Category Archives: Religious News

A scholarly ELCA response to Benne and Lutheran CORE

Kurt Johnson, Sr. is an ELCA Lutheran who resides in the Austin, Texas area. He is the author of a political non fiction book entitled Glass Walls released in May, 2009. The book discusses the neoconservative influence on the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

GLASS WALLS is a flowing, descriptive study of how public policy decisions by government can be misguided by social, cultural and religious influences.

This post is not about the book but a subsequent paper by Johnson that discusses one of the neocon subjects of his book, Robert Benne. This is the same Robert Benne who serves on the Lutheran CORE advisory board and who has authored several articles posted on the Lutheran CORE website, including the recent Why There Must be New Beginnings. Based on Benne’s background in neocon politics, Johnson offers a paper in response to Benne’s New Beginnings article. It is a scholarly paper (pdf format) that is more ponderous than a blog post, but it offers revealing insight into Benne and serves as a rebuttal to many of Benne’s positions.

Johnson briefly traces the Benne drift into neoconservatism (emphasis added).

[I]t is well documented that in the mid-to-late 1970s, Benne distanced himself significantly from his position embracing “social justice” and toward a distinctively white and middle-class (if not upper-middle-class) system of values. It is well documented that he became disillusioned with the civil rights movement and anti-war movement (Vietnam).

As part of that transition, Benne decided to take up with the “Chicago School” of economic theory as promoted by the economists at the University of Chicago, embracing the free-market ideas of Milton Friedman as distinguished from the long-accepted views of John Maynard Keynes. And perhaps most surprising because of its
remoteness from Benne’s pre-1975 views as a professor at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago was his position that “market arrangements” can (as per Benne quoting Assar Lindbeck) “reduce the need for compassion, patriotism, brotherly love and social solidarity as motivating forces behind social improvement.” And so, by the time the ELCA was being formed and attempting to engage the world on the cutting-edge issues, Benne already was in the process of retreating from it, aligning with the neoconservative values which are found substantively in the “white, middle-class, Euro-American composition.” All he needed to complete the schism was a virulent issue like human sexuality, which conveniently pulled the trigger.

Here are a few key points of Johnson’s rebuttal to Benne.

Based on his baseline premise that lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships are necessarily sinful, Benne concludes that the ELCA willy nilly excuses sin and offers cheap grace. I previously discussed this unquestioned assumption or paradigm here. Johnson rightly argues that the ELCA has not gone into the business of excusing sinful behavior. Instead, the ELCA now challenges the basic assumption of sinfulness and has achieved a paradigm shift in the church’s attitude about committed same gender relationships.

Benne offers significant criticism of the ELCA quota system, as if it is part of a “pervasive, deep-seated and well planned conspiracy to overturn Lutheran confessionalism and a Lutheran interpretation of scripture,” according to Johnson’s characterization of the Benne view. Johnson responds:

The inclusive, so-called quota system was developed in order to integrate the church and a world in need of ministry and sanctification. It was not developed to overturn important aspects of Lutheran doctrine. It is true that the quota system could be viewed as a threat to those who want to have the ELCA dominated by a “white, middle-class, Euro-American composition.”

Johnson concludes by raising the recurring question of how religion reacts to modernity, and suggests that the answer of Lutheran CORE is an unsatisfying retreat to Reformation era tenets of traditionalism.

It is understandable that the traditional orthodoxy represented by the Lutheran Core movement likely will dismiss these emerging developments and call them liberal, secular and heretical. The problem with this position … is that traditional orthodoxy is not likely to reassess how its message can reach and find acceptance in a society and world which are trying to digest such fast-moving changes.

Johnson’s paper is lengthy, but it’s worth the read.

Will the Lutheran CORE financial boycott of the ELCA hinder efforts to help Haiti? UPDATED

Except for Pat Robertson and his 700 Club rant that suggested the Haitians deserved the hurricane that has devastated their country, the reaction of American religious communities has been swift and supportive, and this includes the ELCA. Bishop Mark Hanson, who is both the presiding bishop of the ELCA and also the current president of the Lutheran World Federation, reported on Lutheran relief efforts, according to an ELCA press release:

CHICAGO (ELCA) — The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is responding to the earthquake in Haiti through the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), wrote the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, ELCA presiding bishop, in a Jan. 13 letter to members. Hanson, who is also president of the LWF, noted that the ELCA has committed substantial funds to support relief efforts, and encouraged members to share information and provide financial gifts.

