ELCA bishops deny “opposing theologies”

Since the 2009 ELCA churchwide assembly 449 congregations have left the ELCA as of May 5, reports the ELCA Secretary. A few hundred more are in the process of taking votes to leave. In doing so the denomination‘s orthodoxy has been questioned. At the center of the questioning is the critique that there are two different and irreconcilable theologies at work in the ELCA—one that upholds the authority of Scripture over all matters of faith and life and one that does not.

Yet today some ELCA bishops and leaders are arguing that there are no divergent theologies and that ELCA‘s orthodoxy remains unquestionable. To make this point, Bishop Duane Pederson of the Northwest Wisconsin Synod has posted a list of resources entitled, "Toolkit for Sexuality Discussion." ; Included among the list is a "fact checker" document, which has been posted to at least two other synod websites. (see http://www.nwswi.org/ news_and_events/news.phtml? id=B1D1528F) An ELCA FactChecker blog has also appeared that asserts the ELCA is solidly orthodox. (see link at http:// elcafactchecker.com/)

"Because of misinformation provided by separatist groups which seek to lure members and congregations away from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, this document has been produced. Anti-ELCA “talking points” typically cherry-pick instances that are framed as representative of the entire ELCA, or taken out of context, or intentionally cast in the most negative light possible. The following corrects misinformation due to violations of the 8th Commandment by some individuals and groups who seek to create a culture of suspicion and mistrust, rather than understanding and transparency.”

"Such rhetoric as is found in the so-called 'Fact Checker‘ is dissembling," states Lutheran CORE director Rev. Mark Chavez.

"On paper the ELCA appears orthodox," he adds, "but the reality is there are two opposing theologies at work within the church."

"For example, the confession of faith says the ELCA believes in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and yet at the July 25, 2010 Rite of Reception service conducted by the Sierra Pacific Synod in San Francisco, three ELCA bishops participated in leading worship that included a 'prayer of Jesus‘ that began, 'Our Mother who is within us we celebrate your many names.‘ Why doesn‘t the ELCA oppose this heterodoxy?" Chavez asked.

The two divergent theologies were acknowledged by Presiding Bishop Hanson back in March of 2005 in a report given to the Conference of Bishops.

Hanson said: "Two 'hermeneutics‘ or paradigms are at work among the members of the ELCA that make agreement difficult on scriptural and theological matters. The Rev. Craig L. Nessan, academic dean and professor of contextual theology, Wartburg Theological Seminary.... writes that there is 'traditional approach‘ and 'contextual approach‘ in interpreting Scripture, both of which are valid and irreconcilable," Hanson told the bishops. (see "ELCA Bishops Hear Concerns, Surplus News From Presiding Bishop,"; 05-042-JB ELCA News Service).

Other examples of theologically problematic statements include the Dig Deeper pages on the ELCA website and a footnote in the new Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible.

The Dig Deeper pages revealed that some ELCA leaders question the truth and historicity of the Bible and question key articles in the creeds. The first edition of the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible contained a footnote for Matthew 28:16-20 that advocated universalism.

In response to concerns raised by members, the ELCA churchwide staff in November 2010 removed some of the Dig Deeper pages for revision. Augsburg Fortress issued a second edition of the study Bible with a revised footnote for Matthew 28-16-20. Now some bishops are also minimizing the above facts and asserting that the ELCA remains an orthodox, confessional Lutheran denomination in "fact checker" documents.

"The fact that the Dig Deeper pages were on the ELCA website for several years, that a universalistic interpretation of Matthew 28:16-20 passed the review of Augsburg Fortress and the ELCA and that three ELCA bishops apparently saw nothing wrong with a goddess prayer can only mean that the ELCA does indeed have two opposing working theologies," comments Chavez.

"The ELCA would be better off if bishops were honest about the existence of opposing working theologies as Hanson was in 2005. A flat-out denial of reality may fool some, but not all, and it undercuts the credibility of ELCA leaders," he said.

