In my Summer Letter from the Director I told in great detail the disturbing story of how Bishop Yehiel Curry of the ELCA’s Metropolitan Chicago Synod threatened, intimidated, bullied, and abused power in order to gain control of a CORE-friendly congregation that was doing its best to reach out to its bi-lingual and Spanish speaking neighborhood with the love of Jesus.  A link to that letter can be found here.  That bishop and synod council used chapter S13.24 in the Model Constitution for Synods as a way to move in and take over the congregation. 

I recently become aware of another situation where the synod council of another ELCA synod – Southwest California – used the same constitutional provision to seize the property of a congregation.  As a former ALC congregation, according to the ELCA constitution, Faith Lutheran Church of San Dimas, California should have had no problem keeping their property as they voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and join another Lutheran church body.  But that synod council used chapter S13.24 of the Model Constitution for Synods, along with rejecting the legitimacy of LCMC as a recognized Lutheran church body, to claim to have the right to the congregation’s property.  My concern has only grown greater as I wonder whether these are two isolated incidents or is this a pattern – an intentional strategy – that we will see continue to unfold throughout the ELCA.

In part the relevant constitutional chapter reads as follows –

Six years ago Faith Lutheran Church in San Dimas, California, was a thriving congregation led by a very gifted, hardworking, faithful, committed, and orthodox pastor.  I would say he was one of the best.  After his retirement the congregation struggled as it had an extremely difficult time finding another pastor who would be appropriate for them.  Attendance and involvement dropped and the preschool had to close during the COVID pandemic.  Finally, after two years, they did find a pastor, but that pastor turned out to be a disaster.  Later they discovered that that pastor had embezzled funds from a former congregation.  (That information was shared as public information during the discussion at the synod assembly.)  Attendance dropped even further, many of the positions on the congregation council remained vacant, and the congregation had to request forbearance on the loan for their beautiful new sanctuary. 

Needing help with their situation, the congregation entered into a Synodical Administration arrangement with the synod.  This arrangement is described in S13.25. of the Model Constitution for Synods, which says, “This synod may temporarily assume administration of a congregation upon its request or with its concurrence.  Such synod administration shall continue only so long as necessary to complete the purposes for which it was requested by the congregation or until the congregation withdraws consent to continued administration.”  Three local ELCA pastors were assigned to the congregation to help them through their difficult times.

But the real turnaround for the congregation occurred when they invited a non-Lutheran new church start to begin meeting on their property.  With the presence of the other congregation and the dynamic, outreach-oriented leadership of the young, evangelical pastor, new energy came to the place.  The synod continued to be unable to provide the congregation with a suitable pastor to call – or even a supply pastor or an interim pastor that would be appropriate for them.  I understand from a former member of the executive committee of the synod council of that synod, that of the approximately one hundred congregations in that synod, forty-two of them are without a pastor.  Because the synod could not provide a pastor, the ELCA congregation asked the young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented pastor of the new, non-Lutheran church start to provide them with pastoral care and leadership.  The non-Lutheran pastor would lead the ELCA congregation’s traditional, liturgical service at 9 AM and then the new church start’s contemporary service at 11 AM.  The ELCA synodical bishop, seeing how the Lord was blessing the ministry, agreed to the arrangement. 

The problem came when the congregation voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and join LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ).  As a former ALC congregation, they should have had no problem keeping their property.  But the synod council accused them of joining LCMC only as a way of getting out of the ELCA with the intent of then joining this non-Lutheran group.  The young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented, evangelical pastor of the non-Lutheran church start offered to take courses in Lutheran theology so that he would be better equipped to provide pastoral care and leadership for the Lutheran congregation, and he was also mentored by a retired ELCA pastor, but that was not sufficient.  The synod council said that the congregation can leave the ELCA, the congregation and the non-Lutheran new church start can rent the church building from the ELCA, but the congregation must surrender the deed to the property to the synod.  The congregation appealed the decision to the synod assembly which is how I became aware.  The appeal was decisively denied. 

During the discussion at the synod assembly it was revealed that after the congregation voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA, the synod council changed their relationship with the congregation from Synodical Administration (S13.25), which is voluntary and temporary, to Synodical Preservation (S13.24), which is involuntary and permanent.  (It is interesting that the president of the congregation said that they did not know that the synod had taken that action and changed the terms of the relationship until six months after the change had been made.)

The synod council used chapter S13.24 of the synod’s constitution to argue that demanding the deed to the property was something they needed to do and had the right to do in order to “protect and preserve the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration.”  But the congregation’s property was not in danger of “waste and deterioration.”  Energy had returned, attendance was up, the preschool had reopened, the congregation was able to resume payments on the loan, and people were again involved in ministry and willing to serve in positions of leadership.  The synod misused this provision in the constitution because they did not like the fact that the congregation was moving in a different direction – and in a direction which was working out better for them.  In fact, a pastor who is a member of the executive committee of the synod council argued in front of the assembly that the synod needed to invoke S13.24 and seize the property in order to keep the property “from deterioration into a non-ELCA entity.” 

The synod council also argued that LCMC was not really a valid church body, so in joining LCMC the congregation had not met constitutional requirements in order to be able to keep their property.  For me one of the most alarming parts of the discussion was when Synodical Bishop Brenda Bos said in her initial presentation that LCMC is “a very, very loosely affiliated Lutheran denomination” and then suggested that “LCMC may have been created for exactly this constitutional clause so that congregations that do not want to be Lutheran anymore can go into that system and keep their property.”  During the discussion the member of the executive committee mentioned above quoted from the LCMC website which says, “We’re not a denomination, we’re a movement” and then said about LCMC, “They are imposters.”  (It makes me wonder how often the same line of argument has been used or will be used against other former ALC congregations that will vote to leave the ELCA and join LCMC.) 

As I watched and listened to the discussion in the You Tube recording of the second day of the synod assembly, there were two images that came to mind.  The first is the old proverb, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his whole body will soon follow.”  Once the congregation invited the synod to come in and administer the congregation (under S13.25), it was very easy for the synod to remain, take over, and seize the property (under S13.24).

The second are the words near the beginning of the book of Exodus – “Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8).  Bishop Bos of the Southwest California Synod obviously did not know – nor did she bother to find out about – the actual issues that led to the formation of LCMC.  It was not to give churches who did not want to be Lutheran anymore a chance to get out of the ELCA and keep their property.  Rather the precipitating event was the ELCA’s approving the Called to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church.  In that agreement a certain structure – the Episcopal version of the Historic Episcopate – became mandated.  The founders of LCMC argued – on the basis of Article Seven of the Augsburg Confession – that “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”  Therefore, no particular human, governmental structure is necessary in order for the church to be the church.  LCMC was formed in 2001.  Since then the organization has grown to be an international movement of around one thousand congregations, including around eight hundred congregations here in the United States.  Many of those congregations are former ALC congregations who voted to disaffiliate from the ELCA and kept their property as they then affiliated with LCMC.  Precedence strongly supports former ALC congregations’ being able to leave the ELCA, join LCMC, and not have any problem keeping their property.  As time passes more and more synodical bishops and other ELCA leaders are not going to have been a part of the issues and struggles that led to the formation of LCMC and the NALC.  They are simply not going to be aware of them, let alone understand and appreciate them. 

But a third thing that completely floored me was when Bishop Bos, at the end of her presentation, called upon the assembly to “deeply consider the legacy of the Lutherans that came before.”  During the discussion leading up to the vote which denied the congregation’s appeal, the argument was made that for over sixty years faithful Lutherans had been working and giving to start and support a Lutheran presence and ministry in the city of San Dimas.  Therefore, the assembly should not break trust with six decades of faithful Lutherans and allow a schismatic group to now take the property and give it to a non-Lutheran ministry.  I was absolutely astounded hearing this line of argument.  I realize that the young, dynamic, energetic, outreach-oriented, evangelical pastor of the new church start does not have a sacramental view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but I truly believe that his view of the Scriptures, moral values, and the mission of the church is far closer to that of the founders of that congregation than the ELCA is today.  And since when does the ELCA care about not breaking trust with faithful Lutherans of the past? 

The 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly is approaching, when voting members will consider a plan to reconstitute the church, review the 2009 human sexuality social statement, and possibly (probably?) eliminate the provision for bound conscience.   Bound conscience is the language that the 2009 human sexuality social statement uses to declare that a variety of views on same sex relationships – including traditional views – do exist within the ELCA and will be viewed as valid, and those who hold them will be treated with honor and respect.  I assume the ELCA knows that there may well be another wave of congregations wanting to leave the ELCA, so are they taking steps now to make it as difficult as possible for congregations to leave with their properties?  As congregations continue to decline and congregational, synodical, and churchwide income continues to drop, will the ELCA grab as many properties as possible and make it as difficult as they can for congregations (even former ALC congregations) to leave with their property?  Please let me know if you know of other examples of this dynamic. 