The Jan. 12 earthquake caused considerable structural damage around the capital city, Port-au-Prince, and may have killed “more than a hundred thousand people,” Hanson wrote, quoting Haitian officials. Relief agencies’ immediate concerns were for the safety of survivors, plus needs for water, sanitation and communication.

In a brief interview, Hanson told the ELCA News Service that “this is a time for the ELCA to come together as we have so often done in our history.” He said the church has the capacity to respond to human tragedy, and “members are called to bear witness to our faith by responding generously and working with partners” to provide relief.

The presiding bishop asked members to contribute financial gifts to the church’s relief efforts. Members can provide gifts online at http://www.ELCA.org/haitiearthquake or call 800-638-3522.

In his written message, Hanson noted that the ELCA already is responding through the LWF’s Haiti Program. “Given the devastation caused by this earthquake, the ELCA has committed an initial $250,000 from ELCA International Disaster Response for Haiti and has authorized an additional $500,000 as congregations respond both to the immediate needs and long-term rebuilding efforts,” he wrote.

Yet, when I scour the websites, press releases and blogs of Lutheran CORE, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), and the WordAlone network, I see nothing. I don’t infer that their members are uncaring, but organizations built on the negative, built upon being against something, seemingly have a hard time transitioning into the positive. The reality is their focus is on ELCA bashing, and they do not have the infrastructure to deal with non-political religious matters. Their whole focus is political and not mission or ministry.

Lutheran CORE spokesman Robert Benne’s touted article Why There Must Be New Beginnings itemized ten CORE goals (stated negatively as ELCA criticism, of course), and the one pertaining to foreign mission emphasized conversion of the heathens without mentioning medical, educational, disaster relief, or infrastructure development.

Even when WordAlone announces the formation of a chaplaincy corps, a closer look reveals more ELCA bashing, more political advice, more militancy.

The WordAlone Chaplain Corps is a new (launched January, 2010) program of the WordAlone Network through which pastors and laypersons alike may seek advice and counsel as regards the fallout from the positions taken by the ELCA pursuant to the church-wide assembly of that body held in August, 2009.

[From the booklet back cover] “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day and having done everything to stand firm.” (Ephesians 6:13)

The question needs to be asked: will the CORE financial boycott of the ELCA hinder efforts to help Haiti? We know what these dissident organizations are against, what are they for? We know that Lutheran CORE knows how to inflict pain through financial boycott, does CORE know how to heal?

UPDATE:

Pastor Justin Johnson offers his take on the silence out of Lutheran CORE, WordAlone, and LCMC.

The ELCA announced that its initial $250,000 contribution has already been increased to $600,000 based upon “a strong and generous response” from ELCA members. If the rate of ELCA member giving continues, the ELCA contribution will soon exceed $1 million.

UPDATE TWO:

Please note my recent post about Lutheran CORE spokesperson, Pastor Erma Wolf, urging financial support of the ELCA, especially for Haiti disaster relief, but perhaps also as a critique of CORE’s financial boycott generally.

ELCA Lutherans: Can we learn from conservative, Catholic retrenchment?

Open Tabernacle, the newly spawned progressive Catholic blog to which I occasionally offer ELCA tidbits, keeps spinning out one exceptional article after another. Today, Bill Lindsey critiques the conservative retreat of the last two popes from the progressive reforms of Vatican II. His post is directed at Catholics and Catholicism, but it occurs to me that there are parallels with the current Lutheran CORE / Wordalone conservative retreat from the progressive ELCA.

There is a fundamental difference, of course, in that progressive Catholics such as Lindsey are the outsiders critiquing the Catholic establishment, but in Lutheranism, it is the conservatives who are the outsiders opposing the progressive ELCA. There is also a difference between the hierarchy of the Vatican and the democratic polity of the ELCA. Putting aside those obvious differences, is there wisdom in Lindsey’s post for Lutherans to apply to our own internecine struggles?

