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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

In the September 2023 issue of CORE Voice I gave an analysis of the expected outcome from the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  After reading the biographical paragraphs for the thirty-five members, I described the certain end result of their work.  Here is a link to my analysis, which I entitled “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.” 

Based on who was chosen by the Church Council to be a part of the Commission, I listed four things that are certain to characterize the Renewed Lutheran Church – social justice activism as the main mission and purpose for the church, an ever-diminishing role for men, LGBTQ+ activism, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as the primary value system for the church.  At the end of that article I said that I would keep you informed as the Commission continues to do its work. 

The Commission met electronically September 21-22.  A link to a description of their meeting can be found here. The work of the Commission is as predicted.  After all, “Once You Know the Makeup, You Know the Outcome.”

The first thing to note in that report is a phrase in the resolution passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly which directed the Church Council to establish the Commission.  The phrase is “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Those words are the only place where the resolution gets specific in defining what is to be the central mission and top priority of the Renewed Lutheran Church – dismantling racism.

Now certainly racism is wrong.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  God does not love just one race or ethnic group of people.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28: 19, Jesus said that we are to make disciples of all nations, not that we are to dismantle racism.  In His final words to His disciples before ascending into heaven, Jesus told His followers that they are to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1: 8).  Jesus does not say that we are to make our number one priority dismantling racism.

The second item of interest to note is who are the three people who were invited to join the meeting as staff resource persons to inform the Commission concerning specific issues.   

• Judith Roberts, ELCA Program Director for Racial Justice, who told about the efforts of the task force on “Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity.”
• Pastor Nicolette Peñaranda, Program Director of African Descent Ministries, who described the barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face in the ELCA.
• Vance Blackfox, ELCA Director for Indigenous Ministries and Tribal Relations, who spoke of the ongoing efforts to heal the broken relationship between the Indigenous community and the ELCA.

A couple years ago I sent an email to the recently appointed assistant to the bishop for authentic diversity for the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  I wrote, “As an older, white, cisgender male, I am a part of a marginalized group.   In the spirit of authentic diversity, what kind of ministry will you be offering people like me?”  As expected, I never received a response.

I find it interesting that the Commission is concerned about barriers that clergy and congregations of African Descent face.  They show no concern at all for the barriers that seminarians, pastors, and congregations with traditional views face.  

And I find it interesting that the ELCA is concerned to “heal the broken relationship” between itself and the Indigenous community.  But it has absolutely no concern or interest to heal the broken relationship between itself and pastors, congregations, and lay people with traditional views, even though we also are people who have experienced broken promises, congregational leaders being removed, and church properties being taken over under the guise of S13.24 in the model constitution for synods.

In the spirit of “Once you know the makeup, you know the outcome,” we will continue to keep you informed.

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? 

THE REVISIONISTS HAVE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER:

 A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY

The ELCA held its Churchwide Assembly August 8-12 in Columbus, Ohio.  The gathering sent a strong message to confessional Lutherans with traditional views – You are not welcome.  In this article I will list several ways in which the decisions that were made and the events that took place communicate that message loud and clear.    

First, the resolution concerning human sexuality that came from the Memorials Committee early on in the gathering was bad enough.  The assembly voted overwhelmingly, without discussion, and with no concerns expressed “to authorize a social statement reconsideration to revise Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust (2009) so that its wording reflects current church understanding, church policy, civil law, and public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-confirming couples.”  It was obvious where this was headed, and it took only two days to get there.  Towards the end of the week a resolution came through the Reference and Counsel Committee “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.”  At least there were a few people who spoke against this resolution, and 12% voted against it, but still the days of the ELCA’s claiming to honor bound conscience and to provide a place for those who hold traditional views are over. 

I am certain that the ELCA 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.  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. 

David Charlton, vice president of our board, has done a powerful analysis of the possible (even probable) implications of this action. 