One final thought.  The August 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly overwhelmingly approved a Land Back Memorial, in which they supported a resolution which called upon the ELCA to “support creative programs of restorative justice in partnership with Indigenous people, including, but not limited to, whenever considering a transfer or sale of real property, including returning land (and any structures built on it) after satisfying any financial obligations, to the appropriate Native nations, and when direct return is not feasible or not desired by the Indigenous people, to return the proceeds from the sale of the land to the ELCA Native American Ministry Fund or other local Indigenous led ministries or organizations.”  Will the Southwest California Synod, in order to not be complicit in something that they are so concerned about – the stealing of land from Indigenous people – follow through with and make good their concern and give the newly acquired property – or the value of that property – to Indigenous people? 

Note from our Executive Director: Many thanks to Kevin Haug, ELCA pastor in Texas, for his article about the Sparkle creed.  This so-called “creed” has received a lot of attention and stimulated a lot of discussion since its recent use during a worship service in an ELCA congregation in Minnesota.  We should all be alarmed over the way in which this statement rejects Biblical teaching and orthodox theology in its promoting the LGBTQ agenda and transgender ideology.  We are saddened but not surprised as we read of many ELCA pastors who are praising it as a way to connect the Christian faith with life today.  We are also saddened but not surprised by the total silence of ELCA leaders about it. 

“Pastor, what are we going to do about this?”

Those words were spoken by one of my octogenarians after she heard two news stories about the “Sparkle creed,” a statement that received national attention because of its use at an ELCA Lutheran Church in Minnesota.  The congregation recited it at worship, posted the video online, and it went viral.

The “Sparkle creed” has actually been around for a year or two, but it was not until conservative news sites and blogs discovered it that it caused a bit of an uproar, and that uproar is not without merit.  However, care needs to be taken when addressing this issue. I will attempt to show why.

First, let me define creed as a statement of belief.

In a very real way, everyone has a creed of some sort.  Individuals have creeds. Organizations have creeds. Individual congregations have creeds.  In fact, many biblical scholars say that the first creed was quite simple: Jesus is Lord. Those three words actually led to the death of Christians who would not say the Roman creed: Caesar is Lord.  

Because everyone has a creed, one could argue that having a creed is actually a neutral concept.  People believe all sorts of things. That they believe them is undisputed and neutral, but what they believe can be problematic and either good or bad. For instance, if I believe that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights, then that is a creedal statement.  And I would happily argue that it is a good creedal statement for various reasons.  Someone could hold a different position: that human beings are not endowed with rights from a Creator, but that governments decide what rights a person should or should not have. I would argue that this isn’t a very good position to take, but that doesn’t prevent some nations and people from holding it.  

To change positions literally requires a conversion process as many, if not most, creedal beliefs are actually statements of faith not statements of science.  For instance, science is practiced by using the scientific method: state a hypothesis; test and measure to see if the hypothesis holds water; formulate a theory; test the theory repeatedly.  Is the scientific method a true way of getting knowledge? Well, you have to assume that it is.  You have to trust that it is.  You cannot test the scientific method by using the scientific method.  Philosophers call this circular reasoning. Trusting that the scientific method is an accurate way of obtaining knowledge is a creedal belief. It is a deep, foundational belief, but it is a belief none-the-less, and one does not change those sorts of beliefs easily.

Which brings us to the Creeds of the Church, and I am intentionally capitalizing the letter C on both of those words. There is a reason for this as I shall get into shortly.

Within the Christian Church, there are three, recognized, orthodox Creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and what you need to realize about these statements of faith is this: these Creeds were recognized by the whole Church as true affirmations of the Christian faith.  They were based in Scripture. They were developed over time or argued over or carefully thought through. They were not put together in a pastor’s office to make a particular group or segment of society feel welcomed or accepted.

In general, they were written to stomp out heresy. They were written to unify a divided Church. They were written to solidify and codify what the Church believed about God the Father, Christ the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  And as such, they are not to be trifled with.

Imagine for a minute if you will, gathering with a group of Christians circa 250 A.D. You are in hiding because Christianity is still not a recognized religion of the Roman Empire. It is the Easter Vigil, the time that it has become traditional for converts to be baptized into the faith. As the baptismal liturgy begins, the presider looks into the eyes of the converts. He begins addressing them and asks them three questions: Do you believe in God the Father? Do you believe in God the Son? Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit? And the converts begin reciting what they have been taught about who God is; who Jesus is; and who the Holy Spirit is. These statements have come together over decades of persecution and trial. Speaking them would immediately set these converts apart from the dominant culture and could lead to arrest and persecution.  Such is the nature of the Apostles’ Creed.

Or consider a church divided by various sects all claiming to represent the one true faith. Yet, those beliefs are contradictory at times. Some are not grounded in scripture. Some are off the charts. What does it mean to be a Christian? What are the foundational beliefs? Is this world truly, totally evil? Does only the spiritual count? Was Jesus indeed fully human and fully divine or a really good human being only adopted by God and infused with the divine Spirit?  What do you Christians truly believe? And bishops from far and wide gather to hammer such things out.  They consult deeply with the scriptures; argue their points vehemently and passionately; and put together a statement of faith which declares: this is it.  These are the non-negotiables. It is accepted by the church council and has stood the test of time for centuries. Such is the nature of the Nicene Creed.

The “Sparkle creed” shares none of this history. It was written for entirely different reasons and has not even come close to being vetted by the whole Christian Church on earth.  In fact, the majority of the Christian Church on earth would outright reject it. 

Therefore, it follows, that it has no standing to replace the Creeds in worship.

I mean: if someone wants to say that they adhere to the “Sparkle creed,” then they can personally say that they believe exactly what is in that statement. If a congregation wants to go so far as to use this creed in worship, then they are free to do so, but I strongly believe it should be introduced as a statement of that individual congregation, not of the Christian Church–it is not “the faith of the Church, the faith in which we baptize.” 

For to use it in such a manner is to actually separate one’s self and congregation from the global Church.  It is to become myopic and rather self-centered. Arguably, it is creating one’s own personal faith and religion—dare I say one’s own god.

And yes, I am quite aware that I belong to a denomination whose founder separated himself and then many congregations from the larger Church body of the time. The irony is not lost on me; however, Luther didn’t mess with the Creeds.  He affirmed them and what they stood for repeatedly. He didn’t tinker with the Creeds or try to change them for he never wanted to split with the Church of Rome.  These statements of belief were not up for negotiation or reformation. They were good “as is.”

They still are. They are meant to hold us together despite our disagreements on secondary issues. Trying to put “sparkle” in them only causes more division.

Leave the Creeds alone.

WE ARE ALL VULNERABLE

There have been many occasions when someone who is a member of a congregation that is still in the ELCA has shared with me, “I have told my pastor about my concerns, but the pastor tells me that all those things happening in the ELCA will not affect us.”  I tell them that it is only a matter of time until your beloved orthodox or more moderate pastor will retire or resign and take another call.  And even if you are among the congregations that are fortunate enough to be able to find another orthodox pastor, what about the next time you will be looking for a pastor?  There are only a limited number of orthodox pastors remaining in the ELCA – and we thank God for every single one of them – and that number will only continue to decline.  Plus we know of situations where a synod used a change of pastors as an opportune time to move in and bring the congregation in line with ELCA beliefs, values, and priorities.  Every orthodox congregation still in the ELCA is potentially only one pastor change away from disaster.

And now we have in the ELCA’s Metropolitan Chicago Synod a striking example of the alarming fact that every orthodox congregation still in the ELCA is potentially only one synodical bishop election away from being swooped in on, becoming the victim of a hostile takeover, and being shut down.  Such was the case with the former (now closed by synodical action) St. Timothy Lutheran Church in the Hermosa neighborhood of northwest Chicago.

VIBRANT MINISTRY

For several years St. Timothy was the location for our annual, fall, Spanish language and bi-lingual ministries Encuentro.  These Encuentros had been Lutheran CORE’s best way of reaching out to and providing a valuable resource for the ELCA.  It was hosted by an ELCA congregation, a majority of those attending were ELCA, and a majority of the presenters were ELCA.  Over the years presenters have included ELCA pastors, theologians, and even a national ELCA staff person.  While drawing primarily ELCA congregations and presenters, the Encuentros were an inter Lutheran offering to congregations and church leaders.  We were delighted a few years ago when newly elected Bishop Yehiel Curry of the Metro Chicago Synod attended a portion of one of our Encuentros.  We warmly welcomed him and we were highly encouraged when he said that he saw himself as bishop for the entire synod.  We never expected what would eventually happen.

The Awes brothers – Joel, David, and Tom – are sons of the former pastor, Robert Awes, who served the congregation from 1981 until the time of his death in 2015.  His widow and three sons continued to live in the parsonage after he died.  His wife died in 2017.  One of his sons, Joel, was serving as president of the congregation.  He and his brothers were maintaining the property and leading the congregation.  Once the site of a vibrant English-speaking ministry, the congregation pre-COVID was making significant progress in reaching out to the Latino community.  COVID brought all that to a halt, but during the last several months the congregation had been able to resume their outreach to the neighborhood.  Among their ministries is the Uncle Charlie program, a monthly social and devotional gathering for adults with special needs, most of whom live in urban group homes on Chicago’s north and west sides. 