The focus of Lindsey’s post, inspired by fellow blogger Colleen Kochivar-Baker, is the shift away from the Vatican II emphasis on “internalizing theological insights and ethical values, as well as on the role of conscience and discernment in the Christian life” toward “rote memorization of dogmatic and moral formulas”. Lindsey expands on the idea:

This shift moved Catholic intellectual life away from a post-Vatican II engagement with contemporary society in which Catholic thinkers listen to and learn from secular disciplines as they offer Catholic insights, values, and teachings in a process of dialogic give and take. Now the model for Catholic intellectual life—and for theologians in particular—became one of receiving “truths” from on high and handing these down to anyone who cared to listen.

Kochivar-Baker provided a personal illustration. When she was an undergraduate at a Catholic University a generation ago, “she took courses in the documents of Vatican II that were intellectually demanding and required real thought and engagement.”

Then down the road, her daughter took courses—same Catholic university, same professor—in moral theology in the period in which the restorationist agenda of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) began to roll through American Catholic theology departments.

She was able to pass these courses, Colleen notes, while hardly attending class. The syllabus spelled out in detail what the professor would teach. When Colleen asked about the shift in his pedagogical style—from challenging students to think, respond, and critique, to spoon-feeding them “truth”—he told her he was being monitored in class and lived in fear of being reported to the authorities for saying anything that transgressed the restorationist canon of truths.

Disturbing for Catholics and Catholicism, to be sure, but does this not sound a warning bell for the ELCA?

Consider the following words of Lutheran CORE / WordAlone spokesmen. Listen for a rejection of hard thinking–spirit led thinking, conscience bound thinking, reflection in dialogue with scientific disciplines–in exchange for a clear set of rules, a cookbook of moral recipes, handed down from on high. Hear the Lutheran CORE call, if not for an infallible pope, then for infallible (and unambiguous) canon, creeds, and confessions. Listen for the CORE promotion of their assumptions, their interpretations, their fossilized traditionalism–unquestioned and unchallenged by science or reason or conscience. Certainty instead of ambiguity. Learn the rules and don’t worry about moral discernment.

Therefore, the office of the papacy acts as a check, controlling the range of interpretation. The bishops share in this authority.

So the congregation, the elders, pastors and theologians are linked together in a system of mutual watchfulness. The lay people, elders, pastors and theologians all look both ways, watching over each of the other layers of authority. Interpretation requires constant scrutiny, lest the interpreters be led astray.

[T]he idea that the Holy Spirit in the heart supersedes Scripture and sets aside all the normal standards. Having floated away into such a never-never land beyond the ordinary, in reality the August churchwide assembly has stranded the ELCA ecumenically.

Benedict XVI, the orthodox patriarchs and commonly the Protestant leaders as well, know both Scripture and the church’s tradition intimately—well enough to recognize the difference between the historically certain and the ambiguity of convenience.

James Nestingen

How ironic that a 21st century Roman Catholic pope and an archbishop can better articulate confessional Lutheran teaching than the ELCA churchwide organization.

Mark Chavez

When the first Lutherans lost the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church, it had no sure authority to put in its place.

Modern Protestantism is an amalgamation of historic Christianity and the principles of the Enlightenment, its rationalism, subjectivism, and anthropocentrism. The underlying assumption is the neo-gnostic belief in the innerdwelling of God, such that everyone is endowed with the inner light that only needs to be uncovered. The light of truth does not shine through the Scriptures and the Christian tradition as much as through scientific reason and individual experience. This is what happened in Minneapolis: appeals to reason and experience trumped Scripture and tradition, punctuated with pious injunctions of Lutheran slogans and clichés. The majority won. And they said it was the work of the Spirit, forgetting that the Holy Spirit had already spoken volumes through the millennia of Scriptural interpretation, the councils of the church, and its creeds and confessions.

Carl Braaten

And, I might add, the Spirit having spoken in those long ago councils and creeds, better damn well keep her mouth shut these days.

The radicals so decisive in the defining moments of the ELCA intended to smash the authority of the influential theologians and bishops who had informally kept both the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America on course. The radicals wanted many voices and perspectives, especially those of the “marginalized,” put forward in the ongoing deliberations of the ELCA. They were so successful that now, after 20 years, there is no authoritative biblical or theological guidance in the church. There are only many voices. The 2009 Assembly legitimated those many voices by adapting a “bound-conscience” principle, according to which anyone claiming a sincerely-held conviction about any doctrine must be respected. The truth of the Bible has been reduced to sincerely-held opinion.