• Candidacy committees and seminaries will no longer need to pretend to work with traditional candidates.  They can reject them outright.
• Seminaries will be able to openly purge any traditional professors who remain, in the name of ELCA policy.
• Synods will no longer need to work with congregations who do not want to call LGBTQIA+ pastors.  These congregations can be told, “Either call an LGBTQIA+ person or you will get no pastor at all.”
• It will be difficult for a pastor who holds traditional views to move to a new synod or a new call.  A bishop will be able to refuse to recommend a pastor for a new call if that pastor is unwilling to do same sex weddings.
• It will be easier to sue congregations for not doing same sex weddings.

Second, during the days leading up to the assembly there was much conversation about calling for a restructure of the governance of the ELCA.  I read comments from many people who believed that the Memorials Committee’s original recommendation to refer the memorials from synods to the Church Council was an act of deliberately stonewalling their efforts.  Some even talked about a showdown at the assembly.  By the time of the assembly the Memorials Committee had changed its recommendation – to one 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 would “present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention.” 

One could hope, when this new church is reconstituted, that congregations will be given an opportunity for an “easy exit” because the new church will not be what they had signed up for in 1988.   There is even talk about removing the word Evangelical from the name of this new church.  The claim is that the word evangelical is associated in the minds of many people with right-wing, racist, white-supremacy fundamentalists.   

Prior to the assembly I read much criticism of Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton – some of it even very severe.  Some were calling for her resignation or a vote of no confidence because of the way she initially handled the situation with Meghan Rohrer and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina.  Bishop Eaton survived the assembly (though she did test positive for COVID on the morning of the final day – we pray for her quick and full recovery) and she demonstrated throughout the week her great giftedness for presiding over a large and complex gathering.  But I definitely got the impression that she was not setting the course.  The relentless revisionists were, and they have completely taken over.

Third, the whole assembly was a powerful example of the amount of damage that can be done to and the depth of embarrassment that can be created for a large organization by the foolish and self-centered actions of just one person.  It felt like the specter of former bishop Meghan Rohrer and their termination of Nelson Rabell on the Feast Day of our Lady of Guadalupe hung over the entire week.

Fourth, Bishop Eaton’s apology to Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina was deep and thorough, and the response of the representatives of the congregation was incredibly gracious, but it should be noted that Bishop Eaton apologized only on behalf of the ELCA.  She did not apologize for herself.  It is a whole lot easier – and a whole lot less painful – to apologize on behalf of a large group of people rather than on behalf of yourself.

During the apology she said, “Part of the body was disconnected; the body was not whole.”  She also promised to be “committed to listen to voices that have traditionally been marginalized.”  But what about another part of the body that is disconnected?  What about other voices that are being marginalized – the voices of those who hold traditional views?  During and after the 2009 Churchwide Assembly Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson reached out to those who were feeling alienated by the actions that were taken (even if it was only for the self-serving reason to preserve the organization).  I have not heard of any effort – nor do I expect to hear of any effort – to reach out to those who feel disconnected and marginalized, even more so now because of the vote on the human sexuality resolution.  We are just too few in number and we are seen as insignificant.  Unlike Pastor Rabell and Iglesia Luterana Santa Maria Peregrina, pastors and congregations who hold traditional views do not have well-positioned, powerful, and credible people to advocate for them – and to do so relentlessly – until finally something is done.

Fifth, the overwhelmingly positive vote on the Land Back Memorial is another example of ELCA inconsistency and hypocrisy.  The assembly fully supported a resolution which, among other things, 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.” 

Several months ago I wrote a letter to the bishop of the synod in which I was rostered before I retired.  In that letter I said that if that synod truly believes that the land now occupied by the synod offices and all of the congregations of that synod is stolen land, then they are morally obligated – whenever they close a congregation and sell the property – to return at least the value of the land to indigenous persons, and if they do not do so, then they would be complicit in the stealing of land.  The problem is that the number of congregations in that synod and the size and vitality of the remaining congregations are so diminished.  Therefore, that synod needs considerable funds from the sale of buildings and land of closed congregations to balance the budget. 

