to the what of mission, it frames the whole task into a ministry of presence. This collapses into the problem that when everything is mission, nothing is mission. The primary task of establishing the Church in unreached places, making disciples and evangelical mission is diminished into almost oblivion by tasks being determined by the partner denomination. True accompaniment would involve both churches determining the content of mission work in the light of both Scripture and context. Working together is key, not completely abrogating task criteria to the partner church.

The ELCA’s requirement that pre-existing Lutheran churches request the ELCA to send missionaries (an effort in being post-colonial) assures that no missionaries will ever be sent to unengaged people groups. The Japanese are the second largest unreached people group, so there is an odd and good anomaly that work is going on there. During my missionary orientation, I asked if someone had a vision like Paul of a man from Macedonia, saying come here, would that qualify a call (Acts 16)? Is the Holy Spirit leading with the Word, or are we reducing the idea of being spirit-led to a democratized principle of the external call coming through partner churches?

In conclusion, accompaniment is a mixed bag. It’s great for the how of mission, and it is a true gift. However, it needs to be understood in the larger context of the ELCA’s constitution and statement of faith, including its responsibility to work for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. To do this, the primary tasks need to be strategic partnership for the purposes of mission development/evangelical mission and a willingness to send people to places where no Christians, let alone Lutherans, exist.

Photograph courtesy of Spencer Wentland; it is of a protestant church in Okinawa.

[*] “Global Mission.” Elca.Org. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Accessed November 5, 2023. https://www.elca.org/Our-Work/Global-Mission.

[†] ORDÓÑEZ, CLAUDIA. “Public Health Needs Liberation Theology.” Aquinas Emory Thinks. Aquinas Center at Candler School of Theology, February 15, 2021. https://aquinasemorythinks.com/public-health-needs-liberation-theology/.

[‡] Unreached: relative to the population living near a gospel witness. Imagine an American city of about 250,000 people and if there is only about three or four churches of twenty people and no youth groups. Unengaged: has any effort been made by Christians to bring the Gospel and make disciples among this particular people group?