After the death of their father, the Awes brothers contacted the Metro Chicago Synod about their need for pastoral leadership.  The only person the synod could provide did not speak Spanish.  The Awes brothers knew that that would not work because they wanted to reach out to their primarily bi-lingual and Spanish speaking neighborhood, so they contacted a bi-lingual ELCA pastor whom they knew from other associations.  Pastor Keith Forni is now retired, but at the time he was pastor of First/Santa Cruz Lutheran Church in Joliet, Illinois.  He began providing bi-lingual pulpit supply at St. Timothy with the awareness and implicit encouragement of the former bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod.  He drove ninety miles round trip on most Sundays to lead an afternoon worship service at St. Timothy after leading bi-lingual and English-speaking services in Joliet in the morning.  Former Bishop Wayne Miller would often ask regarding a ministry site, “Is there green in the stem?”  There definitely was green in the St. Timothy stem.  The leaders of St. Timothy were open to being coached in bilingual neighborhood ministry.  They found in Pastor Forni the needed skill set, given his forty-plus years of experience in such contexts. 

In addition to frequently preaching and presiding at bilingual services of Holy Communion, Pastor Forni –

• Expanded the Uncle Charlie devotional experiences.
• Curated and gathered needed resources for bilingual Lutheran worship, outreach and Christian education.
• Initiated sidewalk outreach to the dozens of parents and students going to and from nearby Nixon Elementary School.
• Led the development of the Thursday Together / “Jueves Juntos” Family Bible Study themed events.
• Provided pastoral leadership for the community at a prayer vigil following the murder of a two-year-old boy by a gang member’s stray bullet a few blocks from the church.
• Arranged for a VBS & Service team visit by an Ohio ELCA mission partner congregation.
• Built up cooperative relationships with area organizations including the Walt Disney birthplace, where some after school events could take place.

St. Timothy became the host site for the annual Spanish language ministry Encuentros which Pastor Forni coordinated.  Lutheran CORE began sponsoring the Encuentros after Pastor Forni became a member of the board of Lutheran CORE.   

THREATS, BULLYING, AND INTIMIDATION

But all that changed in January 2023 when Bishop Curry invited Pastor Forni to his office “regarding St. Timothy.”  When he arrived Pastor Forni was presented with an as yet unseen agenda critical of his service as supply pastor.  Bishop Stacie Fidlar of the ELCA’s Northern Illinois Synod (the synod in which Pastor Forni was rostered) also appeared at the meeting, having made no contact with Pastor Forni prior to that moment.  Pastor Forni felt totally ambushed.  There was absolutely no expression of appreciation for his thirty-six years of faithful ministry in the ELCA plus six prior years in the LCA – all years in Hispanic Latino bilingual contexts.  Rather he was threatened with discipline and possible removal from the ELCA roster if he were to stay any longer than two more weeks with the congregation where he, along with other available bilingual clergy and lay worship leaders, had been providing pulpit supply over a course of seven years.    

Pastor Forni quickly concluded his ministry, as he had been ordered to do.  On his final Sunday there were a couple representatives from the Metro Chicago Synod present who offered a few perfunctory words of thanks for his ministry as supply pastor.  But they spoke in English only in the presence of the predominately Spanish speaking assembly. 

Bishop Curry did not need to be nasty.  He could have thanked Pastor Forni for his years of faithful service and then told him that the synod council had decided to move that ministry in another direction.  If the bishop had taken that approach, Pastor Forni certainly would have been totally cooperative.  But Bishop Curry does not function that way.  He operates by threats, bullying, and intimidation.  Equally disappointing was the fact that Bishop Stacie Fidlar of the Northern Illinois Synod was not willing to tell Bishop Curry to back off and not threaten someone rostered in her synod.  No resistance was given to a bishop who operates by threats, bullying, and intimidation. 

After the absolute fiasco that occurred in the Sierra Pacific Synod, when former bishop Meghan Rohrer removed Pastor Nelson Rabell-Gonzalez as mission developer of a Latino ministry on Our Lady of Guadalupe Day, an action which caused major uproar throughout the ELCA, it was absolutely astounding to me that another synodical bishop would commit such a grievous act of abuse of power.

COMMUNICATION WITH ELCA LEADERS

I read with great interest an ELCA news release dated March 10, 2023 about the February 28-March 4 meeting of the Conference of Bishops.  In that publication it said that the bishops “received a report from the task force addressing the disciplinary concerns of leaders of color.”  It also said that “the task force is expected to make recommendations regarding the current process for discipline, consider a process for community healing and grief, and make recommendations for an office to receive complaints of harassment and discrimination.”  I wrote to the two people who made the presentation, Judith Roberts, senior director for ELCA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and co-convenor of the task force, and Bishop Paul Erickson of the ELCA’s Greater Milwaukee Synod and a member of the task force.  Here in part is what I wrote:  

“The events that transpired in the Sierra Pacific Synod over a year ago certainly sounded the alarm as it brought to our attention the fact that there are times and situations where leaders of color are not treated fairly.

“I am also very aware of another situation in another synod where the synodical bishop, who is a person of color, has been bullying, intimidating, and threatening to discipline a rostered leader who is not a person of color and who is rostered in another synod.  This same synodical bishop is also bullying congregational leaders who are not persons of color.

“As you and your task force do your work, I would hope you would remember and make provision for the fact that –

I never heard from Bishop Erickson.  The next day I heard from Ms. Roberts, who wrote –

“Thank you for sharing your concerns, and we will certainly take them into account.  The Churchwide Organization takes misconduct complaints against synod bishops seriously; if you believe that a synod bishop has engaged in misconduct, please direct that concern to the Presiding Bishop.”

I deeply appreciate the fact that she would write back, and in such a timely way, but after the inexcusably long time that Bishop Eaton took before she responded to the disaster in the Sierra Pacific Synod – and even then, I am certain she responded only because she absolutely was forced to – it did not all blow over and go away as she had hoped – I wondered what chance did I have of ever being heard – let alone responded to – about the situation at St. Timothy.

But to get back to the story at St. Timothy.

ABUSE OF POWER

The next two Sundays the people of St. Timothy were deeply disturbed that the person who had been bringing them God’s Word and providing pastoral leadership and care had been so abruptly removed – and without consulting them.  Several of them wrote to Bishop Curry, advocating for Pastor Forni.  When they were told that the synod would be bringing in a couple Spanish speaking Latina pastors they asked for more time to grieve and process their emotions before the synod would replace Pastor Forni.  They were assured by an assistant to the bishop that they would be given more time.  But it did not turn out that way.  The following Sunday Bishop Curry and around a dozen people from the synod came in, took over the service from the elected leadership of the congregation, and held a congregational meeting afterwards.  At that meeting Bishop Curry said that he had visited a couple times during the meetings of the Uncle Charlie program (which simply is not true) and, in order to discredit and undermine the Awes brothers, he suggested that there may be charges brought against the Awes brothers from former members, but he would not say from whom or what those charges might be about.  Again, threats, bullying, and intimidation – this time combined with not telling the truth.  Certainly not the behavior that one would expect and hope for from a bishop.

Over the next several weeks the engaging and personable Latina pastors endeared themselves to the Spanish-speaking and bi-lingual congregation.  Then they went around the Awes brothers to recruit some of the people to serve on an advisory council for the congregation.

NO RESPECT, REGARD, OR APPRECIATION

The next step came on May 4, when the Awes brothers received a “Demand for Possession and Notice of Termination – 30 Day Notice” from an attorney representing the synod.  They were informed that their tenancy of the parsonage would be terminated on June 30, 2023.  Again, absolutely no concern for them, no expression of appreciation for what they had been doing for many years to maintain the property and keep the congregation and its ministries going.  Just an abrupt eviction notice.  We were wondering about challenging the legality of that notice, in light of tenants’ rights in the city of Chicago and the fact that the letter stated that the synod was “the owner of the manse and church” and it gave the wrong address for the parsonage.  But the following day, on Sunday, May 5, the congregation was given a letter from Bishop Curry.  That letter told of a decision that had been made by the Synod Council to “exercise the power of S13.24 of the synod constitution to ‘take charge and control of the property of a congregation of this synod to hold, manage, and convey the same on behalf of this synod’” if “the Synod Council determines that the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers that it cannot provide required governance or that it has become impractical for the congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized” and if “the Synod Council determines that it is necessary for this synod to protect and preserve the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration.”

Therefore, the letter continued, “St. Timothy Lutheran Church is now closed” and will be replaced by a “new Synodically Authorized Worshipping Community, San Timoteo.”  (It is interesting that the name San Timoteo had been used interchangeably with St. Timothy in neighborhood outreach for six-plus years.)  The letter said that the congregation had the right to appeal this decision to the next Synod Assembly.  But with the way in which the Awes brothers had been undermined and circumvented, what chance would they have?