Robert Benne

Allow me to conclude by paraphrasing the words of my fellow blogger, Bill Lindsey, to graft Lutherans into his post.

The move against Vatican II—the move to the right, the deliberate dumbing down of Catholic intellectual life and the punishment of critical thinkers that have been part and parcel of the restorationist agenda—is not merely a Catholic phenomenon. Restorationism is tied to a similar thrust within [Lutheran] life and culture to stop critical reflection from progressive standpoints, and to force progressive theological [Lutheran] thinkers into a right-leaning ideological conformity.

Is Lutheran CORE sexist?

My long-deceased uncle, raised in the back country of Louisiana in the 30’s and 40’s, laughingly suggested he was twenty years old before he knew the phrase “damn Yankees” was two words. This good ole boy couldn’t say or think “Yankees” without the adjective “damn”; it was a necessary coupling because “damn” defined the essence of “Yankees”.

And, I plead guilty to the same charge when the baseball team from the Bronx, the best team money can buy, is the subject. The damn Yankees bought another world series last fall.

Oftentimes the adjective/noun coupling used by bloggers, commentators, columnists, etc. tell us more about the writer than the subject. This is especially true in political discourse. When we hear someone use the term “ultra liberal”, we know that the speaker really believes that all liberals are “ultra”. This person can’t say liberal without thinking ultra. It works for those of us on the left also. When we say “arch conservative”, we betray our bias that all conservatives are “arch”. The adjective doesn’t modify the noun but expresses the noun’s true meaning in the mind of the speaker.

Do adjective/noun couplings from Lutheran CORE spokesmen reveal a subtle sexism?

Over the weekend at a CORE gathering in Sioux Falls, CORE speaker Ken Sauer criticized the ELCA (of course), and suggested that the ELCA began to go astray over twenty years ago when “radical feminism began pushing their views.” [sic] Does the coupling of the adjective “radical” with the noun “feminism” reveal more than Sauer may have intended? Is Sauer betraying his belief that feminism is inherently radical? Can Sauer say feminism without thinking radical?

Sauer is not alone. Just a week or two ago, the much ballyhooed missive from CORE spokesperson Robert Benne entitled Why There Must Be New Beginnings blamed “hypersensitive feminism” as a significant problem for the ELCA from the beginning. Can Benne say feminism without thinking “hypersensitive”? Or, “militant feminism” as he states in a different article?

The latent sexism of CORE / WordAlone spokesman James Nestingen is revealed, not by couplings of adjectives and nouns, but in his not-so-veiled criticisms of the 50% male-female gender quotas that produce voting members who lack “wisdom, fidelity and zeal” and are “the manageable, those eager to please” while those who are eliminated by the quota system (men?) “are the gifted and challenging”. Benne openly states the obvious, “The losers, of course, are white male pastors”.

I have previously reported that CORE spokesmen promote a turn away from mainstream Protestantism (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, UCC) which all ordain women, and toward the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), which does not. What is it about the LCMS that CORE finds attractive, one wonders. We presume Lutheran CORE doesn’t aspire to the heightened sexism of the Missouri synod (in some LCMS congregations, women may not even vote but are left to prepare coffee and cookies in the church basement while the men folk hold their elections upstairs). After all, CORE boasts a pair of women on their advisory board. And eighteen men. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, the ELCA announces the following:

Ordaining women as pastors to serve Middle Eastern churches may become a reality. Delegates at the Fellowship of the Middle East Evangelical Churches (FMEEC) voted unanimously Jan. 12 to adopt a statement in support of this change.

The statement was drafted on the spot in response to a report by the fellowship’s theology committee, which found no biblical or theological reasons to oppose the ordination of women. The Rev. Munib A. Younan, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land (ELCJHL), is president of FMEEC.

The vote occurred at the organization’s Sixth General Assembly. FMEEC is an association of evangelical (Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed) churches of the Middle East.

Sounds like the radical, militant, hypersensitive feminists are at work again. Damn Yankees.

Open Tabernacle: First week

The collaborative progressive catholic blog, Open Tabernacle, has now completed its first full week with resounding readership success. Since each of the contributing bloggers brought their own following, there was a built in readership for this new blog of Catholic (catholic with a small “c”?) themes.