First Edition Footnote, Lutheran Study Bible, (Augsburg Fortress Press) p. 1658

....In contrast, Jesus now sends the disciples to make disciples of all nations. That does not mean make everyone disciples. Most people who are helped by Jesus and believe in him never become his disciples. Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or even know about him (5:3-10; 25:31-45).

I'm not Lutheran, or Roman Catholic (rather Anglican), but I appreciate your remarks--even for conservatives to stand up and fight in every "teaching institution" (such as Protestant denominiations) in the USA. Your desire that the conservatives "retake" the ELCA and other groups is commendable...however, it appears to be at odds with the historical facts. So a little background on Protestant "mainline" denominations:

The take-over by the ELCA (and all other mainline Protestant groups) by the liberals is nothing new...in fact, its been going on for well over 100 years. As a matter of record, where Luthernism was born, Germany, was the place where the academically "progressive" school of higher-criticism (unbelieving scholars taking apart the bible, assuming they knew much more than any ancient scribe, saying it was full of myths...etc.) was born--about 200 years ago.

In the late 19th Century (that's right, the 1800s) newly established American seminaries, wanting to burnish their academic reputation, started hiring German, and German-trained academics, and higher-criticism (or theological liberalism, or just "liberalism"...) became firmly established in the training schools of Protestant ministers...that is the seminaries.

Of course many believing pastors resisted this trend--and resisted (some, or much....) of what they were (mis) taught in seminary, but slowly but surely, pastors became weaker, and weaker in faith--less certain that the bible was true.

Since in Protestantism, the holy Bible is the full and final authority, not any institution or tradition, uncertainty about scripture is a death knell for certainty about anything....

By the 1920s amidst many denominations, things were at a crossroads. Many foreign missionaries had attitudes like the famous (German) Albert Schweitzer...IE they had lost all belief in God, and Jesus Christ, but just wanted to do good somewhere, somehow anyway. Realizing unbelieving missionaries were very destructive....among orthodox leadership a movement rose up with certain "fundamentals" (things like the virgin-birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, affirming miracles...and the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible).

This became known as the "fundamentalist" movement. Of course some of this became too rigid--for historic orthodox Protestants--and in about the '40s or so, "evangelicalism" was born--a more moderate-than-the-fundamentalist-had-become, but still orthodox movement within Protestantism.

Still the seminaries were controlled, by in large, by the liberals... More and more, conservatives/orthodox were squeezed out, and not tolerated at mainline seminaries. Soon large numbers, if not a majority, of mainline pastors had a weak, if not totally absent....faith. Mainline protestant churches became do-good, social clubs--while sermons became self-absorbed reflectant moralist wanderings--with little or no connection to scripture (since scripture was no-longer accepted as authoritative...).

The morals taught in our parents' and grandparents' mainline churches were more or less that of the age--which in the '40s, '50s even into the '60s was more or less biblical, and conservative. However when the '60s sexual revolution caught up with the mainline churches, that began to change. Living together before marriage became acceptable (now apparently in the USA about half our couplings are done without benefit of marriage....) and the door was open to other perversions of biblical morality. Along came the perverse demons...

Evangelicals fought back within (starting in the 40s) but, it seems the liberals held all the cards...they had stealthily taken over key posts of leadership in the seminaries, and then, in the denominational leadership itself. This all goes across the board too, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, even certain Baptist groups, etc.

Many evangelicals, seeing the important nature of the work on the ground, focused ONLY on their local church--if it was healthy, they paid little attention to the larger, political, denominational goings-on. The liberals became further established, and indeed became the mainline religious establishment itself.

When evangelicals finally had had enough...and could not say and fight--while their childrens' souls were on the line--they broke off and formed other denominations, and independent "non-denominational" churches.