Will the ELCA truly want to return land and structures to Native nations if the ELCA is struggling financially, or is virtue signaling something the ELCA does only when it does not cost too much?  Also, will the ELCA be willing to return the land and structures of congregations that had to pay a very high price to leave the ELCA?  And if those congregations no longer exist, will the ELCA be willing to give the land and structures (or the value of that land and those structures) to other church bodies which better reflect the beliefs and values of those congregations that paid a very high price to leave and/or were decimated by the persons whom the synod sent in?

Sixth, those who hold a pro-life position should be deeply disturbed by the action that was taken to archive a number of social policy resolutions. In the ELCA social statements cover broad frameworks and are intended to help God’s people think about their faith in the context of social life.  Social policy resolutions are a much narrower and more focused category of social teaching.   

The idea behind archiving a social policy resolution or social statement is to say that that document is no longer relevant to the ELCA’s mission, does not have continued significance for society, and is no longer congruent with ELCA social teaching.  The ELCA’s abortion social policy resolution states essentially the same thing as the ELCA’s 1991 abortion social statement, and it has now been archived.  It has been ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent with ELCA social teaching.  It is only a matter of time – perhaps at the 2025 churchwide assembly – until the ELCA’s abortion social statement also will be ruled as not relevant, not still significant, and not still congruent.  After all, as one person said recently, “The ELCA’s abortion social statement was written in the 1900’s.”  I do not remember any explanation of the meaning and significance of archiving prior to the vote to archive.  If anyone who holds a pro-life position happened to be present, there is a good chance that that person would not have understood what just happened. 

Seventh, there was a lot of strange spirituality and even the worship of other gods during the assembly.  The opening focused more on the original inhabitants of the land than on Jesus, and the welcome from the bishop of the host synod focused more on the rivers that flow through that synod than on Jesus.  And the prayer from a member of the prayer team during the vote on the human sexuality resolution was particularly strange.  First, Bishop Eaton needed to be reminded of the importance of having a prayer even though voting had already begun.  And the wording of the prayer was completely irrelevant. A member of the assembly prayer team read from her i-phone an invocation to Mother Earth and Father Sky, concern for all the creatures of the earth, and repentance for our not recycling enough.  The only possibly relevant phrase was, “Help us to dance together,” but even considering that phrase relevant is a stretch.  The thinking seems to be that if we pray prior to a vote, then the outcome of the vote must be within the will of God. 

Eighth, one might wonder how so much groveling, repenting, and apologizing by the assembly could possibly be uplifting for the voting members.  The reason is that they were groveling over, repenting of, and apologizing for what other people have done and not for anything that they have done or ever would do.  A definite characteristic of the whole Woke Movement is an arrogant self-righteousness.

Ninth, in an article entitled “Major Disaster on Its Way,” published prior to the assembly, I wrote of my concern regarding two constitutional amendments that would be considered.  A link to that article can be found here.  The first amendment, which removed proclaiming God’s love for the world from the role of rostered leaders and essentially made them social justice advocates, was originally voted on in 2019.  This amendment was part of a block of amendments that were ratified overwhelmingly.  A motion to ratify previously approved amendments is not open to debate.  ELCA parishioners should not be surprised if their pastors do not preach about Jesus, but instead are only social justice warriors.   

I was glad to hear considerable concern expressed regarding the role of the ELCA’s colleges and universities as described in the other amendment.  Many felt that the deletion of a certain paragraph from the constitution weakened the church’s connection with those institutions and diminished their Christian witness.  A slight majority voted to approve, but it did not receive the required 2/3rds, so the amendment failed.

Tenth, it was good to see certain issues addressed – such as the evils of racism and abuse of power, the need for fair and adequate compensation for all rostered leaders, and the issue of seminarian debt.  And there were four times when the proceedings made me chuckle.