Joel Awes, former president of the congregation and son of the man who had been pastor for thirty-four years, was telling me what it felt like on that Sunday.  There was absolutely no recognition and expression of appreciation for the thirty-four-year ministry of his father.  There was no celebration of the work of that congregation over the previous one hundred nineteen years.  There was no sense that anything of value had been done by anyone since the congregation was founded in 1904.  There was just a blunt statement from the bishop, “St. Timothy Lutheran Church is now closed.” 

Any ministry that does not line up with ELCA beliefs, values, and priorities should realize that it may be only a matter of time – perhaps only one bishop election away – before the synod will come in with a wrecking ball, knock them over, and shut them down – all while showing absolutely no respect, consideration, or valuing of anything done by the people of previous decades.

Just think about it.  Let this sink in.

A synod that claims to be on the side of the oppressed has become the oppressor.

A synod that claims to be concerned for the homeless has thrown three brothers out on the street.

And what is scary is that we are all vulnerable.

QUESTIONS

If I had the chance to talk with Bishop Curry, there are several questions I would like to ask him – 

1. You said at a meeting with the congregation of St. Timothy on February 19 that it is against ELCA policy for a pastor to be able to serve as interim pastor, transition pastor, or do pulpit supply outside their own synod.  Where is that policy in writing?
2. If that is ELCA policy, why would Bishop Miller (former bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod) have allowed Pastor Forni to be transition pastor at St. Timothy? What about other situations where ELCA pastors have been interims and/or provided pulpit supply outside the synod where they are rostered? 
3. Since Bishop Miller allowed Pastor Forni to be transition pastor at St. Timothy, why did you threaten to bring charges against Pastor Forni for merely doing what he had been allowed to do?
4. What ELCA policy or provision empowers you to threaten to bring disciplinary charges against a pastor who is rostered in another synod – especially when the bishop of that synod says that she has no charges to bring against Pastor Forni?
5. Since you see what Pastor Forni and the Awes brothers had been doing as so grievous, out of line, and inappropriate, why did you wait so long to take action and why are you taking action now? If Pastor Forni’s serving as pulpit supply had been acceptable to you for several years after you were elected bishop, how did it become unacceptable?
6. On Saturday, February 18 the congregation was told by your assistant, Pastor Kathy Nolte, that she would honor their request for time to process their shock and grief over the abrupt removal of Pastor Forni before scheduling any meeting with the synod regarding interim pastoral leadership.  And yet the next day you and around a dozen other people from the synod showed up and took over the proceedings of the congregation.  Why the change, and why were they not told ahead of time? How is the congregation now to trust and have confidence in any communication from the synod?
7. On Sunday, February 19 you said that you had attended two Encuentros, including the entirety of one of them, and a couple sessions of the congregation’s Uncle Charlie program.  That simply is not true. You did attend a portion of one of our Encuentros, and you were warmly welcomed, but the director of the Uncle Charlie program does not remember a time when you attended one of their sessions.  When you attended a portion of one of the Encuentros, you said that you were bishop of the entire synod.  We were very grateful for and greatly encouraged by your comment.
8. On Sunday, February 19 you said that there are a couple former members of the congregation who may bring charges against the Awes brothers, but you could not say who those former members are and what those charges might be.  Making a statement like that is manipulative, bullying, unfair, and inappropriate for a leader in Christ’s Church. 
9. Paragraph C9.06 of the ELCA’s Model Constitution for Congregations states that an interim pastor is appointed by the bishop of the synod with the consent of the congregation or the congregation council. You did not have the consent of either the congregation or the council to appoint an interim pastor. You removed the congregation’s pulpit supply pastor without even consulting with the congregation and/or its leadership. Paragraph 9.31 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide says that congregations have authority in all matters not assigned by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws to synods and the churchwide organization. By your words and actions you have completely dismissed, discounted, disregarded, and ignored the integrity of a congregation. 
10. Through this whole process you have shown absolutely no regard or respect for and you have expressed absolutely no appreciation to Pastor Forni for his ministry at St. Timothy, and to the Awes brothers for their maintaining the property and ministry of the congregation. Is that typical of how you fulfill your role as Bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod?
11. On the day that a letter from you announced that St. Timothy is now closed, you showed and expressed absolutely no appreciation, respect, or regard for anything that anyone at St. Timothy had done during its life as a congregation.  You expressed no appreciation for the ministry of Robert Awes, who served the congregation faithfully for thirty-four years.  Does that complete disregard, ingratitude, and insensitivity reflect your attitude, opinion, and feelings about everything and everyone that pre-dates you?   
12. After former bishop Meghan Rohrer was pressured to resign when their overstepping of authority was exposed after their removal of a Latinx clergy person from his congregation and the ELCA clergy roster without due process, we were surprised that yet another ELCA synodical bishop would negatively impact another bi-lingual ministry without notice. Knowing that the ELCA is 96-97% white, ELCA church leadership wishes to encourage ethnic ministries.  How do your actions support rather than work against this goal and priority?   

What is scary about this whole situation is the fact that something like this could happen to any orthodox congregation still in the ELCA.  Potentially it is only one synodical bishop election away. 

In the ELCA we are all vulnerable. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find both our Video Book Reviews as well as our CORE Convictions Videos on various topics related to Biblical teaching, Lutheran theology, and Christian living.  You will find these videos in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  This month we want to feature two videos.     

MISSIO DEI – THE MISSION OF GOD

by Pastor Tom

Many thanks to Dr. Tom for his video discussion of Missio Dei – the Mission of God.  Here is a link to his video.  Pastor Tom has been active in global mission for many years.  In addition to being pastor of an NALC congregation in Illinois, he works with the organization Awakening Lives to World Mission as Director of their Heart for Mission Ministries.  In that capacity, he focuses on the countries of Laos and Thailand, which is a part of the world where he served for many years before returning to the United States.  In addition, he works as co-director of the Global Lutheran House of Study at the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he also teaches a number of courses on Lutheran Theology.

Pastor Tom from Northern Illinois emphasizes that Missio Dei is God’s mission.  It is not my mission or my church’s mission.  God is the initiator.  He sends us on mission.  He entrusts us with His mission.  He created the Church to do His mission.  We have the privilege of participating in God’s mission.  We are called to embody His Kingdom and to reflect His character to those around us.

Unfortunately, we can distort God’s mission.  We can lose sight of God’s purpose of mission.  We can try to make it our church rather than Christ’s church.  We want to do our mission, not Christ’s mission.  If a church focuses on internal matters, it loses sight of God’s mission.  We must begin with a big mindset.  A church that has a real heart for global mission will also be more involved in local mission.  As a congregation, when we focus on God’s mission rather than our own mission, we see the fruit of our faith. 

MODERN PAGANS SEEK TO ISOLATE A “SUBVERSIVE” RELIGION

A REVIEW OF “PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE CITY:

CULTURE WARS FROM THE TIBER TO THE POTOMAC”

by the Rev. Dr. Douglas Schoelles

Many thanks to NALC pastor Doug Schoelles for his review of this book by Steven D. Smith, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego.  Here is a link to his review.  A longer summary of his video can be found here.

In this book Smith argues that the current societal and legal conflicts are a renewal struggle of Paganism to “reverse the revolution Christianity achieved in late antiquity” that brought an end to “the merry dance of paganism.” Smith makes the distinction between the immanent religion of paganism and the transcendent religion of Christianity. Modern pagans resent the all-encompassing Christian standard of truth and morality as an oppressive limitation to the desire to live as one pleases. Pagans want to remove the accommodation of religion as practiced by our secular government and courts and banish any reference or preference for transcendent religion. Ultimately, he asserts the Pagan City, aka the State, must have people’s allegiance above all other powers or influences. Ultimately this means that people devoted to a transcendent religion must be marginalized and excluded from public life, by force if necessary. 

* * * * * *

May the Lord continue to bless you, keep you, watch over you, be gracious to you, and give you peace. 

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

I first got to know the name James Nestingen through what I still believe is the best confirmation text ever produced — the first edition of Free to Be co-written with Gerhard Førde. (Jim was unhappy with the later revision of it by AugsburgFortress.)

But while I heard him speak from time to time, the first occasion I spent at length with him was the Lutheran CORE Conference at Lindenhurst, Illinois, on September 28, 2007. Many of Jim’s friends and students describe him with the word “prophet,” and he was certainly in full prophetic mode at that event regarding the directions the ELCA was taking. The event gathered those of us who would lead the response to the sexuality decisions that would be made a few years later, leading to the change in strategy of Lutheran CORE and the formation of the North American Lutheran Church.

Jim represented a somewhat different version of Lutheranism than I had grown up with in my eastern LCA context, and I found it enlightening and refreshing, not to replace but to supplement the ways I had come to understand the faith. I learned from him to say with regularity, “we sinners,” as I would preach and teach. Jim would tell us that we should always listen for a confession in conversations with people. He understood the brokenness of our fallen world, and exulted in the Word of absolution that we dare to speak on the authority of the Son of God Himself.