Here are the top five most popular progressive catholic postings from the first week.

SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) Needs Our Help.

For the last 21 years SNAP has been a voice for Catholics seeking answers and reform from the hierarchy on pedophilia. In that time it has bravely demanded an end to the shell game of moving predatory priests as well as the seemingly endless series of cover-ups of incidents of sexual abuse.

Frank Cocozzelli and Maggie Gallagher: The Voice(s) of American Catholicism.

On 20 April last year, Frank Cocozzelli published an interesting essay entitled “Who Speaks for American Catholics?” at Talk to Action’s website (here). Cocozzelli notes the wide diversity of viewpoints of American Catholics on social and political issues, including issues with connections to Catholic moral teaching. As he notes, American Catholics frequently disagree with each other (and with official church teaching) on issues such as stem-cell research, abortion, and gay and lesbian rights.

Many of us find the political and moral positions of our brothers and sisters of the Catholic right morally repugnant precisely because of our commitment to Catholic moral teaching about economic and social justice and war and peace. As Cocozzelli rightly notes, “A strong case can be made that these icons of the Catholic Right are using abortion and LGBT rights as wedge issues primarily to elect laissez-faire economic conservatives.”

The Canonization of Pope John Paul II: I Dissent

Vatican journalist Andrea Torniello has recently reported that the cause for the beatification of John Paul II has advanced. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints has cleared the way for the previous pope to be declared “blessed,” the initial step on the path to sainthood.

Since reading this announcement, I’ve been giving thought to my reaction, which is, on the whole, strongly negative. As I think about it, I’m opposed to the canonization of John Paul II, and I’d like to think out loud here about my reasons for this opposition.

First, some provisos. I take it that Catholics may validly criticize popes. In fact, I take it that Catholics may have a strong obligation at certain points in history to stand against the actions, example, or even teachings of a given pope at a given time. Those of us who believe that this is the case have historical warrant for such actions: exemplary Catholics, including Catherine of Siena, a saint, have spoken out to call the pope to fidelity to the gospel, and to express concern when a pope seemed to be leading the church in a direction contrary to the gospel. And Paul stood in opposition to Peter when Peter wanted to make the gospel hinge on the purity laws of Judaism.

“Why the Church Must Change “

At the Belfast Telegraph, the columnist Sharon Owens has a heartfelt piece in which she describes all the things that she thinks are wrong with the Catholic Church, ranging from the insistence on Catholicism as the only valid route to salvation, through the incomprehensible difference in response to matters of abortion as compared to other offences, to the appalling record of the Irish church, on clerical abuse and on the treatment of women in the Magdelene laundries.

Catholic Remonstrance Now!

Lately, the Catholic Right has unabashedly sought to impose its will on society. From its recent advocacy against marriage equality in Maine; to the inquisition of American nuns who challenge Vatican hard-liners; and now the U.S Bishops who have threatened to sabotage health care reform unless they got their way on abortion policy in the House version of the legislation.

As a Catholic, I am beyond frustration with Church leaders and lay persons who seek to replace American pluralism with an ultra-orthodox form of Catholic morality. I say it is time for remonstrance from mainstream Catholics.

Updated count of Lutheran congregations departing ELCA

I don’t mean to trivialize the heart wrenching, divisiveness of this ongoing process by reporting a scorecard like a basketball game. Yet, it’s important to separate the reality from the rhetoric; thus, I offer this tidbit of information about the latest count of congregations to be officially departing the ELCA.

Through mid-December 2009, the ELCA Office of the Secretary reported that 135 congregations had taken votes to leave the ELCA. Ninety-seven had achieved the required two-thirds vote on their initial votes to terminate the relationship with the church, and 38 had failed.

Ninety-seven out of ten thousand five hundred. Serious and hurtful but unless this trickle turns into a torrent, Lutheran CORE will hardly become a “reconfiguration of American Lutheranism” as they claim.

One time statesman Al Quie becomes a demagogue #ELCA #Lutheran

At the conclusion of the ELCA 2009 churchwide assembly, after the votes were in, voting member and former Minnesota governor Al Quie chided those who he believed were overreacting negatively. “I’m opposed to this change, too,” he said, “but that’s my problem,” and he urged a cautious response. It appears his heart has hardened, and he has gone over to the dark side of demagoguery.