• When Bishop Matthew Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod responded in the words of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to a motion to eliminate the breaks in order to give more time to the consideration of the memorials.  He said, “If we do not satisfy the lower level needs, we will never be able to self-actualize.”
• When a voting member who made a motion to table the Land Back Resolution was told that a better way to go would be a motion to postpone debate until a fixed time or when certain conditions have been met.  His response was, “I have no idea how these rules of whatever work.”
• When Bishop Eaton said to Bishop Riegel, “I have learned not to doubt you.”
• When a voting member spoke to a certain resolution, using all the right woke phrases but not making any sense.  Bishop Eaton had a very pained and confused look on her face as the voting member was speaking and then said, “Thank you.”

The “Embody the Word” Bible studies prior to the assembly culminated on the second day with a theological presentation by Anthony Bateza, associate professor of religion at St. Olaf College.  He talked about the importance of trust, the lack of trust today, and the question of how do and can we become people who can be trusted.  He told of his having to undergo surgery and physical therapy after tearing his ACL in a skiing accident.  He said that he needed to learn to trust his own body again.

Even more so than ever before – with the motion “to authorize a possible revision of the social statement on Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” and reconsider “the church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” – the ELCA has totally obliterated any reason why anyone with traditional views would ever trust the ELCA.  The damage to the body is irreparable.  Far more than an ACL has been torn. 

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

Lutheran CORE is always looking for ways to take our ministry to the next level and expand our work of being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Our most recent new effort is to expand our video ministry.

For about two years we have been posting on our You Tube channel a new video book review on the first day of every month.  Many thanks to the Lutheran pastors and theologians who have been recording these reviews of books of interest and importance. 

We are calling our new video ministry CORE Convictions.   This new video series is being planned particularly for those who are looking to strengthen and renew their Christian faith. We believe that these videos will be a valuable resource 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 – Book Reviews and CORE Convictions.  Here is some more information about two of the most recent videos. 

* * * * * * *

BOOK REVIEW – “THE HOLY SPIRIT AND CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE”

Many thanks to Dr. Paul Hinlicky, professor emeritus at Roanoke College in Roanoke, Virginia, for giving us a review of Simeon Zahl’s book, The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience.  Here is a link to his review. 

Prior to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, during the early years of Reformation theology, part of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer was seen to be the giving of a new heart, new emotions, a change in one’s desires.  This book helps regain that emphasis.  Faith is not just a matter of intellectual conviction.  It is also something that strikes home for us personally.  It changes us and what we love. 

Grace can be an abstraction – simply the idea that God is merciful and loving.  Instead grace needs to be and can be a concrete experience of the merciful Jesus Christ, who finds His way into our hearts through the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit.  

CORE CONVICTIONS

We now have four videos posted in our CORE Convictions series –

• “Defending Christian faith and morality without being a nasty jerk or a defensive Bible thumper” by NALC pastor Cathy Ammlung
• “Jesus is the only way to salvation” by Russell Lackey, campus pastor at Grand View University (ELCA)
• “Teaching the faith to children of all ages” by NALC pastor Jim Lehmann
• “What does it mean to be Confessional?” by NALC pastor Jeffray Greene

More videos will be posted as they become available.  Here is a summary of Cathy’s video.

DEFENDING CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MORALITY

WITHOUT BEING A NASTY JERK OR A DEFENSIVE BIBLE THUMPER

Many thanks to NALC pastor Cathy Ammlung for this video on how to share the Christian faith and moral values in a hostile environment.  Here is a link to her video.

In this video she discusses what Christians can do to prepare for and engage in conversations on difficult topics like abortion.  Cathy does not give answers or talking points.  Instead she counsels the viewer on leading with the love of Jesus and doing the hard work that provides solid information, insight, and confidence.  Finally, she walks the viewer through some of the tactics for argumentation and activism that were formulated by Saul Alinsky and that are being used by many people today who oppose Christian faith and moral values.  It’s less threatening when you know what’s going on!

* * * * * * *

Thank you for letting me share regarding these issues.  May the Lord continue to bless you.

Dennis D. Nelson

Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

dennisdnelsonaz@yahoo.com