Not that Jim ever claimed to be anything other than one of “us sinners.” And he could sin boldly from time to time. For him, theology was not an abstract intellectual enterprise, but God’s life-saving intervention in the world with the Word of Life we are empowered to speak through Jesus. He stood on “grace alone,” knowing that even our repentance is God’s gift through the Holy Spirit, channeled through the Word and the Sacraments.

Jim was not given to moderation, because his life was a huge love affair with Jesus. He and I had one difficult time when he demanded that Lutheran CORE rescind our invitation to a speaker with whom he had personal and theological conflicts. When we refused, our relationship was tense for a while, but we both moved beyond it. Lovers sometimes over-react, and Jim threw his whole being into the service of the Lord he loved. He was indeed a jealous lover of the Lord who he knew loved him with the same intensity.

As a speaker, nobody could hold the attention of an audience, lay or clergy, as well as Jim could. His repertoire of Sven, Ole, and Lena jokes along with often-scatological humor (which prevented most preachers from stealing his material) interfaced well with his profound theological insights, always centering on the Word of forgiveness Jesus proclaims through us. His North Dakota Scandinavian farmer persona helped humanize his brilliant teaching, and he could share personal stories of his encounters with real people and how the Word of forgiveness encountered them. Often he and all his hearers were in tears as he recounted these stories, even stoic Germans like me.

I still remember his story of visiting a dying friend, whispering in his ears as he was leaving this life, “The next voice you hear will be Jesus.” That is how real and concrete Jim’s faith was, and I know I became a better pastor because of my contacts with him.

Jim has been bothered these last years by painful ailments, and while he limited his travel he still managed to make it to NALC conferences and events, and to serve on our Commission on Theology and Doctrine (CTD). He arrived early in Dallas for the CTD meeting in November as my deans’ meeting was ending, so we got to spend a little time conversing together. While he was in obvious pain, somehow he found a way to fly there and continue to offer his guidance to the church body he helped bring into existence. I remember with thanksgiving these last conversations I had with him until we two redeemed sinners meet again around the Throne.

His death was sudden, and there was evidently nobody to whisper in his ear, “The next voice you hear will be Jesus.” But Jim already knew the voice of the Good Shepherd whom he loved and served so faithfully, and he surely knew Who was welcoming him into his heavenly home.

In my letter from the director for December 2022 I wrote about several concerns that arose in my mind as I read a November 16 news release from the ELCA about the November 10-13 meeting of the ELCA Church Council.  A link to that letter can be found here.  In that letter I said that I would be writing to Imran Siddiqui, vice president of the ELCA, who also serves as chair of the church council.  I would be asking him how it was decided that a representative from ReconcilingWorks would become an advisory member of the church council and whether any consideration would or had been given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as an advisory member of the church council.  Here is the letter which I sent him the morning of December 13.  Please note that I also expressed my concern that the ELCA would be committing a massive breach of trust if in the revised human sexuality social statement traditional views on same sex relationships were no longer seen as valid and legitimate and having a place of respect within the ELCA.  

Dear Mr. Siddiqui –

Congratulations on your election and thank you for your ministry of leadership within the ELCA. I believe that Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was absolutely correct – as was described in the November 16 ELCA news release – when she drew attention to the “substantial work charged to the (ELCA Church Council) by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly” and when she said that the work done by the Council now will “have a significant effect on this church.”

I am writing because of my deep concern over two of the bullet points under the section entitled “In other actions” in the November 16 news release regarding the recent meeting of the Church Council.

Under the second bullet point it says that the Church Council has “scheduled for 2024 the initiation of a task force for reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

I know that this process, as directed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, will include a reconsideration of the whole concept of bound conscience.  I realize that those who all along have been driving for the elimination of bound conscience were correct in determining that the time had come when they would have more than enough support to pass this kind of a motion, but still, if this action is taken and the provision for bound conscience is eliminated, it will be nothing less than a massive breach of trust on the part of the ELCA against those within its community who hold traditional views.  It will call into question whether the ELCA can be trusted on anything if it cannot be trusted to keep this promise to honor traditional views and those who hold them.  This is a promise the ELCA made in order to gather enough support to get the social statement approved.  Eliminating bound conscience will call into question the ELCA’s claim to have the moral integrity and authority to criticize other organizational entities for not keeping their promises – such as the way the ELCA criticizes the U. S. government for not keeping its promises to Indigenous persons – if the ELCA does not keep its promises. 

And then under the sixth bullet point it says that the Council “adopted a continuing resolution establishing council advisory members to include . . . a representative of Reconciling Works.”

As I understand it, until and unless it is revised and/or replaced, the 2009 Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust social statement still represents the ELCA’s official position and policy on same sex relationships.  This document describes four positions, which people within the ELCA hold “with conviction and integrity” (p. 20).  It states, “This church, on the basis of ‘the bound conscience,’ will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world” (p. 19).

At this time traditional views on same sex relationships are still recognized as legitimate and valid and having a place within the ELCA.  Therefore, why is there not also consideration being given to having a representative from a group with traditional views as one of the advisory members of the Church Council?

If the Church Council were to say that there are just too few people remaining within the ELCA who hold traditional views to have an advisory member with traditional views, then I would see the Council as doing two things.  First, it is totally discounting a significant percentage of the actual membership of ELCA congregations.  Second, it is ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing those whom it sees as too small and/or too weak and insignificant a minority, and it is doing so even as the ELCA is constantly and sharply criticizing those whom it accuses of ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing vulnerable, oppressed minorities.   

I also wonder how it was decided that the Church Council would have advisory members, what will be the role and limitations of the role of advisory members, and how it was decided that a representative of Reconciling Works would be one of the advisory members. 

I deeply appreciated the response you gave in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when someone claimed that you had said that Robert’s Rules are oppressive and racist.  Because of your response in that situation, I have great hope that you will be a voice for fairness, reason, good sense, and balance.

I look forward to your response.

Blessings in Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Retired ELCA Pastor – rostered in the Grand Canyon Synod

That evening I received his response.

Pastor Nelson,

Thank you for your email and expressing your views and concerns. Please allow me to respond to each of your two concerns in order. Regarding the reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. The vote of the 2022 Churchwide Assembly was overwhelmingly in support of reconsideration of the social statement. The Church Council is the interim legislative body of the Church between Churchwide Assemblies and is mandated to carry out the wishes of the Churchwide Assembly. The task force would be charged with bringing recommendations on the basis of the approved assembly actions to a future Churchwide Assembly. At that time, that Churchwide Assembly may approve or reject those recommendations. At the November 2022 meeting, the Church Council received the proposal for an editorial reconsideration to be considered first for the human sexuality social statement and then the task force would consider the bound conscience question.

Regarding Church Council Advisory Members, the advisory members were intended to give voice to those who have been historically marginalized within the Church. This allows those groups to have voice, but not vote, in Church Council decisions. This is especially necessary in actions that affect those who have been historically marginalized in our Church. For that reason representatives from ELCA Ethnic Specific Associations and a representative from Reconciling Works were named as Advisory Members to Church Council. 

Thank you again for sharing your concerns,

Imran Siddiqui

Vice President

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  

* * * * * * * *    

I can think of four things to say in response to his response.

First, I did receive a response, and in a very timely way – within just few hours.

Second, the ELCA feels totally empowered to do what it is doing. 

Third, the ELCA sees itself as having no reason to do anything other than what it is doing and no reason to consider any other views.

Fourth, the ELCA is only concerned for those whom it describes as “historically marginalized.”  It has absolutely no concern for those who are currently being marginalized.  And that total lack of concern is in spite of all that the “currently marginalized” have done in the life of the ELCA and its predecessor church bodies.   

ARE YOU READY FOR CHRISTMAS?

Editor’s Note: This Lightstock image used for this post is described as a “Fresco painting of the Nativity, from the chapel of the Shepherd’s Field in Beit Sahour (a suburb of Bethlehem), the traditional site of the angelic annunciation to the shepherds.”

Are you ready for Christmas?  By that I do not mean, Do you have the tree up, all your shopping done, the presents wrapped, and the cards sent?  Rather I am asking, Are you really ready for Christmas?  Are you prepared for the arrival of God’s Son? 

Luke 1:  5-7 tell about an old Jewish priest by the name of Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. It says that they were “righteous before God, but they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.”  They had no children, and the days for their hoping for a child were long gone.

In those days people believed that God would close the womb of a woman if He was mad at her.  So a barren woman was a disgraced woman.  Elizabeth was forced to live her life as though she had a sign hung around her neck that said, “God is mad at me.”  And even though Zechariah did not have quite the same kind of social stigma to have to deal with, still he had to live with the deep disappointment of having no child to carry on the family name. 

Do you feel like Elizabeth?  Is there something in your life that makes you feel ashamed or inadequate?  Do you feel like Zechariah?  Are you facing some deep sorrow or disappointment?