According to Websters, a demagogue is “a person, esp an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.” It seems Quie has assumed this mantle by allowing a letter to the editor to circulate in the newspapers of Minnesota citing his name and that of a Bill Lee. The letter contains a populist appeal that a former Congressman and Governor should understand to be a mischaracterization of the way decisions are made by democratic institutions, whether the Congress of the United States, the State of Minnesota, or the ELCA. Whether by deliberate misstatements or innuendo, their letter of January 7th contains several blatant falsehoods.

“The leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) turned its back on members of its churches.” This perpetuates an urban myth that the pro-LGBT assembly decisions were mandated by a powerful church hierarchy, imposed in a top down fashion. The truth, and Quie knows this, is that the actions of the ELCA assembly were the results of balloting by over a thousand voting members chosen from around the entire ELCA, elected to serve as voting members by ballot at 65 regional synods, comprised of representatives from each and every congregation of the ELCA.

“Most members were caught off-guard”. LGBT ministry policies have been the subject of resolutions at synod and church wide assemblies for more than a decade. At the 2001 church wide assembly, a full eight years prior to the most recent assembly, a resolution passed to commence the process of study that would produce a social statement on human sexuality, and that process chugged along slowly with ample opportunity for input, discussion, dialogue, and debate. Along the way, preliminary materials were offered for congregational study. For anyone to suggest after the fact, as does Quie the demagogue, that ELCA members didn’t know that LGBT issues were the hot button topic in ELCA politics that would be front and center at the 2009 assembly is either a lie or an acknowledgment that they simply weren’t paying attention.

“[M]embers did not have a voice in this decision.” Come now, Mr. Governor and Mr. Congressman. Surely you understand how a representative democracy works. Voters elected you to Congress. You served as their representative. You, and not your constituents, voted on the hundreds of measures that came before the Congress during your term. Voters elected you to the Governorship. You signed or vetoed hundreds of bills that came across your desk that had been passed by the bicameral legislature of Minnesota. You did not sign a single bill that had been enacted directly by the voters of Minnesota. Please. Exhibit some integrity and honesty about how the process works in Congress, in the state of Minnesota, and in the representative, democratic polity of the ELCA. Please don’t offend common sense by suggesting that the 4.5 million member ELCA (which is similar to the population of Minnesota when you served as a Congressman and Governor) functions or ought to function as a direct and not a representative democracy.

You know very well that individual members voted in their local congregations for those who became their congregational representatives as voting members at the synod assemblies; in turn, those voting members at the synod assemblies then elected, through the process of nomination and ballot, those who served as the synodical voting members at the churchwide assembly. That was how you were elected to serve as a voting member at the 2009 church wide assembly. How quickly you forget.

“No one represents all the laity.” What about the mandate of the ELCA constitution that at least 60% of the voting members at both the synod assemblies and the national, church wide assemblies must be lay members and not clergy?

Mr. Governor, you have besmirched your good name and reputation by allowing this rabble rousing letter to go out over your signature.

Questions for #ELCA congregations to ask #Lutheran CORE

Pastor Bob Kaltenbaugh recently sent me a link to an article containing a series of questions and answers about the actions of the 2009 Church wide assembly. The link is to the website of Ed Schroeder called Crossings, and the article is entitled “FAQ about recent ELCA decisions”. Ed is a well known veteran of the LCMS / Seminex warfare of a generation ago. He was on the seminary staff at Concordia and was one of those axed for moderate views. The article can be an excellent resource for those facing congregational discussions, as it dispels a lot of the urban myths and falsehoods that are circulating.

It occurs to me that a list of questions ought to be prepared for Lutheran CORE. Perhaps a CORE representative will make an appearance at your congregation, and it would be useful to have a series of questions at the ready. With that in mind, I have prepared the following.

Status of women in CORE

It is official policy of CORE that “We believe and confess that the Bible is God’s revealed Word to us, spoken in Law and Gospel. The Bible is the final authority for us in all matters of our faith and life.” Simultaneously, CORE criticizes the ELCA as “the one that has departed from the teaching of the Bible as understood by Christians for 2,000 years.”