This leads us to the current situation: Breaking away churches from mainline denominations are now literally, physically PERSECUTED--with lawsuits, and forfeiture of property--all because they simply desire to stay orthodox.

The mainline denominations are FIRMLY in the control of liberal/ anti-biblical, anti-Christian people-in-leadership. People go to church to feed their souls, to fight the world during the week...they DON'T go there to fight the institution of the "Church," now often indistinguishable, of not worse, than the world at large. Particularly those with families....cannot risk their kids--so they can "stay and fight" while they themselves are spiritually malnourished--and their pastors too are weak if not spiritually dead.

In Protestant theology the Church is NOT a single (or even multiple) human institutions. It is the invisible collection of all people who truly trust in Jesus, and believe His word, the bible. Therefore as tragic as it is, the formation of new church organizations, faithful to scripture, and our Lord, is not and earthshaking terrible thing--particularly if it holds (or redeems) ones children. Yes, some of the new groups will go bad....(but since we know what happened to the mainlines, steps can be taken to avoid their mistakes) but not necessarily.

The LCMS for example, has existed from the early 1800s (it came into being resisting those earliest liberals in Germany...) and it is still, according to what I've heard, a solid, biblical denomination.

People need to do what their conscience tells them for the benefit of their own, and their families', eternal destiny...and for many, that is NOT trying to fight a losing fight within that's been going on for several generations now...

Let the higher critic-liberals have the "stuff!" Your soul will last MUCH longer, and is so much more important than comfy pews, solid buildings, with pretty stained glass....

I emailed Bishop Pederson, and I sent a list of about 25 Bible verses that, according to my dad (a retired ELCA pastor who joined an LCMS church) state that homosexuality is a sin. I asked Pederson to send me a list of verses that state that God approves of homosexuality, and I said that I’d consider both sides, since I think that Christians should follow teachings of the Bible. He sent this response:

“Phil,

Thank you for your email.

The premise of stacking up Bible verses for and against one another regarding a given issue isn’t an interpretive principle that I find helpful or useful. For instance, the Bible speaks repeatedly of women as either property or subordinate to men throughout – there are no passages that advance any other perspective. Yet, we do not take these passages literally, nor can we find Bible texts that say it is acceptable for a woman to have authority over a man, nor could a literal approach ever support the ordination of women, as the ELCA and predecessor bodies have done since 1970.

The same can be said of slavery. For centuries, the church pointed to specific passages from the Bible that support slavery; it is the norm in Scripture and accepted practice. Yet, the church eventually came to consider one person owning another person as a grave sin. This conclusion couldn’t have been arrived at on the basis of stacking up “for” and “against” passages, since there are no passages that speak against slavery.

Neither will such an approach to interpreting the Scriptures work with homosexuality, because your dad is correct, none of the handful of passages speak favorably of it. Thus, an approach not unlike what was used to interpret texts supporting slavery and the subjugation of women is used by those who advocate for change in church policy regarding homosexuality. If your conclusion is that these few texts must be taken literally, then there can be no conversation with others or alternative interpretation, because any other view would be understood to be unfaithful.

If you are serious about learning of alternative biblical interpretations, I would refer you to the following to glimpse such a perspective:

- Homosexuality and the Bible - Walter Wink

- The Authority of Scripture - Former Presiding Bishop Herb Chilstrom

- The Bible, the Church, and Faithful Discernment - Brian Peterson

- A View From History - Susan McArver

The ELCA’s position at this point in time according to the sexuality social statement is to affirm the traditional position of a relationship between a man and a woman, while recognizing that there is disagreement about biblical interpretation concerning homosexuality, such that only those congregations who choose to do so may call a homosexual pastor in a same-gender committed relationship.

I hope the above resources help you see that faithful, biblical Christians can disagree and still remain in fellowship with one another. The articles are provided, not to argue for or against Churchwide Assembly decisions, but to further understanding of perspectives other than literalism.

Blessings,

Bishop Pederson”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.