Well Luke tells us that while Zechariah was performing his priestly service in Jerusalem, he was chosen by lot to enter into the Holy Place in the Temple and burn incense there.  This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.  While he was in the Holy Place, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and said, “Your prayer has been heard.  Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John.” (verse 13) 

What do you mean, “Your prayer has been heard?”  What prayer?  If it was a prayer for a son, Zechariah had probably stopped praying that prayer a long time ago.  Zechariah might have even forgotten about that prayer.  But God had not forgotten.  What prayer were you praying a long time ago?  Maybe you have even forgotten about that prayer, but God has not forgotten.

In verse 18 Zechariah responds, “How will I know this is so?  For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.”  Well the angel Gabriel did not like that response, and so he said, “Because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will become mute, unable to speak, until the day these things occur.” (verse 20)  Zechariah comes out of the Temple unable to speak.  A few days later he returns home.

Verses 24-25 tell us, “After those days Elizabeth conceived and for five months remained in seclusion.”  She said, “This is what the Lord has done for me when He looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.” 

So here is Zechariah, a priest, a righteous man who knows God and who serves God.  But Zechariah has some spiritual growing to do.  When God gave him a wonderful promise, he did not believe that promise.  He doubted and underestimated God.  Zechariah is a prime example of a person who has known God for a long, long time.  He goes to church.  He is involved in church.  He does all the right things at all the right times in all the right ways.  But when God comes along and challenges him to grow to a new level of faith, he is not ready.

In contrast there is Elizabeth.  Zechariah cannot speak.  Elizabeth can speak, and when she does speak, she speaks about God’s grace and mercy to her and of how He has taken away her shame and disgrace.  She did not become bitter.  Rather she kept on serving and praising God.  Elizabeth was far more ready for Christmas than Zechariah. 

Zechariah was not ready for Christmas because he did not believe that God could step into his life and answer some long-forgotten prayer in a totally unexpected way.  How many of us are like Zechariah?  If we were to be honest, we would have to admit that deep down inside we are deeply disappointed with God.  And so, like old Zechariah, we keep on doing what we are supposed to be doing, but we really do not believe that God could and would step into our lives and do something that would bless us in unimaginable ways. 

If that is you – if you no longer believe that God could and would step into your life and work in your life in an amazing way to bless you, then like Zechariah you are not ready for Christmas. 

But the same God who sent an angel to Zechariah.  The same God who sent a heavenly host to startle some shepherds and tell them about the birth of a Savior.  And the same God who put a wonder in the sky to catch the attention of some star gazers, that same God has some very interesting and wonderful and amazing ways of getting through to you. 

God has a way of sending you a word of hope to remind you that life is stronger than death, light is more powerful than darkness, good will prevail over evil, and joy is deeper than disappointment.  All of which is at the heart of the message of Christmas. 

The question is, Are we prepared for all that?  Do you believe that God can work in your life in ways that you would never imagine to take away everything that is negative and disappointing in your life?  If you do, then you are ready for Christmas. 

* * * * * * *

COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH:

A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

In my August 2022 letter from the director, which I entitled “The Revisionists Have Completely Taken Over,” I wrote an evaluation of the ELCA’s 2022 Churchwide Assembly.  A link to that letter can be found here.  Among the most significant of the actions taken was a resolution which 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 which would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.”  We noted that the resolution seemed to make dismantling racism the main mission of the church.  We also observed that once you know the makeup of the commission, you will know the outcome.

In light of that fact, we have been watching carefully for any official word from the ELCA regarding progress in creating that commission.  The official word came in a November 16 news release reporting on the November 10-13 meeting of the Church Council.  A link to that news release can be found here. 

Before I comment on the makeup of the commission, which is the subject of the third paragraph of the news release, I would like to make a few comments regarding a very interesting statement from Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton in the second paragraph.  There Bishop Eaton is quoted as challenging the ELCA to “try as best as we can and as faithfully as we can to remain true to the gospel, but somehow find a way to speak and act in the cultural vernacular.”  If you cannot do both equally well, which one prevails – remaining true to the gospel or speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular?  With the way Bishop Eaton phrases it, speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular seems to prevail.  She then makes reference to Martin Luther’s translating the Bible into German so that “people could receive it in their own language.”  I cannot imagine that for Martin Luther speaking and acting in the cultural vernacular would take precedence over remaining true to the gospel. 

In the third paragraph it states that “the commission will consist of up to 35 voting members, to include at least 25 % people of color or whose primary language is other than English and a goal of at least 20 % youth or young adults.”  At least that is better than the position of many who had been driving this process and who did not want this whole matter to be minimized or buried by being referred to the Church Council.  Those people have made it very clear that they do not want any white male over the age of sixty to be allowed to have anything to do with the process.

At least this is better than that, but think about it.  At least 25% of thirty-five would be nine, and at least 20% of thirty-five would be seven.  Nine plus seven is sixteen.  At least sixteen out of the thirty-five members of the commission (just two short of a majority) will be people of color, people whose language is other than English, or people under the age of twenty-five or thirty (depending upon how you define young adults).    How representative of the ELCA is that?  There is no concern expressed for Biblical and theological awareness and no concern for whether these people would understand what it takes to create and run an organization the size and complexity of the ELCA. 

What would happen if your congregation’s council were to decide that a commission that would develop recommendations for totally redoing the structure and mission of your congregation were to be at least 45% people who do not represent the vast majority of your congregation?

As one member of our board said, What would have happened if the Council of Nicaea had been made up according to the requirements of these quotas?  Would we have had such a profound theological decision that defined and preserved orthodoxy?  Or what would have happened if the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 had been comprised according to these quotas?  Would we have had a decision which resolved the issue at hand and advanced the mission of the church? 

The third paragraph states that “nominations will be received from synod councils or synod executive committees as well as through an open nomination process” and “the Church Council’s executive committee will present a slate of nominees at the council’s April 2023 meeting.”  But I have a feeling that a lot of the decision has already been made in regard to who will be the people of color and people whose language is other than English who will be on this commission.

The third paragraph ends by stating, “The council also referred to the commission the question of changing the denomination’s name.”   There are many who would like to see the word “Evangelical” removed from the name of this newly reconstituted church.  The claim is that the word “evangelical” is associated in the minds of many people with right-wing, racist, white-supremacy fundamentalists.  

We will keep you posted.  One can only hope, when this new church is reconstituted, that congregations will be given an opportunity for an “easy exit” because this new church will not be what they had signed up for in 1988.  

I also want to comment on two of the bullet points in the section which begins, “In other actions.”  Under the second bullet point it says that the ELCA Church Council “scheduled for 2024 the initiation of a task force for reconsideration of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”  Ever since that social statement was approved in 2009 we have known what would eventually happen.  Sooner or later the ELCA would renounce its promise to recognize as legitimate and valid traditional views of human sexuality.  It would only be a matter of time until the ELCA would renounce its commitment to provide a place of dignity and respect for those who hold traditional views.  No one should be surprised.  What is interesting is that the ELCA is minimizing the significance of this massive breach of trust by not even beginning the process of creating a task force until 2024, one year before the next Churchwide Assembly.  What the ELCA values it gives abundant time and energy to.  For something it considers to be of minimal significance, it does the opposite.

And then under the sixth bullet point it says that the Church Council “adopted a continuing resolution establishing council advisory members to include . . . a representative of Reconciling Works.”  The use of the word “include” as well as the fact that the Church Council “also approved revisions to the ELCA Church Council Governance Policy Manual to include reference to advisory members,” would seem to allow for the possibility of additional “advisory members.”  I will be writing to the Vice President of the ELCA to ask how it was decided that a representative from Reconciling Works would be an advisory member and whether there will be any consideration given to a provision for a representative from a group with traditional views, such as Lutheran CORE, to be one of the advisory members.  In the January 2023 issue of our newsletter CORE Voice I will give a copy of my letter to the vice president and let you know whether I have heard anything. 

 * * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Each month we feature two videos – the most recent addition to our video book reviews, and a recent addition to our CORE Convictions videos.  The CORE Convictions series is designed particularly for those who wish to grow in their knowledge of Biblical teaching and Christian living as well as for those who want to know more about how Lutherans understand the Bible. We also want to provide this resource for those who do not have the opportunity or the option of attending a church where the preaching and teaching is Biblical, orthodox, and confessional.

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find recordings from both sets of videos – in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  We now have seven videos in our CORE Convictions series.  Many thanks to Dr. Robert Benne for his video on “Martin Luther on Vocation.”  His video will be featured in February 2023.

This month we want to feature a video book review by Kim Smith and a CORE Convictions video by Pastor James Hoefer. 

“THE AWE-FULL PRIVILEGE: THIS THING CALLED PARENTING”    

Many thanks to Kim Smith for her review of the book, “The Awe-full Privilege: This Thing Called Parenting” by K. Craig Moorman.  Kim hails from Maryland and is completing her third and final term on the board of Lutheran CORE.  A link to her video can be found here.

Pastor K. Craig Moorman is a Lutheran pastor in the NALC and is also on the board of Lutheran CORE.  He lives in Mt. Airy, MD.  He is a mission developer and is married with five children all of whom are now adults in their 20s and 30s.  One of the most remarkable things about Craig and his wife, Nancy, is that allfive of their children are Christians and have a deep and abiding relationship with Christ.  In his book, Craig writes that in claiming a “deep and abiding relationship with Christ, we are telling the rest of the world that we will build our lives on this reality.”