With this strong Biblical basis for CORE, does CORE accept 1st Timothy 2:11-12 as authoritative?

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Will this teaching be authoritative for CORE policies? If not, how does CORE justify ignoring or disagreeing with this clear teaching of the Bible? (are they contextualists on some issues but literalists on others?)

If so, will CORE allow women to vote? In equal numbers with men?

If yes, how will that equality be assured since CORE spokesmen have criticized the ELCA quota system? Does CORE consider a mandated quota of equal numbers of male and female voters to be “hypersensitive feminism”? (this terminology is used by CORE spokesperson Robert Benne in his essay, “Why there must be new beginnings”.) Is the ELCA guilty of “hypersensitive feminism”?

What does CORE mean by saying that quotas arbitrarily fasten “on characteristics like race and gender but not necessarily putting an equal priority on characteristics like wisdom, fidelity, and zeal.”? (From CORE and WordAlone spokesman James Nestingen article “Joining the Unchurched”). Is this not a criticism of female voting members to synod and church wide assemblies? Are female voting members less likely to exhibit “wisdom, fidelity, and zeal”? Why is the Lutheran CORE advisory committee 90% male?

Does CORE believe that women are too powerful in the ELCA? If CORE could turn back the clock 30-40 years, would it make sense to revisit the issue of women’s ordination?

Status of the laity in CORE

The ELCA mandates that 60% of the voting members at synod and church wide assemblies shall be laity. Does the CORE criticism of quotas apply to the laity quota? (The Benne article criticized the ELCA structure that “allowed a lay-dominated bi-annual assembly to vote” on crucial matters.).

Does the ELCA allow too much control to the laity? Will CORE ensure greater control by the clergy? Bishops? Seminary professors? Why is the Lutheran CORE advisory committee 95% clergy or seminary?

Quotas generally

What about ethnic minorities? Does CORE believe that ethnic minorities are too powerful in the ELCA? Are these the ELCA quotas that CORE criticizes?

Is the CORE criticism of quotas directed at gender quotas? Laity quotas? Ethnic minority quotas? All of these? How will CORE ensure that it will not become dominated by white, male, clergy? Or, would that be a good thing?

Divorced clergy

With this strong Biblical basis for CORE, does CORE accept Luke 16:18 as authoritative?

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

If not, how does CORE justify ignoring or disagreeing with this clear teaching of the Bible? (again, the point is that CORE seems to be ok with contextualizing some passages but not others.)

Will CORE ordain persons who have divorced and remarried? Allow ordained clergy to divorce and remarry without losing their ordained status? How can that be justified in light of this Biblical teaching, in the words of Jesus himself?

Is divorce and remarriage a lesser sin than a committed same gender relationship? Even though Jesus spoke of one but not the other? On what basis does CORE make such judgments?

These are a few lines of questioning that occur to me; perhaps you can think of others. If so, please supply your thoughts with a comment.

What does a juggernaut look like? #ELCA #Lutheran Core

In a Lutheran CORE article published over the weekend, CORE spokesperson Robert Benne said,

During the preceding six years we had spent huge amounts of time, energy, money, and determination to stop the juggernaut. We didn’t and we won’t.

Earlier, James Nestingen’s WordAlone article in a blatant falsehood claimed,

[T]he hallways and the back of the assembly fill up with gay advocates bussed in to influence the voters using, commonly enough, intimidation up to and including physical threats.

Or, consider the speech of Kenneth Sauer to the Lutheran CORE convocation that referred to “the elites of the ELCA’s membership” and a “powerful political machine” whose “strategy was to do what was necessary to win”. Benne’s article also refers to the “cultural secular elite”. In her fiery speech to the Lutheran CORE convocation, Jaynan Clark intimated it was Satan “invisibly in the driver’s seat working his simple agenda”.

What is the face of this juggernaut, physically threatening intimidator, ELCA elite, cultural secular elite, or the devil incarnate? Check out the video below, which is a PBS documentary that will soon be appearing on a public television station near you. Her name is Emily Eastwood, and she is the leader of Lutherans Concerned North America, a partner within Goodsoil, the LGBT friendly advocacy group at the 2009 ELCA Church wide Assembly.

Cross posted at the Open Tabernacle.

#Lutheran Core goals: less laity, less feminism, turn away from #ELCA toward #LCMS UPDDATED

Dr. Robert Benne of Roanoke College Center for Religion and Spirituality is one of the principal spokespersons for Lutheran CORE, and he serves on the advisory board. His latest missive, “Why There Must be New Beginnings”, is a lengthy justification for Lutheran CORE as a new Lutheran denomination.

He offers both a three point preface and ten Lutheran CORE goals (stated negatively, as “things that must be left behind”). One noteworthy aspect of the preface is the acknowledgement that the pro-LGBT actions of the 2009 ELCA church wide assembly are probably irreversible.

During the preceding six years we had spent huge amounts of time, energy, money, and determination to stop the juggernaut. We didn’t and we won’t.

We have been in the loyal opposition for a long time. Our only “victory” is that we have slowed the process down. But it is now complete at the churchwide level and it is unlikely to be reversed.

While the preface claims a “great upheaval” and that “many churches … are leaving the ELCA”, he also suggests that “we don’t know how many.” While it is true that this is an ongoing process and the final outcome unknown, one wonders why Dr. Benne doesn’t offer more specific information.

Here’s the reality: The ELCA consists of over 10,000 congregations. Yet, current reports put the number of congregations that have voted to depart the ELCA at less than 200. Again, I don’t want to prematurely judge the final outcome or to minimize the significance of departing congregations, but to suggest a “great upheaval” is self-serving hyperbole, but it fits the rather grandiose goal of Lutheran CORE to accomplish “a reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America.”

The list of ten things that “must be left behind” contains familiar rants (the ELCA ignores the clear meaning of Scripture and distorts the gospel) but also offers rather startling insight into CORE’s vision for a new Lutheranism: the ELCA from the beginning has been too democratic with too much input from the laity, ELCA seminaries are too alike other Protestant denominations and not Lutheran enough, the ELCA has been too favorable to feminism and environmentalism and overly concerned with diversity and inclusivity, CORE will turn away from other mainstream Protestant churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and UCC, etc.) and turn instead toward the Missouri Synod and Roman Catholicism.

If I may be so bold as to summarize and paraphrase, here are the ten goals of Lutheran CORE:

return to orthodoxy
strict interpretation of law and gospel
less democracy and less lay influence
greater emphasis on converting non-Christians
seminaries that are distinctively Lutheran
less feminist, less environmental, less inclusive, less diverse
greater appreciation of white, middle class, Euro-Americans
less support for progressive causes
turn away from Protestant mainstream toward LCMS, Roman Catholicism, & Evangelicals
a streamlined organizational structure that doesn’t waste time and money on social ministries

I kid you not. This is the agenda of Lutheran CORE per Dr. Benne.

UPDATE:

Pastor John Petty, over at Progressive Involvement blog, also critiques the Benne article. He pulls no punches.

Although Benne attempts to provide a holistic rationale for a full fledged denomination, Petty suggests he fails to show CORE as anything other than a negative, judgmental, and exclusive organization.

Petty also points out the contradiction in Benne’s argument that the ELCA churchwide decisions were dictated by a powerful hierarchy but also due to rampant democratic impulses of unqualified voters.

The first thing CORE must do, he says, is leave behind “the heterodox arrogance by which the leadership of the ELCA has ignored the clear meaning of Scripture.” Notice that it’s the “leadership” which is in the wrong, not those rank-and-file folks who did the actual voting. When in doubt, take a swipe at the supposed “elites”.

In truth, the leadership of the ELCA had almost nothing to do with the August vote. Those who supported change worked through the established processes of the church. It wasn’t a decision handed down from on high. It came from the “grass roots.” To accuse the leadership of “heterodox arrogance” is mere hyperbolic fluff borne of frustration.

But wait. Wasn’t that vote because of the “heterodox arrogance” of the ELCA leadership? Now you’re telling us it was because lay people are too ignorant to know what they’re doing, and what they need is the “learned and experienced”–i.e. anyone who agrees with me–to tell them what to do. Turns out Benne was for the “elites” before he was against them.

Petty openly wonders whether CORE is ultimately destined to be just another fringe Lutheran denomination without great numbers or influence. He points out that the WELS has 1,000 congregations and that CORE has a long, long way to go to reach that minimal status, much less a “reconfiguration of American Lutheranism.”