This book covers parenting from soup to nuts–from marriage to the culture wars impacting our lives, to the need to stand in the gap and be the gatekeeper—protecting the hearts of our children. He has chapters on parenting, chaos, managing time and things, being wonderfully made, what home should be, and the critical components that are key to serving the Lord with integrity and faithfulness.  He also writes about wisdom and where to look for it.  And he writes of the need to persevere and hold your family together at all costs.  He boldly discusses our societal ills and how to combat them.  And he ends with challenges that will help us start a Christ-centered revolution in our own homes.

Craig’s book will go a long way in helping you raise your children to be Christians—in more than name only.

“THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?”

Many thanks to AALC pastor James Hoefer for his very clear and complete explanation of the work of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.  A link to his video can be found here.

Just before His ascension Jesus told His disciples, “Don’t do anything until you receive the Holy Spirit.”  There was a good reason for that.  Without the Holy Spirit we cannot believe, we cannot love as God wants us to love, we cannot experience the freedom of being the person God wants us to be, and we cannot live the abundant life God wants us to live.

James expands on the five verbs that Martin Luther uses in his explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles Creed to describe the work of the Holy Spirit.

First, CALLS.  The Holy Spirit calls us through the Word of God, the voice of Jesus.  We experience true freedom not when we make choices, but when we realize that we have been chosen.

Second, GATHERS.  The Holy Spirit gathers us into the church.  It is not that we join a church.  Rather it is the Holy Spirit who adds us to the Church.  The Holy Spirit gathers us into groups of believers and into the Kingdom of God, which is bigger than any one denomination. 

Third, ENLIGHTENS.  The Holy Spirit uses the means of grace to do His work in our lives – baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Bible as the Word of God.  This is a process that goes on throughout our lives.

Fourth, SANCTIFIES.  Like a dentist who will not stop until every problem has been found and fixed, so the Holy Spirit finds and fixes everything in our lives that needs to change.  Using another image of our day, the Holy Spirit upgrades us with a whole new operating system.  We begin to see the Fruit of the Spirit develop in our lives as the natural result of being continually filled with the Holy Spirit.

Fifth, KEEPS.  The Holy Spirit guards and protects us with all the spiritual armor of Christ. 

Pastor James then concludes this video with a prayer for the Holy Spirit’s anointing power and new operating system.  He prays that God will empower our lives with His Word, His gifts, and the very life of Christ inside of us. 

* * * * * *

May God bless you with all the hope, love, joy, and peace of this Advent and Christmas season.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Year End 2022

Dear Friends –

I have been enjoying doing a weekly Bible study based upon the lectionary readings for the following Sunday.  A couple churches post them on their websites and Facebook pages as part of their adult education ministry, and I know of several people who use them either for their personal devotions or as resources for a small group Bible study that they lead.

This past week I was preparing a study on the Scriptures for Reformation Sunday.  In the third chapter of his letter to the Romans the apostle Paul makes a brilliant argument showing that God is both righteous and the one who justifies the person who has faith in Jesus (verse 26).  Paul says that we are “now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood effective through faith” (verses 24-25).  I read that verse and I thought of the movement that calls itself Progressive Christianity, which rejects the teaching that Christ died for our sins.

According to this movement, Jesus did not die for our sins.  Instead he died because he opposed the oppressive political power structures of his day.  But God raised him from the dead, showing that love wins, and now we need to join in his struggle against all the oppressive political and social power structures of our day. 

I know of a congregation where the new pastor, shortly after coming, took all the Sunday School material and with a black marker crossed off any reference to Jesus’ dying for our sins.  Then he returned the material to the teachers and told them that they were to use the amended curriculum and make no mention of Jesus’ dying for our sins.  All the teachers quit.  Good for them.

According to so-called Progressive Christianity (which I would say is not Christianity), sin, death, and the power of the devil are not three forces that hold us in bondage and we need someone to deliver us from.  And the main mission of the church is not to tell people of the Savior who loves them and who has broken the power of the forces that enslave them.  Rather, according to this view, the main message and mission of the church is to challenge people and rally people to work against all oppressive political and social power structures.

According to this view, Jesus is not a Savior.  Rather he is just an example and someone who wants to rally us to his cause.

I read the Second Reading for Reformation Sunday, and I contrast it with the main message of so-called Progressive Christianity, and I realize how much is at stake.  With what is going on in the Christian church today, everything is at stake.

I am very grateful for all the people who have told me of how they have read and deeply appreciate my analysis of the recent ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  People have shared that they also are in grief and horror over the way in which –

• The ELCA’s own description of the Highlights and its account of the Summary of Actions from the assembly make no mention of God and Jesus.  There is discussion of greenhouse gases, D. C. statehood, non-disclosure agreements, LGBTQ+ rights, and talk of dismantling racism and white supremacy, but no mention of God and Jesus.

• The Assembly took action to approve a resolution that called for a review of the 2009 human sexuality social statement and reconsideration of the four positions of bound conscience.  What could very likely occur at the next churchwide assembly in 2025 would be a massive breach of trust, as the ELCA breaks its promise to provide a place of respect for traditional views and those who hold them, all while harshly criticizing the U. S. government for breaking its promises to indigenous persons.

• The Assembly also took action to call for a commission for a renewed Lutheran church.  I shudder to think of what this reconstituted Lutheran church will have as a statement of faith and a statement of the mission of the church and the role of rostered leaders.

Yes, everything is at stake.  I am certain that the majority of the members sitting in the pews in most ELCA churches would be horrified if they knew what actually is going on.

The apostle Paul told his young friend Timothy, “Proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable” (2 Timothy 4: 2).  It is your prayers, words of encouragement, friendship, and faithful financial support that enable us to do that.  Thank you for joining with us in doing what the apostle Paul also wrote to Timothy – fighting the good fight, finishing the race, and keeping the faith (2 Timothy 4: 7).

Please find enclosed a form which you can use to designate a year-end gift towards our regular operating expenses as we work to be a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Please also let us know how we can be praying for you.  Thank you for your partnership in the Gospel, especially at this critical time when everything is at stake.    

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Visit our website www.lutherancore.org

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

Like us on Facebook www.facebook.com/LutheranCORE

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

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

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

Many thanks to retired ELCA pastor and former Lutheran CORE board member Keith Forni for organizing, and to St. Timothy’s Lutheran Church (ELCA) in the Hermosa neighborhood of northwest Chicago for hosting the mid-October, annual gathering called Encuentro.  Encuentro is Spanish for “Encounter.”  This event is co-sponsored by Lutheran CORE and the Bilingual Ministry Resource Center, which is based in Chicago and Joliet, Illinois.    

Because of the pandemic this was the first time we were able to hold this event since 2019.  We were all glad that we were again able to gather for teaching, worship, fellowship, and exchange of ideas on how we can be engaged in outreach to our diverse neighborhoods, particularly focusing on Spanish-speaking people.

We gave thanks to God as we heard from Pastor Forni regarding how seventy to eighty children and their parents walk by the church each day on their way to and back home from school.  Members of the church hand out to the children Spanish language coloring books such as “Questions Kids Ask About God.” Local residents were invited to join us for the presentations and the delicious lunch.  We remembered the beginnings of significant outreach to the community before the pandemic, and we prayed for a resumption of that response.  We recalled how that outreach began with the response of one family, who invited their friends and neighbors, who in turn invited their friends and neighbors, and so on.  Outreach and ministry certainly does most effectively happen through relationships.

We were blessed by and learned much from the two keynote presentations by the Rev. Dr. Maxwell Johnson, ELCA pastor and professor of theology at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana.  His morning presentation was on “Reclaiming the Eucharist and Great Thanksgiving in Contemporary Lutheran Worship.” 

Dr. Johnson began by mentioning the misunderstanding that certainly has always been my understanding – that liturgy is the work of the people.  Instead Dr. Johnson said that Christ is the prime liturgist.  He is the one who performs the work on behalf of the people.  Liturgy is God’s work for us, not our work for God.  Our work is our deeds of service after our worship.  Dr. Johnson also stressed that right from the beginning the eucharistic meal has always been central to Christian worship.  He gave as an example of worship’s being both Word and sacrament Luke’s account of when Jesus joined His followers on the road to Emmaus.  Jesus interpreted the Scriptures to them (Word) and His presence became known to them in the breaking of the bread (meal). 

Dr. Johnson’s afternoon presentation was on “The Virgin Mary in Liturgy, Doctrine, and Life.”  This presentation was particularly timely in light of the enormous impact upon the entire ELCA of spiritual and cultural insensitivities by denominational leaders towards an ELCA Latino mission in Stockton, California in the termination of their mission developer on a day that should have been a time of great celebration for them and the ending of synodical mission support. 

Dr. Johnson reminded us that most people today are not naturally going to be looking for a Lutheran church home.  Rather, with an increasing number of Latino people in our communities, if we want to intentionally reach our neighbors, including our Latino neighbors, then we need to find a way to embrace their symbols and images.  He sees this embrace as including finding a place for Mary within our churches.  He shared a very humorous but also a very insightful remark from one bishop – that it only makes sense that it is the mother in a very dysfunctional family who keeps the family together. 

Dr. Johnson sees in the appearances of the Virgin to Juan Diego in 1531 the clear message that the Latino community is seen and known by God.  While others may look down on them, marginalize and dismiss them, God gives them hope by showing that He cares about them, reaches out to them, and treats them with dignity. 

Dr. Johnson quotes from Mary’s Magnificat as he speaks of the appearances of the Virgin to a poor peasant whose people had recently been conquered.  “He has looked with favor on the lowliness of His servant. . . . He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.  He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly.  He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.”  (Luke 1: 48, 51-53)  The appearances to Juan Diego were Gospel – good news for those who had nothing and no reason to hope for good news.  Dr. Johnson sees the Latino people’s coming to know God’s liberating power proclaimed in the Magnificat as a gift of the Latino people to the wider church. 

Dr. Johnson mentioned two books which he has written or edited which further expand on the themes he was developing – The Virgin of Guadalupe: Theological Reflections of an Anglo-Lutheran Liturgist and American Magnificat: Protestants on Mary of Guadalupe.  He concluded by saying regarding Mary, “Her presence is a sign of welcome (to Latino people); her absence or the forbidding of her would be seen as a sign of rejection.”   He then added, “Mary always points us to Jesus, who is the Savior.” 

IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE

It should not surprise anyone that a movement is developing to get the ELCA to commit a massive breach of trust and to eliminate any provision for traditional views and those who hold them.

In my August letter from the director I told about some of the more significant actions that were taken by the 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  One of the most alarming was the overwhelming approval of a resolution “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” which “reconsiders the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience.”  (These four positions can be found on pages 19-21 of the 2009 social statement.  They provide a way for there to be a place of respect for traditional views and those who hold them.  A link to the document can be found here.)

At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still it should be obvious to all that the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

In my August letter I wrote that I am certain that the ELCA actually never intended to honor traditional views.  The language regarding bound conscience and the four positions was placed within the 2009 social statement only to obtain enough votes to get the social statement approved, and even then it was barely approved.  One needs to look no further than the ELCA’s total embrace of ReconcilingWorks and its choice of keynote speakers for the 2018 youth gathering to realize that confessional Lutherans with traditional views are not welcome.

But how will it happen?  A recent statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries (ELM) suggests a possible path.  This organization describes its mission in this way.

“Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries organizes queer seminarians and rostered ministers, confronts barriers and systemic oppression, and activates queer ideas and movements within the Lutheran Church.”    

On September 7 this organization released a document entitled “ELM Churchwide Assembly and Bound Conscience Statement.”  A link to the full statement can be found here.

In this document they say, “The ELCA must address our sins of racism and ‘bound conscience.’”  It then says, “As Lutherans, we confess our participation in these systems, yet we continually fall short in the ways to overcome these systems of oppression.”  “Sin” and part of the “systems of oppression” – that is what Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is challenging the ELCA to join with them in calling traditional views of human sexuality. 

I am sure that no one who had been paying attention thought that bound conscience was anything more than temporary.  In some places it was ignored right from the beginning.  What is new here is explicit language with which bound conscience might be repudiated and the means by which it might be done – through a public apology by the Churchwide Assembly and the Presiding Bishop.

The statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries describes recent times when the ELCA has made a formal apology.

• “In 2019, the Churchwide Assembly adopted a formal letter of repentance to commit to examine the church’s complicity in slavery, and to acknowledge ‘the ELCA’s perpetuation of racism.’”

• Also in 2019 the ELCA made a formal apology to the African Descent community.

• “At the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, Bishop Eaton formally apologized to the worshipping community of Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina for both individual and institutional racist harm done to the congregation & the Latine community.”

And now Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries is calling upon the ELCA to make a similar apology to the LGBTQ+ community.  Their document states, “Queer people in the ELCA deserve an apology and behavior consistent with repentance for the harm caused by ‘bound conscience’ and policies like ‘Visions and Expectations.’”  “Vision and Expectations” is a document that was approved by the ELCA Church Council in 1990 to describe what the church expected of its leaders but then removed from use by the ELCA Church Council in March 2020 because its more traditional views and expectations were “a source of great pain for many in the ELCA.”

Bound conscience and traditional views are now a sin – on the same level as racism and other forms of systemic oppression.  What should alarm every Lutheran with traditional views is the fact that Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries always gets what it wants.  They wanted the ELCA to remove the word “chastity” from its revised version of Definitions and Guidelines so that ELCA public theologian Nadia Bolz-Weber would be able to remain on the clergy roster while bragging about her sex life with her boyfriend (to whom she is not married), and they got what they wanted.  If Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries gets its way (which they always do) sooner or later – maybe in 2025, maybe in 2028 – the ELCA will officially repent and apologize for permitting pastors and congregations to teach and live according to what the Church has been teaching for two thousand years.

But while the ELCA grovels and repents as Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries tells them to, do not expect them to repent for breaking their promises to honor and provide a place for traditional views and those who hold them. 

In my August letter I also wrote about another resolution that was approved by the Churchwide Assembly which should cause great alarm for confessional, traditionally minded Lutherans.  The assembly voted to direct 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.” 

The question naturally arises, Who will develop this revised version of the 2009 human sexuality social statement and possible reconsideration (rejection) of the four positions of bound conscience?  Also, who will be appointed to this “Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church”?  You can be sure that those who have been driving the process to get things to where they are today have been busy, working to make themselves the dominant factor in the process.  Many of these people have said that they do not believe that any “white male over the age of sixty” should be allowed to have anything to do with the process, and the Statement from Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries urges “the committee tasked with reconsidering ‘bound conscience’ to include ‘new, young, and diverse’ voices and those that have been most harmed by ‘bound conscience.’”  The ELCA has made it very clear that high on its list of priorities for the coming years is to reach “one million new, young, and diverse people.”

The ELCA Church Council is scheduled to meet November 10-13.  We assume that among the actions taken will be the appointment of people to the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and the task force to review and revise the human sexuality social statement.  We all know that once you know who is on the committee, you know the outcome.  We will keep you posted. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Each month we feature two videos – the most recent addition to our video book reviews, and a recent addition to our CORE Convictions videos.  The CORE Convictions series is being designed particularly for those who wish to grow in their knowledge of Biblical teaching and Christian living as well as for those who want to know more about how Lutherans understand the Bible. We also want to provide this resource for those who do not have the opportunity or the option of attending a church where the preaching and teaching is Biblical, orthodox, and confessional.

Here is a link to our You Tube channel.  In the top row you will find recordings from both sets of videos – in the order in which they were posted, beginning with the most recent.  In the second row you will find links to the Playlists for both sets of videos.  We now have five videos in our CORE Convictions series.  Many thanks to retired AALC pastor James Hoefer for his video on “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.”  His video will be featured in December.

This month we want to feature a video book review by Pastor Chris Johnson and a CORE Convictions video by Pastor James Lehmann.    

“LIVES AND WRITINGS OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH”

Many thanks to Chris Johnson, LCMC pastor and secretary of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his review of this book, which is edited by Timothy Schmeling and Robert Kolb.  A link to his video can be found here.

Pastor Johnson begins by reminding us of the phrase, “If we can see farther, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.”  He sees this statement as true in many areas of life, including theology, and as well illustrated in the biographies and writings of twenty-one theologians who came after Luther from the 1550’s to the late 1600’s.

Some of these men were educators, some were brilliant systematic theologians, some were preachers.  Some were known for their poetry, their hymnody, or their devotional literature.  They served in many different ways, but they were all very gifted and dedicated to the Christian faith as understood by the Lutheran Confessions.   

Some were known for their polemical style, which is quite understandable since they lived during tumultuous times.  They faced many challenges and endured great suffering, such as during the Thirty Years War and from the plague.  Many experienced deep pain and sorrow from the death of several family members. 

They fought hard battles, were attacked on many sides, and suffered great losses.  They lived during a period of Lutheran history that we often ignore.  But according to Pastor Johnson, it is a great gift to us to get to know them and what they did.  They were men of faith who were dedicated to the Lutheran Confessions.  We would do well to learn from them as to how they persevered and remained true to the faith no matter what. 

TEACHING THE FAITH TO CHILDREN OF ALL AGES 

Many thanks to NALC pastor Jim Lehmann for his video, a link to which can be found here.  According to Pastor Lehmann, teaching the faith to children of all ages “may be easier than you think.  It does take discipline to make disciples.  It starts before a person can understand the language of faith and continues when language may be lost.  Join me for some ideas.”

The temperatures are cooler here in Arizona, and the Sonoran desert is lush and green from the summer rains.  No wonder the Snowbirds are returning.  We are constantly being reminded of God’s goodness.  May you also experience His blessings.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE