Solid-Ground

Canadian Rockies Theological Conference

2012-01-04T17:19:00.000-08:00

THE ORDER OF CREATION is the theme of The Canadian Rockies Theological Conference which will be held April 16 through 19, 2012. Featured speakers at this Conference are Rev. Dr. James Nestingen and Dr. Nathan Yoder. For more information search for "Canadian Rockies Theological Conference" on Facebook.

Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings Conference Comments

2011-11-28T11:24:00.001-08:00

The following are comments that have been made regarding the Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings Conference held September 21^st in Calgary:

“I felt it was very beneficial to myself personally, and to the pastors and Lutheran members there to have attended and have our concerns heard and answered with solid teaching from the word of God. We were also spiritually fed, which my pastor found to be lacking at the ELCIC conferences, as well as encouraged that biblically we were doing the right thing in looking for options to join the Lutheran reform movement rather than try to change things within the ELCIC. I also saw first-hand how the ELCIC has bullied and badgered the clergy in its efforts to control the future of the church and change the constitution, Augsburg Confessions, etc. to fit their agenda to include same sex blessings and gay ordination. It’s become clear which direction we need to take now, and we are grateful to Solid Ground for having kept the faith, written clear and concise articles in response to ELCIC error, and paved the way for others to follow. Many thanks to those who have kept the torch burning.”

God bless, Helen Harris, Peace Lutheran, Fort St John, BC

“The Solid Ground meeting in Calgary was a faith-filled, inspiring day.

It was very refreshing to be with like minded clergy and fellow Lutherans.

The presentations reminded us that God is in control, the scriptures are the

inspired, infallible word of God and that God will never forsake us.

We feel betrayed by the ELCIC who has placed a wedge in our lives, our

faith and our congregation. That wedge has challenged the authenticity of

scripture that places us on a slippery slope.”

Garnet and Faye Altwasser, Trinity Lutheran, Brooks, AB

Discipleship under the Lord of All, Jesus the Christ

2011-11-25T07:07:00.001-08:00

Pastor Jaynan Clark gave a stirring presentation at the Calgary Solid Ground gathering, challenging us to refocus on discipleship under the Lord of All, Jesus the Christ. As his disciples we will be constrained to reach out to others, sharing the message of his love and salvation through word and deed. Unfortunately, Pastor Jaynan did not have a script suitable to post on the web site. Two weeks later, Pastor Jaynan gave a sermon of similar content at the LCMC Convention. This talk was livestreamed, making it possible to share the main thought and inspiration with you.

At about the 25 minute mark, Rev. Jaynan Clark begins her talk.

View Presentation

The Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings - Rev. D Haugen

2011-11-10T22:02:00.001-08:00

Rev D. Haugen was one of the featured speakers at the Solid Ground hosted meeting in Calgary on September 21^st.

View PDF

Closing Meditation for the Solid Ground Conference

2011-10-20T20:54:00.001-07:00

Beloved in the Lord, grace and peace be unto you from God our Father. and from our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and from the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of

life!

I will begin this closing meditation with a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a wedding sermon from his prison cell in Letters and Prayers from Prison.

“Marriage is more than your love for each other. It has a higher dignity and power, for it is God’s holy ordinance, through which he wills to perpetuate the human race to the end of time. In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to his glory, and calls into his kingdom. In your love you see only the heaven of your happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal – it is a statute, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes a king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you to another in the sight of God and man. As you first gave the ring to one another and have now received it a second time from the hand of the pastor, so love comes from you, but marriage comes from above, from God. As high as God is above man, so high are the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of marriage above the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of love. It is not your love that sustains marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains

your love.”

A few years ago I had a telephone call from a woman telling me what had happened to her. She had been married for around 20 years and had two children, who were then moving toward the end of their teens. Her husband had informed her, three months previously, that he wanted a divorce, having had and still carrying on an affair with another woman.

The woman told me that when she heard the request of her husband and found out what had been going on, she simply could not deal with it. She went to bed and stayed there for days on end. She did not eat for that whole period of time and drank very little fluids. She lost over 30 pounds during that sojourn in bed.

At the end of that sojourn in bed alone, she cried out to God and told God that she simply could not take it. The next morning she woke up with a deep sense of peace and began to eat and to drink and to live again.

When she spoke to me, three months after the ordeal began, she had still not told her children about the unfaithfulness of her husband, and was actually being blamed by her daughter for the mess she was in. But though the despair was real, her marriage no longer sustaining her love, she was, by the grace of God, at peace and starting to move ahead to face all the difficult challenges that moving into the divorce process would bring.

The distinguished father in the faith, Martine Luther, always spoke clearly and effectively about the three orders of creation; the State, the Church, and the first order of creation, the sacred family. Though they are separate orders with clearly defined areas of responsibility, they share a unity in their various responsibilities and mandates, to fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over all the creatures of the earth. They were to do so in obedience to the Lord, honouring, his will, his way, his word, his design, and the image of God in which humankind was created, male and female, husband and wife, co-creators with God.

The State has the responsibility to honour and protect the family, permitting it to rear their children in the fear and love of the Lord, and indeed fill the earth and subdue it. The state is to rule with the authority given by God, under the supervision of the Law, the law both engraved on our hearts and the law given by revelation.

The Church, in its visible form, has the responsibility to honour and protect the family, so that its members can hear and live under God’s gracious moral law embedded in the ten commandments, and most important, to hear and live under the call of the Gospel, becoming new creatures in Christ, rightly distinguishing between the Law and the Gospel.

Both Church and State, each operating in its own clearly defined area, has the responsibility to honour and protect the family, within God’s design and intention. The very well being of the Church and State are themselves very much affected and influenced by the well being of the family they themselves have been charged to honour and protect within their own spheres.

God’s design for human kind, in all three orders of creation, is as beautiful and magnificent and holy as is God’s design for creation and the universe, as we see it. God knows what God is doing. But sin and evil still poison our world, and when we depart from God’s intentions and design, sin and evil are given the opportunity to wreak much greater havoc in all three orders, and they do.

The husband, we referred to earlier, when he told his wife that he wanted a divorce, was essentially stating that God’s design for his family was faulty and invalid. His own love of another woman was more holy and more to be desired than the Holy order of marriage established by God in the beginning.

It is not at all strange that the wife could not deal with it and went to bed and stayed there for days on end without food and very little fluids. She had lost the love of her life. But even more precious, she had lost the support of that Holy order of creation coming from above, and the sanctity and rights and love that it brought. She could not deal with it and relied on God to bring peace as she attempted to live with a wound that would never go away.

We probably all remember the time when our Canadian State chose not to honour and protect the family within God’s design, and decided to extend the privileges attached to the Holy State of Matrimony to same sex couples, and declare it to be a legitimate and holy marriage. There were some who spoke against it but our Church was not among them, and certainly not our Bishops and Pastors. We chose not to be heard speaking in opposition, concerned about civil rights for all our citizens, irrespective of sexual orientation.

And we remember the time, two months ago, when our church in convention, decided that God’s design for the sacred family, from the beginning, was literally flawed, and that we needed to repair it, following the example of the State. Can you imagine a church literally leading its people in paths of idolatry?

Now, the three orders of creation are in disarray, and the chaos that we see all around us is increasing rapidly. Our society is under the judgment that comes when God’s design is blatantly ignored and dishonoured.

Not many of us have stayed in bed for days on end without food and with little fluid. We are distraught to be sure, but that is mitigated by our own sense of responsibility and failure. We failed to see it coming until it was too late. We have allowed our Lutheran tribalist propensity to render us ineffective. We share in the responsibility for the debacle that we now face.

There are times to declare Status Confessionus. This may just be that time. There are times to repent and acknowledge our own failures with fasting, and prayers without ceasing. This is that time. There are times to acknowledge that we simply cannot deal with it on our own and rely on God to lead us. There are times to wait on the Lord, for the way into the future will only become clear as we wait for the Lord’s direction. But this also is the time to rejoice in the privilege of suffering for the sake of the Gospel and the Church and the truth! This is the time to fear, love, and trust God above anything else and really let God be God, and let God’s Word be God’s Word. God is in charge and God will lead us in paths of righteousness for his own name’s sake. Thanks be to God!

Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!

AMEN!

Rev. Tim Johnson Presentation

2011-10-14T10:40:00.000-07:00

The first presentation at the Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings Conference was by the Rev. Tim Johnson, pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, Dawson Creek, BC. His presentation will included:

Brief critique of the convention decisions
Prerequisites for institutional church unity
A reaffirmation of the ultimate authority of the Scriptures for faith and life
A renewed emphasis on evangelism and world missions

View PDF of presentation

The Voice of a Dissident

2011-10-14T10:22:00.001-07:00

Dr. Lothar Schwabe

Presented at the Solid Ground Conference “THE FAILURE OF DISSENT AND NEW BEGINNINGS”, Calgary, Sept. 21, 2011

Take heart. Be of good cheer

John 16: 33

“In this world you will have troubles. But take heart (be of good cheer, KJV) I have overcome the world.”

At this conference on “The Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings” I am with fellow dissidents who, like me, have failed to have our ELCIC remain loyal to the Bible and treat it as the only source of its doctrines and actions.

We are totally dependent on what God has chosen to reveal to us in what we know about God. That is why the Bible is so important for us.

I believe that our God is so enormous, so unimaginable, and so multi-dimensional that our human mind is incapable of objectively perceiving and analyzing God. We simply cannot comprehend God. I agree with Paul,

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” Ro. 11:33-34. (NIV)

God reveals himself to us in the inspired Word of God. That is all we have.

What God has revealed to us in Holy Scriptures does not even make much sense. It does not make sense to humans because it comes out of the mind of God which is far greater than any human can comprehend.

- Grace does not make sense.

- God’s love for sinners does not make any sense.

- Forgiveness does not make any sense.

- Miracles do not make any sense.

- Christ’s death on the cross for our sins does not make any sense.

- The Trinity does not make any sense.

- God’s mercy does not make any sense. The laws of nature do not reveal any mercy to us. Just try to jump off a twenty story building and hope for the law of gravity to show you some mercy.

Holy Scriptures have a message that is radical, amazing, and defies all human logic. Human wisdom could never come up with something like “Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.”

What God has revealed to us often does not make any sense to us because God, like his peace, passes all understanding. We cannot comprehend this mind-boggling divine reality. We can only believe.

Actually, it is the heresies that make sense. All heresies are products of the human mind and therefore always make sense. Arians made sense in their claim that Jesus was just a human being. Antinomians make sense.

It also makes sense the church should be inclusive and not exclude homosexuals from being ordained, even though some parts of the Bible have something else to say about homosexuality. Jesus did not talk about homosexuality. Therefore it makes sense to ignore all that Jesus said about marriage being between a man and a woman. This all makes sense and sounds reasonable. The problem for us is that the revealed Word of God has something different to say about homosexuality.

Sin makes a lot of sense. It makes no sense to tell the truth all the time because it gets you into deep trouble. Greed makes sense and not only on Wall Street.

My point is that what makes sense and sounds reasonable is not always right before God.

On the other hand, teachings from the Word of God that may sound foolish are right.

That all is very confusing to intelligent people who have been trained to reason and think logically. Our choice is to follow the wisdom of the world and human intelligence or to believe what Holy Scriptures say.

Paul must have confused a few intelligent scholars when he said,

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,

But to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

The intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar?

Where is the philosopher of this age?

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV).

The human mind has a great way of messing things up. Humans can rationalize anything. Luther knew that and cautioned about “die Hure des Verstandes”, the whore of reason.

Unfortunately many of our brothers and sisters in our ELCIC have decided to follow the wisdom of this world.

God is not an object that can be studied objectively. Theology must approach the Word of God with humility and respect and stand under the Word and not over it. The wisdom of this world must not take control of Holy Scriptures. Article II of our Constitution is good and it is very Lutheran.

We are totally dependent upon Holy Scriptures to know anything about God.

No theological tower of Babel can penetrate the heavens to get a glimpse of God.

That is why Lutherans (Sola Scriptura) along with Christians of other denominations have such high respect for the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Yes, God spoke through people and also through a mule. But it was God who spoke.

Luther insisted that we have to let the Bible speak for itself and take the Word of God for what it says.

Those who won the vote told us, “but we have to interpret the Bible”. True.

However, anybody who knows more that one language and is able to interpret will know

that an interpretation is not valid if the translation says the opposite of what it means in the other language. It is simply a wrong interpretation when it says the opposite of what Romans 1:26-33 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 say.

There are four critical “Ifs”:

- If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then we cannot mess around with it. We have to take it or leave it.

- If the Bible is not the revealed Word of God but a human product, then the teachings of the church do not carry any divine authority.

- If our knowledge of God is not based upon the revealed Word of God, then everybody can make up their own God.

- If reason is the ultimate authority, then faith has no substance and you can believe whatever you like.

The Constitution of the ELCIC (Article II) treats Holy Scriptures as divinely inspired (Article II, Section 3) and authoritative for what we believe and do. But our current ELCIC treats Holy Scriptures as either a human product that can be decided upon by a single majority vote at a National Convention or at best as a mixture of divine and human products which gives the National Convention the right to decide which is which. This is the critical point at which we, the dissidents, tell our church, “You are wrong and our Constitution is right.”

To say that this is just a work in progress and that our individual congregations can state their own position in this matter is simply a political ploy. It is an act of damage control in an attempt to prevent congregations from leaving the ELCIC. There has been a paradigm shift in the ELCIC. It is no longer the church we knew. That is why we are here.

Our ELCIC did not hate homosexuals when it refused to ordain homosexuals or marry them until the last National Convention. It did so because of our understanding of Holy Scriptures. As a pastor of the ELCIC I have never witnessed a refusal to minister to homosexuals. We wanted to be faithful to the Bible.

Our National Bishop and Synodical Bishops were not homophobic when, in 1991, they affirmed the Social Statement on Sex Marriage and Family (1970). They took their stand because of Article II of the Constitution of the ELCIC which confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the “only source of the Church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the Church.”

Like our former Bishops, we are not homophobic; we just want to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures. That is why we are here.

With its new theology, our church has become less of a Lutheran church and more like the United Church of Canada or even the Unitarian Church. It must be a real problem for other Lutheran Churches like Lutheran Church Canada to relate to the ELCIC as if it were still a Lutheran Church in its confessions and actions.

So we are now in a church that consists of two groups of people:

Those who believe what the Word of God says and those who believe what the Word of God should have said, according to their opinion.

With its recent decision, the ELCIC no longer takes the Bible as the sole source of the church’s teachings and actions. That cuts to the very core of what we believe.

What hurts is that we all had so many social relations through our church; so many friends and connections. Now even some families are divided.

The vote was 61% to 39%. People like us are in the minority. Can the majority be wrong? In Nazi Germany the majority of Christians were wrong and people like

Bonhoeffer were right. Group-think can do marvellous things. People have a psychological need to belong to the majority and to please their superiors.

Yes, we are a minority. But the majority that voted for the changes at the last convention is a huge minority among all the Christians in this world.

The 5.6 million strong Mekane Jesu Church of Ethiopia is cutting its ties with the ELCA and forming a strong relationship with the North American Lutheran Church. Worldwide, our ELCIC is on the outside of Lutheranism and of all Christianity.

Many of us are grieving. I have even shed tears. What shall we do now? Where shall we go? Some dissidents may stay with the ELCIC and test the claim that the ELCIC is a loving and welcoming church, open to embrace diversity with hearts filled with love.

You might then conclude that this love includes us dissidents who enrich the diversity of the ELCIC.

Many others simply cannot do that anymore. They are looking for a new beginning. The greatest loss to the ELCIC will not be the congregations which will now take their votes to leave the ELCIC. The greatest loss will be the individual faithful members who will now leave their ELCIC congregation and find another church home, or who will simply give up on their church. No amount of damage control can prevent that.

As a dissident member of the ELCIC, my message to leaders and pastors of my church is, “You have abandoned the Word of God and are on a path of destruction. Repent or you will perish.”

My prediction is that, unless my church repents and returns to honour its Constitution, the ELCIC will dwindle and end up merging with the Anglicans. This may be the only way to get rid of Article II in our Constitution. That article is unalterable and cannot be changed as long as the ELCIC exists. A merger with the Anglicans requires a new constitution and would be a way to get rid of Article II. That is a very attractive solution to the constitutional problem.

What does the Word of God have to say to us who are likely gathered like this for the last time?

Be of good cheer. The real church, which is a spiritual and not an organizational entity, is as alive as ever. My ecclesiology has changed. Leaving a denomination does not mean leaving the church. It may simply mean a fresh start as it was in the case of Martin Luther. Those who left the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation did not leave the Church of Jesus Christ. We are not dividing the real invisible Church.

The Holy Spirit is active, still calling and leading and guiding those who gather in the Name of Jesus; building the real church.

Be of good cheer, take heart, have courage!

Jesus promised not to leave you. You may go different ways and seek different church families. Some of you want to be in a Canadian Lutheran Church like CALC or LCC. Some will find a home in NALC or LCMC. It is important that we do not compete but support each other in the cause to stand up for the authority of Holy Scriptures. We all need each other and must work together.

These are good times for the Church of Jesus Christ. Our congregations will not have all that many lukewarm Christians anymore.

You will be with people who are not going to church because it is a tradition. Yes, there will be some hurt. That always comes with disturbed human relations. I personally find that to be true. Smile. Be of good cheer. God is with you! There are good days ahead for you because they are God’s days.

The failure of dissent? Perhaps our witness was not in vain. New beginnings or another reformation, a reshaping, forming something different, a forming of a new wine skin?

If it is God’s will, the Holy Spirit will guide you. May God have mercy on us all.

A post-mortem: A delegate’s review of the July 14-17, 2011 ELCIC National convention

2011-08-06T22:24:00.002-07:00

The decisions made at the 2011 ELCIC National convention marks a seismic and irreversible shift of ELCIC’s theological foundation. There was the re-election/election of a liberal, continually endorsed leadership. There was the endorsement of the proposal to begin the lengthy process of restructuring the ELCIC, to respond to present financial realities. However, most of the focus for the majority of the delegates at the convention was on the Social Statement on Human Sexuality, and the subsequent enabling motions to accept same gender relationships within the ELCIC.

* As observed by a number of speakers but vehemently denied by a member of the Task Force, a major but unstated goal during the past decade at national and Synodical conventions as well as within the Task Force on the Study and Statement on Human Sexuality seems to have been the advancement of the same gender agenda politically. And at the 2011 National Convention this carefully orchestrated goal was fully realized.

* During this past decade there had indeed been evidence of considerable dissent, particularly among the laity. But many of the dissenters were gradually marginalized. Through its elected and appointed positions, as well as its magazines, the ELCIC would ensure that only those voices who were supportive of the same gender agenda would receive church wide hearing.

* The Task Force attempted to persuade the delegates that the Statement was merely a "work in progress", admittedly imperfect but potentially alterable. But the introduction and adoption of the enabling motions showed their claim to be a false façade for the implementation of those decisions would result in a seismic and irreversible shift in the theology and practices of the ELCIC.

* Recognizing the profound and permanent impact of the changes, several speakers attempted to introduce a 2/3 requirement for their adoption. But those attempts failed to receive the necessary support.

* The delegates were informed by the Task Force that its members had read and considered each and every one of the submissions in response to the Study and the Statement, taking these responses into account in future revisions.

Those documents referenced a number of Scripture passages. The submissions by Solid Ground were among those who questioned the glaring absence of those Scripture passages which addressed homosexual directly (e.g. Leviticus 18:22; 20:18; Romans 1:26-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Genesis chapters 1-2 was referenced only in the most general manner).

The omissions were particularly troubling in light of Article II, Section 3, of the ELCIC Constitution which accords the Scriptures the ultimate authority in matters of faith and life. When a similar concern was raised on the convention floor, the members of the Task Force continued to avoid providing any explanation, leaving a distinct impression that those omissions had been deliberate. The huge disconnect between the political decision-making process and the Scriptures continued throughout the convention.

* The same gender proponents showed themselves to be extremely well organized and disciplined. They seemed to be well coached on the convention site politically.

* One of the speakers referred to the incident of the woman caught in adultery in John's Gospel (chapter 8). The speaker spoke about Jesus' comforting words of absolution, "Neither do I condemn you". However, the speaker then reminded the delegates of Jesus’ admonition which followed, "Go your way, and from now on do not sin again." (NRSV). The theme of repentance was strikingly absent in the convention deliberations.

* All agreed that God’s love is indeed universal and unconditional. The difference lies in radically differing understandings of human “love”.

The same gender proponents persistently lifted up their particular notion of human “love”, a “love” which seemed vague and theoretical and curiously condoned behaviour which is expressly condemned in the Scriptures.

On the other hand, those opposed to the Statement and its enabling recommendations affirmed a “love” which cares enough for ourselves as well as others to hold all of us accountable to God. One could not escape sensing that the same gender proponents considered those who do not share their perspective of “love” neither loving nor compassionate.

* A same gender proponent brought up the long discredited and greatly exaggerated statistic regarding homosexuality (e.g. citing the 10% in Kinsey's Report). The proponents glibly spoke of orientation rather than behaviour, as if "orientation" was self-evident, as though "orientation" had been definitively established.

* It seems that another of the great disconnects on the convention floor was the recommendation to maintain the institutional unity of the ELCIC. Various speakers used a variety of theoretical and oblique arguments, along with many of the familiar Scriptural references, to try to persuade the delegates to set aside their differences about what supposedly were merely adiaphora matters. The delegates were asked to place the survival of the 25 year old ELCIC organization at the very centre of their concern, while at the same time disregarding the 2000 year old history of the larger Christian community (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.), which resolutely adheres to the rejection of same gender relationships, anchoring their opposition on the Scriptures.

* In conclusion, contrary to the claims of some, my understanding of “love” includes a commitment to respect, protect and show compassion for all others, including those who persist in same gender relationships. My understanding of love includes the acknowledgement and acceptance of the boundaries set for us in the Scriptures, recognizing that, sinners as we all are, all of us need to confess and repent. My understanding of “love” includes a confidence in a God who even while holding us accountable for our actions and behaviour, also assures us of the possibility of forgiveness, transformation and new life.

The Rev. Dr. Peeter Vanker

July 2011

Many Lutherans still support traditional marriage

2011-08-06T22:24:00.000-07:00

(An article from www.canadianlutheran.ca)

The online magazine of Lutheran Church–Canada

Responding to a vote by delegates at the convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC) meeting in Saskatoon, July 15 and 16 which authorizes its pastors to conduct same-gender marriages and finds sexual orientation no longer an issue for ordaining pastors, the leaders of Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC) issued a statement noting that the ELCIC does not speak for all Lutherans in the country.

The statement at www.lutheranchurch.ca/marriage notes that the ELCIC is the only Lutheran church body in Canada “that has approved such a departure from accepted Christian teaching.” While the ELCIC is the largest Lutheran body in Canada, statistics available online show that nearly 40 percent of Lutherans worshipping each week belong to congregations outside the ELCIC.

Noting the words of Jesus who spoke of marriage in terms of a man leaving his father and mother, being united to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh, LCC’s presidents (bishops) declared the church body’s continuing witness to “Christ’s clear teaching that God designed marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.” They further state that LCC will not ordain pastors who do not support this position.

At its 2002 convention Lutheran Church–Canada affirmed the historic biblical definition of marriage. At its most recent convention in June 2011, delegates agreed that the Bible’s qualifications and standards for a pastor include a heterosexual orientation.

LCC’s position is one held by the Church for the past 2000 years and supported by millions of Christians worldwide including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and a rapidly growing number of Lutheran churches in Africa. “LCC is not speaking from the margins,” the statement notes.

The statement also rejects any notion that holding to “historic Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality constitutes ‘homophobia,’ an irrational fear and hatred of people with same-gender orientation.” LCC’s leaders refuse to defend those who take a threatening or insulting approach to the issue, but instead “repent of such sin and ask God to help His people overcome it wherever it occurs.”

After noting that there are Lutheran Christians in Canada “still deeply committed to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and still dedicated to its clear witness on human sexuality, marriage and standards for ministry,” the leaders pledge prayers for those within the ELCIC for whom their church body’s decision is troubling.

A  Crisis  of  Faith  in  the  ELCIC

2011-08-06T22:20:00.000-07:00

View PDF of article by Pastor Edward Skutshek, President of the Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC)

Open Letter to Delegates re Proposed Human Sexuality Social Statement and Connected Motions

2011-07-07T22:20:00.000-07:00

Dear delegate,

There are some very important and potentially divisive issues facing our church in convention this July. The more information that delegates can have in front of them before making decisions, the better it is for the delegates, for us and for the ELCIC. And so, in the interest of church unity and a more informed dialogue, here are some reflections on the theology and implications of the motions on same sex blessings put forward by the NCC.

There are several problems with the motions as they exist. The most serious one is the theology. In downplaying “disagreement over moral issues,” point #1 of the NCC motions, the motion concerning the Unity of the Church downplays the importance that Luther placed on the preaching of the Law and its role in preparing us to receive the gospel.

Lutherans are required to preach both Law and Gospel. And there is good reason for this. Luther states that although the Law does not on its own justify, but because the Law prepares us to receive grace, we cannot be saved unless it is properly preached! If we wish to call ourselves Lutherans, we cannot dismiss the preaching of the Law as motion #1 of the NCC motions does.

In brief, here are some of Luther’s statements about the Law’s importance for justification: “For as long as the presumption of righteousness remains in a [person], there remains immense pride, self-trust, smugness, hate of God, contempt of grace and mercy, ignorance of the promises and of Christ. The proclamation of free grace and the forgiveness of sins does not enter [that person’s] heart and understanding, because that huge rock and solid wall, namely, the presumption of righteousness by which the heart itself is surrounded, prevents this from happening. . . . To break and crush it, God needs a large and powerful hammer, that is, the Law . . .”(Luther’s Works Vol. 26 p. 310).

“To the question, If the Law does not justify, what is its purpose? Paul therefore, replies: Although the Law does not justify, it is nevertheless extremely useful and necessary. . . . It has this value, that grace can have access to us. Therefore the Law is a minister and a preparation for grace (Luther’s Works Vol. 26 p. 314).

Therefore we do not abolish the Law; but we show its true function and use, namely, that it is a most useful servant impelling us to Christ. . . . When the Law drives you this way, so that you despair of everything that is your own and seek help and solace from Christ, then it is being used correctly; and so, through the Gospel, it serves the cause of justification” (Luther’s Works Vol. 26 pp. 315-316).

This is the absolute heart of the issue which is at stake here—the correct preaching of Lutheran doctrine so that people can be saved. Obviously then, given how different the NCC motion is from Luther’s own perspectives on the Law’s importance, with all respect to those who have proposed it, it would be difficult if not impossible to pass this motion through our national convention and still call ourselves Lutherans.

The second difficulty with this motion is that it is almost certainly schismatic and will provoke a large-scale split within the ELCIC. Similar motions passed through the ELCA national assembly in 2009 provoked a large-scale split there. Over 1000 congregations have already left the ELCA and still more are considering leaving.

Furthermore, the NCC cannot attempt to push through a motion with questionable doctrine and then use the argument for national church unity to avoid the consequences of its actions. Luther himself criticized the Pope for the same tactic. “In our time, whenever the pope does not have the authority of the Scriptures on his side, he always uses this same single argument against us: The church, the church!” (Luther’s Works Vol. 26 p. 15).

For Luther and Lutherans, the basis for church unity is not adherence to a certain church body, like it is with the Roman Catholics. For Lutherans, correct doctrine is the basis for church unity. That was the reason the Reformation happened in the first place.

Third, this divisive motion hurts the world’s poor. We do more as a church than merely exist. Through our gifts to CLWR we help the poorest of the poor. Some of the world’s poor need our aid even to remain alive. But if we split our denomination by passing the NCC motion, then we will have fewer resources available to help those in the world who most need it. If we truly care about justice, then those with the greatest needs have to be foremost among our concerns. The poor have to be considered first!

Fourth, the ELCIC is bound by its constitution to follow the Scriptures. In the case of women’s ordination, there are many and very good passages from Scripture that support it, (Deborah, leading the Israelites, Priscilla, together with her husband Aquilla leading churches, just to name a few.) But with respect to homosexuality, there is no place in the Scriptures that speaks about it positively. Raymond E. Brown has been hailed by many other New Testament scholars as being North America’s foremost New Testament scholar, noted as being neither liberal nor conservative. Yet even a mainstream scholar like Brown strongly states that the Scriptures critique homosexual practice (See Brown’s: An Introduction to the New Testament pp. 528-531). If we pass this motion we violate the ELCIC constitution and its statements about Scriptural primacy.

For all these reasons: preservation of Lutheran doctrine, church unity, concern for the lives of the poor, not betraying the trust of ELCIC members past and present, adherence to the ELCIC constitution and it statements of Scriptural primacy, I urge all delegates to defeat the NCC motions.

ELCIC Pastor Bart Eriksson, MDiv., ThM. (New Testament).

Letter to 2011 ELCIC Delegates

2011-06-03T21:22:00.000-07:00

Download pdf of Cover Letter

June 1, 2011

Dear 2011 ELCIC Convention Delegate,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and from our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Congratulations on your being chosen a delegate to the 2011 ELCIC National Convention. The upcoming convention will be the most important in the ELCIC's 25-year history in that the outcome will have a profound impact on the short, medium and long-term future of this Lutheran body. Consequently, as a delegate, a serious responsibility and accountability has been entrusted to you.

The Social Statement and sexuality motions put before you violate the Triune God's Will regarding human sexuality presented in the Bible and the Book of Concord, and, accordingly, they are in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of Article II (Confession of Faith) of the ELCIC Constitution.

Those who would lead the ELCIC to policies and faith practices that are in direct opposition to the Bible and orthodox Christianity should at least have the integrity to propose removal of Article II from the ELCIC Constitution. Although many in the ELCIC determine moral issues on the basis of personal experience, science, political correctness, congruence with cultural norms, homosexual behaviour of relatives or close friends, etc., ELCIC doctrine and policy cannot be based on anything other than the "Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments" (Section 3, Article II, ELCIC Constitution). The ELCIC hierarchy has decided that the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments should be ignored regarding acceptable sexual behaviour. They are in error.

All convention delegates have a responsibility and accountability to the Triune God to make decisions on the basis of His revealed truth in the Scriptures. The Social Statement and sexuality motions recommended by the ELCIC hierarchy, or the personal views of individual delegates, cannot be the basis for decision making at the National Convention.

The attached questions may prove helpful in understanding the short, medium and long term consequences on the ELCIC by adopting the homosexuality proposals. Solid Ground’s answers to these important questions are provided in the attached pages as well. Also, see "95 Questions and Answers", posted on the Solid Ground website at www.solid-ground.ca for more commentary. We encourage you to take the time to review this material prior to the National Convention.

"No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God's Word taken from them, so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grant we and our descendants be not witnesses of such a calamity." - Martin Luther

When a church body makes sin and apostasy part of its official doctrine and practice, Christians have an obligation to oppose it and, where necessary, depart from it.

27 Questions For 2011 ELCIC Convention Delegates With Answers From Solid Ground

2011-06-03T21:16:00.000-07:00

Download pdf of letter

by Keith R. Odegard

Bishop Susan Johnson and the NCC of the ELCIC have proposed that the ELCIC introduce significant changes to ELCIC doctrine regarding human sexuality. Before delegates vote on these initiatives, Solid Ground believes that each convention delegate should consciously address the issues represented by these questions. Biblical quotations are from the New International Version (“NIV”), Book of Concord (“BOC”) quotations are from the Tappert edition from Fortress Press, 1959. The following answers are the response of the Solid Ground Executive to the questions.

A. ELCIC Doctrine - Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Theology Interpretation Documents in the Book of Concord

1. Do the Social Statement (“SS”) and sexuality motions violate the Triune God’s will regarding human sexuality presented in the Bible and the Book of Concord (“BOC”)?

Answer: The SS and motions present a warped, twisted approach to human sexuality by rejecting all references to the Old and New Testaments relating to deviant sexual behaviour. Some of the relevant texts include:

Transvestitism

Deuteronomy 22:5 - A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Homosexuality

Genesis 19:4 – Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way.” They replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

Leviticus 18:22 – Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. To lie with a man as with a woman is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Kings 14:24 – There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

Romans 1:26 – 32 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.

1 Timothy 1: 8 - 11 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for the lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Book of Concord

Since the matter of human sexuality had been settled for 1,500 years before the Reformation, there is no analysis of any doctrinal change that would accept, affirm, encourage and celebrate homosexuality.

References to human sexuality focus on the divine nature of the estate of marriage between one man and one woman. A small sample of the many quotations regarding human sexuality that affirm the restriction of sexual relations between one man and one woman within the confines of marriage, from the BOC follows:

Augsburg Confession Article XXIII : “In the second place, Christ said, “Not all men can receive this precept” (Matt 19:11), by which he declared that all men are not suited for celibacy because God created man for procreation (Gen 1:28)” (Tappert 51:5)

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article XIII:

We cannot approve the law of celibacy put forth by our opponents because it clashes with divine and natural law and conflicts with the very decrees of the council. It obviously endangers religion and morality, for it produces endless scandals, sins, and the corruption of public morals…..

First, Gen 1:28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful and that one sex should have a proper desire for the other. We are not talking about sinful lust but about so-called “natural love,” the desire which was meant to be in uncorrupted nature. This love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. Since this ordinance of God cannot be suspended without, an extraordinary work of God, it follows that neither regulations nor vows can abolish the right to contract marriage.

..The Word of God did not form the nature of men to be fruitful only at the beginning of creation, but it still does as long as this physical nature of ours exists….

Second, because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a natural right, the jurists have said wisely and correctly that the union of man and woman is by natural right. Now, since natural right is unchangeable, the right to contract marriage must always remain. Where nature does not change, there must remain that ordinance which God has built into nature, and human regulations cannot abolish it. So it is ridiculous for our opponents to say that originally marriage was commanded but that it is no longer commanded. This is the same as saying that formerly men were born with a sex and now they are not, or that originally they were born with a natural right and now they are not. No one could fabricate anything more crafty than this foolishness, thought up in order to circumvent the natural law. Let us therefore keep this fact in mind, taught by Scripture and wisely put by the jurists: The union of man and woman is by natural right. Natural right is really divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely stamped on nature. Since only an extraordinary act of God can change this right, the right to contract marriage necessarily remains. For the natural desire of one sex for the other is an ordinance of God, and therefore it is a right; otherwise, why would both sexes have been created? As we said, we are not talking about sinful lust but about the desire which is called “natural love,” which lust did not remove from nature but only inflamed. Now it needs a remedy even more, and marriage is necessary for a remedy as well as for procreation. This is so clear and firm as to be irrefutable.

Third, Paul says (1Cor. 7:2), “Because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife.” This is an express command, directed to anyone not suited for celibacy. (Tappert p. 240-1)

In the first place, our opponents must admit that for believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by the Word of God; that is, it is something which the Word of God permits and approves, as the Scriptures abundantly testify. Christ calls marriage a divine union when he say in Matt 19:6, “What God has joined together.” (Tappert p.243)

Luther’s Large Catechism

Significantly he established it (marriage) as the first of all institutions, and he created man and woman differently (as is evident) not for lewdness but to be true to each other, be fruitful, beget children, and support and bring them up to the glory of God.

God has therefore most richly blessed this estate (marriage) above all others and, in addition, has supplied and endowed it with everything in the world in order that this estate might be provided for richly and adequately. Married life is no matter for jest or idle curiosity, but it is a glorious institution and an object of God’s serious concern.

Therefore I have always taught that we should not despise or disdain marriage, as the blind world and the false clergy do, but view it in the light of God’s Word, by which it is adorned and sanctified. It is not an estate to be placed on a level with the others; it precedes and surpasses them all, whether those of emperor, princes, bishops, or anyone else….It is not an exceptional estate, but the most universal and the noblest, pervading all Christendom and even extending throughout the world.

In the second place, remember that it is not only an honorable estate but also a necessary one, and it is solemnly commanded by God that in general men and women in all conditions, who have been created for it, shall be found in this estate. Yet there are some (although few) exceptions whom God has especially exempted-some who are unsuited for married life and other whom he has released by a high supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. (Tappert p. 393)

Comment: Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments or BOC is homosexuality or other forms of sexual deviancy accepted, affirmed, encouraged or celebrated. To attempt to use the Bible or BOC to pursue the agenda presented in the SS and motions is absurd. Rather than recognizing the Bible as the sole source of all ELCIC doctrine (See ELCIC Constitution Article II Section 3, Page 4 below), and the BOC as documents that have properly interpreted the Bible, the ELCIC hierarchy is promoting, through the SS and motions, doctrine and policy that is directly opposed to the content of the Bible and BOC.

2. Are the Social Statement and sexuality motions in violation of the current ELCIC Constitution (“the Constitution”)?

Answer: The Constitution includes detailed requirements relating to the formulation of ELCIC official church doctrine and policy. In answer to the above question, the following analysis presents the text of the Constitution with a commentary addressing whether the SS and motions violate that particular section of the Constitution.

ARTICLE II

Section 1. This church confesses the Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – as the one true God. It proclaims the Father as Creator and Preserver; His Son, Jesus Christ, as Redeemer and Lord; and the Holy Spirit as Regenerator and Sanctifier.

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 1 of Article II since they do not recognize the Triune God, but rather a false god.

Section 2. This church confesses that the gospel is the revelation of God’s saving will and grace in Jesus Christ, which he imparts through Word and Sacrament. Through these means of grace the Holy Spirit creates believers and unites them with their Lord and with one another in the fellowship of the Holy Christian Church.

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 2 of Article II because they do not recognize Jesus Christ of the Triune God, but rather a false Christ. The SS and motions also violate the fellowship with other Christians in the Holy Christian Church since the content of the SS and motions has never been accepted by the Holy Christian Church in 2,000 years of church history and are not accepted by the vast majority of today’s Christians.

Section 3. This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church. (emphasis added)

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 3, since they are not based on the Old and New Testament. The Bible clearly condemns all sexual practices that are not restricted to one man and one woman in a committed relationship. Homosexual behavior was known to the writers of both the Old and New Testament and was rejected. Such behavior was never commended, affirmed or celebrated. Ignoring the specific commands regarding sexual behavior specified in the Bible when formulating ELCIC sexuality doctrine and policy is direct violation of Section 3 of Article II.

The SS and motion are doctrine and policy that are not Biblical, stand in opposition to Article II of the ELCIC Constitution and contain content that is adversative to orthodox Christianity. Those who would lead the ELCIC to policies and faith practices that are in direct opposition to the Bible and orthodox Christianity should at least have the decency and integrity to propose removal of Article II from the ELCIC Constitution by disbanding the ELCIC. Although many in the ELCIC may determine moral issues on the basis of personal experience, science, political correctness, Federal or Provincial Government policy, congruence with dominant cultural norms, homosexual activities of relatives or close friends, etc., current official ELCIC doctrine and policy cannot be based on anything other that the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments”. Although the ELCIC hierarchy may have come to the personal revelation that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments should be ignored regarding acceptable sexual activity, they are in error.

The approach of massively changing the theological doctrine of the ELCIC by simply ignoring Article II and proposing policies and doctrine that are antithetical to orthodox Christianity is not acceptable behaviour by individuals who are paid to operate the ELCIC in a manner that is consistent with its Constitution. If the ELCIC hierarchy wishes to eliminate Article II as the basis of determining ELCIC doctrine and policy, they should resign their positions and work toward disbanding the ELCIC. Congregations and individual members of the ELCIC should not give benevolence money to pay the salaries and overhead expenses of an ELCIC hierarchy that are actively working against the provisions of the Constitution of the ELCIC.

If the ELCIC hierarchy, have no plans to propose the dissolution of the ELCIC, to achieve the objective of jettisoning Article II, how can they, meeting the minimum ethical standards of honesty, integrity and decency, present a SS and motions that contains doctrine and policy that unashamedly and blatantly violates Article II?

This SS and motions are in stark violation of the Constitution of the ELCIC, therefore it is unethical and illegal to expend ELCIC resources to promote the SS and/or motions. If one recognizes that the SS and motions are in violation of the ELCIC Constitution, then the ELCIC Bishop Susan Johnson is duty-bound to reject the SS and motions and work against their adoption at the 2011 ELCIC Convention. Sadly, rather than rejecting the SS and motions, Bishop Johnson and the NCC have expended tens of thousands of dollars of ELCIC resources to produce and promote them.

If Bishop Johnson and the NCC members wish to ignore Article II, they should find the courage to resign from their positions within the ELCIC and work towards disbanding the ELCIC, so that the religious institution that replaces the ELCIC is not constrained by adherence to the Holy Scriptures. This course of action would eliminate the conflict of interest inherent in an organization where the individuals responsible for insuring the organization comply with its constitution on a day to day basis, seek to introduce radical new polices and practices that violate this constitution. If the ELCIC hierarchy sincerely believe God is leading them to a radical change of ELCIC doctrine and practices, they should begin by openly working to form a new religious institution to promote their non-Christian beliefs, rather than attempting to maintain a Potemkin village façade of faithfulness to the ELCIC Constitution, while proposing doctrine and policies that are in direct violation of the Constitution.

Both paid and non-paid individuals who participate in any activities of the ELCIC must be required, as a condition of employment/volunteer service, to perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution of the ELCIC, including Article II. If they cannot, in good conscience, adhere to this minimum ethical standard, they should either a.) work openly towards the dissolution of the ELCIC in order to eliminate Article II or, b.) transfer to a religious institution that is not constrained by the content of the Old and New Testaments and/or the Book of Concord.

From a strictly organization survival standpoint, ignoring the ELCIC Constitution while attempting to introduce radical change to the organization will likely result in a significant loss of active members and financial support. If congregations and individual members do not trust the hierarchy to operate the ELCIC in accordance with its Constitution, they will likely abandon the ELCIC and search out a religious organization that acts in a manner consistent with its Constitution and orthodox Christianity.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the introduction of the SS and motions, the dishonesty of pretending Article II does not exist in forming ELCIC doctrine and policy, does not engender trust and confidence in the ELCIC hierarchy. Why would individuals and congregations support an organization that they do not trust, since it does not operate in an honest, transparent manner? There are likely many ELCIC members who naively believe that church policy must conform to Article II, since it is the only “unalterable” article in the ELCIC Constitution.

Section 4. This church subscribes to the document of the Book of Concord of 1580 as witnesses to the way in which the Holy Scriptures have been correctly understood, explained and confessed for the sake of the gospel, namely:

The Apostles’, Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds as the chief confessions of the Christian faith;

The unaltered Augsburg Confession as its basic formulation of Christian doctrine;

Luther’s Small Catechism as a clear summary of Christian doctrine;

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Luther’s Large Catechism, the Smalcald Articles with the Treatise, and the Formula of Concord as further witnesses to the Unaltered Augsburg Confeesion.

Comment: Like the intentional rejection of the Old and New Testament in formulating and promoting the SS and motions, the ELCIC hierarchy also ignores the many references to human sexuality in the Book of Concord (“BOC”). As in the Old and New Testament, the only acceptable sexual relationships between humans is a committed relationship between one man and one woman. To quote from the BOC to support the SS and motions, while ignoring the content of the BOC regarding human sexuality is intellectually and morally dishonest. Therefore, the SS and motions violate Section 4 of Article II.

ARTICLE III

Section 1. Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. All power belongs to Him as its head. All actions of this church are to be carried out under His rule and authority.

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 1 because they not recognize Jesus Christ of the Triune God. To propose that the SS and motions are based on the rule and authority of Jesus Christ is absurd. No evidence or support has been provided that indicates that Jesus Christ ever supported homosexual relationships or that He directed His church to affirm and celebrate such unnatural relationships. Since the Athanasian Creed is a chief confession of the ELCIC (See the Section 4, a. Article II of the Constitution), Jesus Christ is uncreated and existed at the beginning with God the Father, therefore the law and behavioral expectations of the Old Testament are the commands of both the Father and the Son. Therefore the SS and motions violate Section 1 of Article III.

Section 2. The Holy Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the Church, which exists both as congregations gathered for worship, witness, education and service, and as an inclusive fellowship which has its own identity and integrity. Congregations find their fulfillment in the universal community of the Church, and the universal Church exists in and through congregations.

Comment: The SS and motions violate the Holy Spirit since they deny its ability to speak through the Triune God’s Word, the Old and New Testament. The universal church is not present in congregations that do not recognize the Triune God but rather a false god. Therefore, the SS and motions violate Section 2 of Article III.

Section 3 This church derives its character and its powers both from its congregations and from its inherent nature as part of the Church universal. It regards itself as standing in the historic continuity of the communion of saints and as being an expression of that Christian fellowship in today’s world.

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 3 of Article III because acceptance of them as doctrine and policy of the ELCIC cuts off any connection with the Church universal and historic continuity of the communion of saints, since the SS and motions bless and celebrate sin and worship a false god, not the Triune God of the Old and new Testaments.

Article XX

Section 1. ARTICLE II on “Confession of Faith” shall be unalterable.

Comment: Therefore, Article II cannot be altered without the dissolution of the ELCIC. If Bishop Johnson and the ELCIC hierarchy wish to eliminate Article II from the Constitution, they should resign from their ELCIC offices and propose disbanding the ELCIC at the next ELCIC Convention. If the ELCIC was disbanded, all the assets of the ELCIC could be returned to ELCIC congregations. Those congregations that wished to join the new organization of Bishop Johnson and the existing ELCIC hierarchy could join and support the new organization. Unlike the ELCIC Constitution, this new organization constitution could be written to exclude any reference to the Old and New Testaments, Book of Concord, God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, etc. In terms of determining acceptable doctrine, the new religious institution could include whatever criteria the organizers and their supporting congregations decide.

3. Why does the SS quote Luther and BOC documents but refuses to cite quotations from these sources that relate directly to human sexuality?

Answer: Because there are no quotations that relate to human sexuality that support the SS or the motions. Homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible. Sexual relations confined to one man and one woman within a committed relationship are repeatedly affirmed, encouraged and celebrated throughout the Bible and BOC.

4. Is “context” a Christian theological concept?

Answer: The SS repeatedly presents the idea of the “context” that exists for the ELCIC. For example, “Our interest in our current context is based on Christ’s interest in the well-being of all.” The previous draft of the SS and Sexuality Study also raise this new idea that the doctrine of the Christian church must adapt to the norms of the dominant culture. This idea is not found in the Bible or BOC. It is an idea that is toxic to preserving the truth of Law and Gospel, since it presumes that Christian foundational beliefs can be cast aside based on the expectations of a heathen culture

5. What is heresy?

Answer: A belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church; a belief opposed to authoritative opinion in any area of thought. (The Living Webster’s Dictionary).

6. What is apostasy?

Answer: An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion or departure from one’s faith, principles, or party. (The Living Webster’s Dictionary)

7. Does adopting a policy of non-compliance of purity laws mean that all Old Testament laws should be violated?

Answer: No. The proponents of the SS and motions have made the illogical leap that since some of the purity laws need not be enforced, therefore all the laws of the Old Testament are inapplicable to the “current context” of the ELCIC. If the SS and motion proponents’ logic is followed it would make sense to ignore the verses 21, 22 and 23 from the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus:

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord,

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

If the laws of Leviticus are to be ignored because they are no longer applicable, then it would be perfectly acceptable for parents to sacrifice their children to Molech and women to present themselves to animals for sexual relations.

The bulk of the laws of Leviticus are relevant to Christians. The obscure purity laws that are not relevant are not affirmed by Christ or the writers of the New Testament. Also, these purity laws do not relate to God’s order of creation or any writings of the Reformers found in the BOC. To equate the prohibition of homosexuality from the Old Testament with irrelevant purity laws is both illogical and intellectually dishonest.

8. Does the existence of homosexual practices in modern Canadian society require the ELCIC to change its theology to satisfy the current culture?

Answer: Homosexual practices have existed throughout human history, including the time period of both the Old and New Testaments. If the Triune God wished to conform to the culture He would have permitted and affirmed homosexual behaviour. Rather than affirm homosexual behavior, he condemned it in both the Old and New Testaments. The idea that the ELCIC should change its core doctrine to match the cultural norms of 21^st century Canada, is not supported by Scripture or the BOC.

9. Does the Bible have any direct references to homosexual behavior?

Answer: Yes, homosexual behaviour is condemned in the Bible. See the answer to Question 1 above for specific examples.

10. Does the BOC have any direct references to heterosexual behavior?

Answer: Yes, the BOC affirms that human sexuality should be restricted to one man and one woman in a committed marriage relationship. (See 95 Questions posted at www.solid-ground.ca for more commentary)

B. Government Determination of ELCIC Theology, Ethics and Morality

11. Does the recent change in Federal or Provincial Government policy in respect to active homosexuals, change the Triune God’s expectations?

Answer: There is no evidence from Scripture, the BOC or plain reason that indicates that the Triune God will change His commands or expectations regarding human sexuality based on the actions of a Federal or Provincial Government. If the Triune God did take direction in matters of doctrine from the Federal Government or Provincial Government there would be no need for the ELCIC or any other church body, since all of God’s doctrine and expectation would match exactly the rights and responsibilities of all citizens of Canada. Such a view is frankly, ridiculous and stands against the Word of the Triune God.

12. If and when the Federal Government or a Provincial Government changes marriage policy (e.g. permitting polygamy, etc.) will ELCIC congregations be forced to affirm these sexual combinations if their pastor is in favor of the newly permitted sexual combination(s)?

Answer: There are no restrictions on the sexual practices that could be imposed on congregations of the ELCIC, since the only two criteria for determining “marriage” is that the Government and the local pastor agree on the participants. This means any combination of males, females, minors, (e.g. two males and 1 female) etc. could be married in an ELCIC congregation if the Federal or Provincial Government and local pastor accepted the combination(s).

C. Pastoral Leadership

13. Is it possible for ordinary lay members of the ELCIC to expect to discern the Will of God if it is in conflict with the views and opinions of the ELCIC religious leaders?

Answer: Yes. The views and opinions of the ELCIC hierarchy are irrelevant if they conflict with the Will of the Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC.

14. In the context of this debate regarding official ELCIC policy, should the personal opinions of the “experts”, the ELCIC bureaucrats and clergy be given greater credence than the Bible and the BOC?

Answer: There is no provision for ELCIC doctrine and policy to be determined by the personal opinions of so-called “experts” and ELCIC bureaucrats. Doctrine and policy must be in accordance with the Bible and the BOC as per the Constitution (See the answers to Questions 1 and 2 above).

D. Decision Making Process of the ELCIC Hierarchy Regarding the Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Motions

15. Does the sexual behavior of relatives of the NCC, pastors and/or convention delegates require them to recognize their inherent conflict of interest when formulating ELCIC policy that violates the ELCIC Constitution?

Answer: Many members of the ELCIC hierarchy may have close family members or friends that are active homosexuals. This situation should in no way influence the official doctrine and policy of the ELCIC. ELCIC doctrine and policy do not exist to be an expression of the personal opinions of the ELCIC hierarchy. Although the ELCIC hierarchy may have a strong desire to change ELCIC official doctrine to encourage and celebrate homosexuality, the requirements of Scripture, the BOC, the Constitution and orthodox Christian doctrine should override their personal desires or opinions.

16. Should the ELCIC discard existing ELCIC policy, the 1970 Statement on Sex, Marriage and Family without comparing and contrasting both the existing policy and the new Social Statement?

Answer: No, it is illogical to completely ignore existing policy. The existing policy should be included with the draft SS, so that convention delegates can see the mammoth differences between the two documents.

17. How does ELCIC hierarchy believe that their unorthodox interpretation of sexuality can surpass two ELCIC convention votes and 2,000 years of recorded church history?

Answer: The votes of two ELCIC conventions, the Constitution and 2,000 years of recorded church history appear to be irrelevant to the agenda of ELCIC hierarchy. This is the only logical explanation to the continuous attempt to pass the celebration and acceptance of homosexuality. Like the Quebec separatists, who believe that one vote where 50.1% of the voters can force Quebec to leave Canada, the ELCIC hierarchy believe that one vote with 50.1% support at a convention can radically alter ELCIC human sexuality policy. No matter how many Convention votes reject homosexuality as a God-pleasing activity, the ELCIC hierarchy proceeds on the basis that they only need one vote in favor of homosexuality to massively change ELCIC doctrine and policy.

E. ELCIC Hierarchy Call for Social Cohesion and Unity of ELCIC Members

18. Is the concept of “unity” presented on page 10 of the Social Statement a call to preserve the ELCIC’s present and future financial resources, or an honest attempt to follow the requirements of Scripture?

Answer: The ELCIC synod offices and head office needs financial resources to survive. Historically, it has obtained these resources by congregations willingly making gifts to their respective synod and the synod forwarding a portion of these offerings to the head office of the ELCIC. It would be impossible to promote the absorption of the ELCIC by the Anglican Church of Canada (“ACOC”) or to advocate for the ELCIC accepting, affirming, encouraging and celebrating homosexual behavior without financial resources. It appears that “unity” in the context of the SS actually means unity so that financial resources will continue to be transferred to the ELCIC synod and head offices from local congregations.

Given the opposition of the NCC to the motion to protect congregational property at the 2009 convention, and the ACOC head office control of all congregational property, “unity” may, in the future, mean the control by synods or the ELCIC head office of congregational property. Both the Eastern Canada Synod and B.C. Synod have attempted to gain control of congregational property in the past (see www.solid-ground.ca for further details). If individual members or congregations leave the ELCIC the congregations are currently permitted to take their property with them to another church body. The call for unity in this “context” may simply mean that it may take some time for the ELCIC to implement the required changes to constitutions and organizational structure to gain control of congregational property.

F. Illogicality of ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Proposed Motions

19. Are there any boundaries on the behavior of humans, if all violations of God’s Law can be excused on the basis of acceptance, context and culture?

Answer: The acceptance of the SS and motions sets the precedent that no behaviours of humans can logically be prohibited, since the criteria for the acceptance, affirmation, encouragement and celebration of behaviours prohibited by the Triune God are based on the personal desires of ELCIC bureaucrats and Federal and Provincial politicians. If the ELCIC can willfully violate the Scriptures, BOC and historic church practice to pander to the desires of the homosexual community, it is symptomatic of an organization that has little or no connection to the Triune God revealed in Scripture and BOC.

20. Why would the Triune God repeatedly condemn homosexuality if it was not harmful to humans?

Answer: If one accepts the Christian concept that the Triune God loves humans, it is irrational to assume that His commands regarding human sexuality are not intended for the benefit of humans. Proponents of the affirmation of homosexuality believe that they are more intellectually advanced than the Triune God revealed in Scripture.

21. Why does the Social Statement contain several Biblical references but no reference to the many verses relating directly to human sexuality?

Answer: All the Biblical references related to human sexuality condemn non-heterosexual behaviours. In order to affirm many other types of human sexual expression, the SS has to ignore all Scripture that relates directly or indirectly to human sexuality.

22. Why has the Social Statement ignored all other sexuality issues that face members of the ELCIC such as divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy, etc.?

Answer: These other issues would likely obscure the single minded focus on the acceptance and affirmation of non-heterosexual behaviors. The previous 1970 Social Statement addresses more issues than the proposed SS.

23. How can ELCIC congregational members support an organization that acts in conflict with the Bible and BOC?

Answer: If the SS and motions pass, each individual member and congregation will have to make a choice regarding which god they worship and serve. The Triune God of the Bible and BOC or some other false god.

G. Christ’s Love

24. Which activity proclaims Christ’s love for one’s neighbor, proclaiming the truth revealed in the Bible and BOC or encouraging one’s neighbor to break God’s law by engaging in prohibited sexual behavior?

Answer: Proclaiming the truth of the Triune God as revealed by the Bible and the BOC is the only action that shares Christ’s love with one’s neighbor. Encouraging and celebrating deviant sexual behavior that is specifically condemned by the Triune God leads people away from Christ’s love.

H. Future Impact on ELCIC Members and Congregations

25. Since the sexuality motions condone and lift up active homosexual couples as living morally equivalent lives equivalent to active heterosexual couples, will all church documents, Sunday School materials, worship resources reflect this new policy?

Answer: Based on the strong push by the ELCIC hierarchy to promote homosexuality, including ordaining active homosexuals, it appears reasonable that all future worship resources, Sunday School materials, etc., will at a minimum, present homosexual behavior in at least as favourable light as heterosexual behavior. If the ELCIC changes its doctrine to marry and ordain homosexuals, it would make sense that the ELCIC would affirm homosexuality as perfectly acceptable God-pleasing expression of human sexuality. Future decisions by Federal and Provincial governments may also result in changes to ELCIC Sunday School materials, since sexual behavior acceptable to the ELCIC would be determined by Federal and Provincial government action rather than the Bible or BOC.

26. Will the ELCIC change the scripture readings for congregational worship services by either mistranslating the many prohibitions of homosexuality and affirmations of heterosexuality or simply prohibit any passage that contains any reference to human sexuality (e.g. Genesis 1:28 “Go forth and multiply.”)?

Answer: The ELCIC and predecessor organizations such as the Lutheran Church in America, American Lutheran Church and ELCC have shown no reluctance to change historic documents to meet their requirements. So it would be logical for the ELCIC hierarchy to simply mistranslate or change any Scripture references that contradict the official doctrine and policy of the ELCIC regarding human sexuality.

27. Are there other Lutheran church bodies that have not made the acceptance, affirmation, promotion, encouragement and celebration of homosexual behaviour official church policy?

Answer: Thankfully the ELCIC is not the only Lutheran church body in Canada. Congregations and individual members have a wide variety of Lutheran church bodies that are not proposing to bless, encourage or celebrate sin. The following list includes some of the choices available to Canadian Lutherans:

Association of Free Lutheran Congregations-Canada (AFLC) www.aflccanada.org

Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC) www.calc.ca

Church of the Lutheran Brethren-Canada (CLB) www.lbcanada.org

Life Together Churches (LTC) www.lifetogetherchurches.com

Lutheran Church - Canada (LCC) www.lutheranchurch-canada.ca

Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) www.lcmc.net

North American Lutheran Church (NALC) www.thenalc.org

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod – Canada (WELS) www.wels-canada.ca

95 Questions and Answers Pertaining to National Church Council Recommendations to Delegates Surrounding a new Social Statement, Unity and Restructuring.

2011-06-03T19:31:00.000-07:00

Download pdf of letter

June 1, 2011 By Keith R. Odegard

On April 2, 2011 the National Church Council (“NCC”) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (“ELCIC”) released the Proposed ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality (“SS”), and proposed human sexuality motions for the 2011 ELCIC National Convention (“the Convention”). These proposed motions include motions to affirm individuals who are actively engaged in homosexual activity, including the marriage of homosexuals and the ordination of active homosexuals for pastoral ministry in the ELCIC.

The following questions may prove helpful in understanding the short, medium and long term consequences of adopting the homosexuality proposals on the ELCIC. Solid Ground’s answers to these questions are provided in the following pages.

A. ELCIC Doctrine - Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Theology Interpretation Documents in the Book of Concord Page 6
1. Do the Social Statement and sexuality motions violate the Triune God’s Will regarding human sexuality presented in the Bible and the Book of Concord (“BOC”)?
2. Are the Social Statement and sexuality motions in violation of the current ELCIC Constitution (“the Constitution”)?
3. Do the SS and motions violate the Ten Commandments?
4. Do the SS and motions violate the Apostles’ Creed? 5. Do the SS and motions violate the Lord’s Prayer?
6. Do the SS and motions violate the Triune God’s divine order of creation?
7. Why does the SS quote Luther and BOC documents but refuses to cite quotations from these
sources that relate directly to human sexuality?

8. Did Christ warn his disciples that false prophets will appear and deceive many people?

9. Does the SS properly quote non-Biblical references including the BOC and Martin Luther?

10. Is “context” a Christian theological concept?

11. Since the Athanasian Creed states that Jesus Christ is “begotten before the ages of the

substance of the Father.” How is it possible for the ELCIC hierarchy to ignore the fact that
God the Father’s law is also the law of Jesus Christ?
12. Is the concept of “sexual orientation” recognized in either the Bible or BOC?
13.If Jesus believed in encouraging deviant sexual behavior, why did He not proclaim sexual
freedom during his ministry?

14. Is the doctrine of inclusion, acceptance, encouragement and affirmation of sinful behavior
espoused by the Social Statement ever indicated in the Bible and BOC?

15. Does it matter if ELCIC members worship a god that possesses few of the characteristics of the
Triune God rather than the one true Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC?

16. What is heresy?

17. What is apostasy?

18. Is the whole issue of human sexuality a minor concern that should be settled ASAP so it does
not restrict the ELCIC proclaiming Christ’s love to all?

19. Are the proponents of the SS and motions proclaiming a counterfeit Christ?
20. Does adopting a policy of non-compliance of purity laws mean that all Old Testament laws
may be violated?

21. Similar to the acceptance of the false translation of the words of Jesus regarding the institution
of the Lord’s Supper used by the ELCIC, should the SS and motions be passed so the ELCIC
can move forward?

22. In terms of voting on the acceptability of the sexuality motions and SS, do convention

delegates have any responsibilities to ELCIC members and the Triune God beyond their own
personal view of homosexuality?

23. Does the existence of homosexual practices in modern Canadian society require the ELCIC to
change its theology to satisfy the current culture?

24. Is there any evidence that Jesus Christ abandoned the Word of God to relate to people in the
culture of His day?

25. Is the content of the Scriptures and BOC relevant to the ELCIC in 2011, since the Bible and
BOC were written by long dead white males that were conditioned by their cultural context, backward patriarchal societies, and possessed no knowledge of modern Canadian society?

B. Government Determination of ELCIC Theology, Ethics and Morality Page 25
26. Is the abdication of responsibility for ELCIC sexuality policy to the Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada appropriate and/or in accordance with the Constitution?
27. Does the recent change in Federal or Provincial Government policy in respect to active homosexuals, change the Triune God’s expectations?
28. If and when the Federal Government or a Provincial Government changes marriage policy (e.g. permitting polygamy, etc.) will ELCIC congregations be forced to affirm these sexual combinations if their pastor is in favor of the newly permitted sexual combination(s)?
29. Would the passage of the motions set a precedent for future doctrinal issues of the ELCIC?

C. Pastoral Leadership Page 26
30. Is it appropriate for the individual conscience of pastors to determine the policy of ELCIC congregations regarding the congregation encouraging homosexuality by blessing/affirming/ encouraging homosexuals?
31. Since all ELCIC Bishops and many NCC members are pastors, does this mean they are expert theologians who should be trusted with determining ELCIC doctrine?
32. Is it possible for ordinary lay members of the ELCIC to come to different conclusions regarding the Will of God than the ELCIC religious leaders?
33. Did Jesus Christ always respect and follow the policies of the religious authorities during His ministry?
34. In the context of this debate regarding official ELCIC policy, should the personal opinions of the “experts”, the ELCIC bureaucrats and clergy be given greater credence than the Bible and the BOC?

D. Decision Making Process of the ELCIC Hierarchy Regarding the ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Motions Page 27
35. Does the sexual behavior of relatives of the NCC, pastors and/or convention delegates require them to recognize their inherent conflict of interest when formulating ELCIC policy that violates the ELCIC Constitution?
36. Can one judge the extensive ELCIC hierarchy consultation processes with ELCIC members worthwhile when no reports are publicly available that summarize the data collected (e.g. no publicly available report on the feedback from the ELCIC Sexuality Study or the Draft Sexuality Statement)?
37. Is the use of the consultation process with ELCIC members simply a public relations exercise that has no bearing on the final result of the recommendation from NCC (e.g. Social Statement and ELCIC reorganization)?
38. Should the ELCIC discard existing ELCIC policy, the 1970 Statement on Sex, Marriage and Family without comparing and contrasting both the existing policy and the proposed new Social Statement?
39. How does the ELCIC hierarchy believe that their unorthodox interpretation of sexuality can override two ELCIC convention votes and 2,000 years of recorded church history?
40. Must all changes in church doctrine and policy be tested against the content of the Scriptures?
41. Who is responsible for the current theological and ecclesiological crisis that has engulfed the
ELCIC?

42. Do the SS and motions indicate that the ELCIC hierarchy is following Christ or editing Christ?

43. Should Susan Johnson be re-elected as Bishop of the ELCIC?

E. ELCIC Hierarchy Call for Social Cohesion and Unity of ELCIC Members Page 30
44. Does the Triune God call His followers to social cohesion in order to maintain a peaceful, quiet, comfortable organization?
45. Is the concept of “unity” presented on page 10 of the Social Statement a call to preserve the ELCIC’s present and future financial resources, or an honest attempt to follow the requirements of Scripture?
46. Will the ELCIC hierarchy call for unity apply to the ELCIC if the SS or motions are not passed?
47. Does the Constitution recognize the concept of unity?

F. Illogicality of ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Motions Page 31
48. Does the SS and motions recognize the one true Triune God?
49. Are there any boundaries on the behavior of humans, if all violations of God’s Law can be
excused on the basis of acceptance, context and culture?

50. Can Satan use acceptance, encouragement, affirmation and blessing of Biblically identified
sinful behavior to advance his agenda?

51. Does naming a personal desires god (“pdgod”), “Jesus”, make this pdgod, a person of the
Triune God?

52. If the pdgod is a false god, not the Triune God, is the falsification of naming the pdgod “Jesus” and ignoring God’s law a salvation issue, since only the one true Triune God can give salvation?
53. Why would the Triune God repeatedly condemn homosexuality if it was not harmful to humans?
54. How can the ELCIC logically claim to be a “Christian church” and advocate the encouragement, blessing, affirmation and celebration of sinful behavior?
55. Must the NCC motions relating to sexuality be approved if the convention accepts the SS?
56. Why does the Social Statement contain several Biblical references but no reference to the
many verses relating directly to human sexuality?

57. Does the Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC have any expectations beyond accepting
and affirming all human behavior formed by “context and culture.”

58. Why has the Social Statement ignored all other sexuality issues that face members of the
ELCIC such as divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy, etc.?

59. How can ELCIC congregational members continue to support an organization that acts in
direct conflict with the Bible and BOC?

60. Does the ELCIC hierarchy address the Church’s responsibility of properly administering the
Office of the Keys given to the Church, by Jesus Christ?

61. Has the Bible ever required God’s people to abandon God’s Word to relate to people in their
current culture?

62. How can the ELCIC ordain active homosexuals and expect them to proclaim the good news to
the world when they unrepentantly proclaim themselves above the constraints of God’s Law?

63. Are people who engage in homoerotic behavior sinners? 64. Are people who engage in heterosexual behavior sinners?

G. Christ’s Love Page 34
65. Which activity proclaims Christ’s love for one’s neighbor, proclaiming the truth revealed in the Bible and BOC or encouraging one’s neighbor to break God’s law by engaging in prohibited sexual behavior?
66. Is the “love of Christ” more than acceptance, tolerance and affirmation of sinful behavior? 67. If homosexual activities are a sin, is this sin particularly bad or heinous?

H. Future Impact on ELCIC Members and Congregations Page 34
68. Since the sexuality motions condone, lift up and celebrate the active homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to the active heterosexual lifestyle, will all future church documents, Sunday School materials, worship resources, etc. reflect this new policy?
69. Will the ELCIC change the scripture readings for congregational worship services by either mistranslating the many prohibitions of homosexuality and affirmations of heterosexuality or by selectively omitting Scriptural passages which prohibit homosexual behaviour from lectionary readings?
70. Does the statement, “This church seeks to assist children and youth in developing healthy attitudes and behaviors regarding sexual expression.” (P. 12 Social Statement) mean that the ELCIC will promote, encourage, affirm and celebrate various sexual behaviors of the modern
culture included in the Social Statement such as homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered,
two-spirited, queer, intersex and questioning behaviors (p. 3 Social Statement)? 71. If a pastor has indicated he or she is not currently planning to bless homosexuals, why should
congregational members care about the official human sexuality policies of the ELCIC?

72. If the ELCIC passes the sexuality motions and accepts the Social Statement, are future actions
of the ELCIC unhindered by any unredacted reference to the Bible and the BOC? 73. Is it likely that there will be an influx of active homosexuals into ELCIC congregations should
the SS and motions pass?

74. Is it likely that there will be a significant number of present members and congregations of the
ELCIC who will leave the ELCIC should the SS and motions pass? 75. If a congregational member participates in an ELCIC congregation primarily for social reasons,
will the acceptance of the SS and motions have any significant impact on their weekly worship
experience?

76. Will any good come out of the fight over the official ELCIC policy regarding human sexuality?

77. Is it difficult for an ELCIC congregation to leave the ELCIC? 78. Are there other Lutheran church bodies that have not made the acceptance, affirmation,

promotion, encouragement and celebration of homosexual behavior official church policy?

I. ELCIC Reorganization and Prospective Takeover of ELCIC by Anglican Church of Canada (“ACOC”) Page 36
79. Does the proposed reorganization transfer power from congregations and lay members of the ELCIC to clergy members of the ELCIC?
80. If Synod conventions elect 30 lay delegates and 20 clergy delegates to the ELCIC convention will this mean that the convention will not be controlled by the clergy?
81. Does the proposed reorganization enhance the power of the ELCIC Bishop?
82. Will the proposed reorganization reduce the overhead expenses of the ELCIC?
83. Does the proposed reorganization address the causes of the precipitous decline in
congregational support to both ELCIC synods and the ELCIC head office?
84. Are the Social Statement and sexuality motions initiatives to draw attention away from the proposed reorganization that will concentrate power in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy?
85. Is a massive transfer of power from congregations to the ELCIC hierarchy through a church reorganization appropriate with little time to review and analyze the ramifications of the ELCIC proposal (the proposal was publicly released on May 11, 2011, 54 days prior to the Convention)?
86. Does the prospective reorganization of ELCIC power to the ELCIC hierarchy increase the likelihood of a takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC?
87. Are there any significant differences between the ELCIC and ACOC in terms of organization, structure and operations?
88. Does a takeover by the ACOC of the ELCIC threaten the ownership and control of congregational property?
89. If the ELCIC is suffering from lack of financial support that necessitates a radical reorganization, why is the ELCIC expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct and indirect costs to cooperate with the Anglican Church of Canada (“ACOC”), including the proposal to open a new ELCIC/ACOC office in Ottawa?
90. Is the ELCIC reorganization issue only a foretaste of the struggle for congregational assets and control of the call process between the ELCIC hierarchy and individual congregations?
91. Why would the ELCIC hierarchy want the ELCIC to be taken over by the ACOC? 92. What are the benefits to ELCIC congregations of a close relationship between the ELCIC and
ACOC? 93. Given the disastrous state of ELCIC head office finances and the relatively healthy state of
congregational finances (Page 9 SRTF), why has the ELCIC hierarchy refused to honestly survey the active lay members of the ELCIC that generously support their local congregation but limit their contributions to ELCIC synods and ELCIC national offices?
94. What is the likely impact of the proposed reorganization on the ELCIC?
95. By what authority does Solid Ground Ministry/Canada question the actions of the ELCIC
hierarchy?

95 QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE EVANEGLICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN CANADATES WITH ANSWERS FROM SOLID GROUND/MINISTRY CANADA

June 1, 2011 by Keith R. Odegard

Bishop Susan Johnson and the National Church Council (“NCC”) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (“ELCIC”) have proposed that the ELCIC introduce significant changes to ELCIC doctrine regarding human sexuality. Solid Ground believes that each member of the ELCIC should consciously address the issues represented by these questions. Biblical quotations are from the New International Version (“NIV”), Book of Concord (“BOC”) quotations are from the Tappert edition from Fortress Press, 1959

A. ELCIC Doctrine - Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Theology Interpretation Documents in the Book of Concord

1. Do the Social Statement (“SS”) and sexuality motions violate the Triune God’s will regarding human sexuality presented in the Bible and the Book of Concord (“BOC”)?

Transvestitism

Deuteronomy 22:5 - A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22 – Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. To lie with a man as with a woman is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Kings 14:24 – There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

Book of Concord

Augsburg Confession Article XXIII : “In the second place, Christ said, “Not all men can received this precept” (Matt 19:11), by which he declared that all men are not suited for celibacy because God created man for procreation (Gen 1:28)” (Tappert 51:5)

Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article XIII:

..The Word of God did not form the nature of men to be fruitful only at the beginning of creation, but it still does as long as this physical nature of ours exists….

Luther’s Large Catechism

2. Are the Social Statement and sexuality motions in violation of the current ELCIC Constitution (“the Constitution”)?

ARTICLE II

Comment: The SS and motions violate Section 1 of Article II since they do not recognize the Triune God, but rather a false god.

The Apostles’, Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds as the chief confessions of the Christian faith;

The unaltered Augsburg Confession as its basic formulation of Christian doctrine;

Luther’s Small Catechism as a clear summary of Christian doctrine;

Comment: Like the intentional rejection of the Old and New Testament in formulating and promoting the SS and motions, the ELCIC hierarchy also ignores the many references to human sexuality in the Book of Concord (“BOC”). As in the Old and New Testament, the only acceptable sexual relationship between humans is a committed relationship between one man and one woman. To quote from the BOC to support the SS and motions, while ignoring the content of the BOC regarding human sexuality is intellectually and morally dishonest. Therefore, the SS and motions violate Section 4 of Article II.

ARTICLE III

Section 1. Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. All power belongs to Him as its head. All actions of this church are to be carried out under His rule and authority.

Section 3. This church derives its character and its powers both from its congregations and from its inherent nature as part of the Church universal. It regards itself as standing in the historic continuity of the communion of saints and as being an expression of that Christian fellowship in today’s world.

Article XX

Section 1. ARTICLE II on “Confession of Faith” shall be unalterable.

3. Do the SS and motions violate the Ten Commandments?

Answer: Luther’s Large and Small Catechism describes the Ten Commandments and their meanings and is a foundational doctrine for the ELCIC, since they are included in the Book of Concord (Tappert, Fortress Press p. 342 – 344 and 365 – 411).

First Commandment: You shall have no other gods.

Luther’s meaning is succinct, yet all-encompassing, “We should fear, love and trust in God above all things.” The SS and motions represent a radical departure from trusting in the Triune God above all things. Rather, the SS and motions sin against this commandment by placing the trust of the ELCIC in the personal biases of the occupants of its hierarchy, namely Susan Johnson and the NCC. Not only does the SS and motions require ELCIC members to not trust God’s word as revealed in scripture, passage requires ELCIC members to support policies that are contrary to God’s Will as revealed by his Word. Instead of fearing, loving or trusting in the Triune God, NCC is asking members to ignore, hate and distrust the Triune God.

NCC and Bishop Johnson ask ELCIC members to believe and trust a false God, a personal desires god (“pdgod”) created from their own imaginations. This commandment indicates that people will have other gods, so it is neither surprising nor shocking that there are many individuals within the ELCIC that worship other gods rather than the Triune God.

Therefore, passage of the SS and motions violate the First Commandment.

Second Commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

When one uses the Lord’s name to lie or deceive they are using his name improperly and in vain. Luther’s explanation in the Large Catechism (p. 371 and p. 372) includes the following statements:

“What does it mean to misuse or take the name of God in vain? You should answer briefly: “It is a misuse of God’s name if we call upon the Lord God in any way whatsoever to support falsehood or wrong of any kind.”

“The greatest abuse (of this commandment), however occurs in spiritual matters, which pertain to the conscience, when false preachers arrive and peddle their lying nonsense as the Word of God.”

The content of the SS and motions improperly use God’s name to support false teachings, since these documents twist and pervert the true Word of God revealed in the Bible and BOC.

Therefore, passage of the SS and motions violate the Second Commandment.

Third Commandment: You shall sanctify the holy day.

Luther in his Large Catechism extends the responsibility for obeying this commandment beyond simply hearing God’s Word. He states (p.378):

“Remember, then, that you must be concerned not only about hearing the Word but also about learning and retaining it. Do not regard it as an optional or unimportant matter. It is the commandment of God, and he will require of you an accounting of how you have heard and learned and honored his Word.”

The SS and motions are not in accordance with the Word of God as revealed in the Bible and the BOC and will result in the preaching and learning of a fraudulent and false non-Christian theology.

Therefore, passage of the SS and motions violate the Third Commandment.

Fourth Commandment: You shall honor your father and mother.

This commandment relates not only to the duty owed to earthly fathers and mothers but also to civil fathers and spiritual fathers and the duties of parents to their children. Luther recognizes these responsibilities in his Large Catechism (p. 389):

“Parents should consider that they owe obedience to God, and that, above all, they should earnestly and faithfully discharge the duties of their office, not only to provide for the material support of their children, servants, subjects, etc., but especially to bring them up to the praise and honor of God.”

The SS and motions will result in the recognition and affirmation of individuals engaged in homoerotic behavior as accepted authority figures (ordination of active homosexual pastors). The SS specifies that, “This church seeks to assist children and youth in developing healthy attitudes and behaviors regarding sexual expression.” (P. 12 SS). Given that the SS repeatedly recognizes legitimacy of various sexual “expressions” in Canadian culture (including lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirited, queer, intersex and questioning behaviors (p. 3 SS), there can be little doubt that the ELCIC will be advocating, affirming and promoting other sexual expression besides heterosexuality to children and youth. This SS and motions will result in a perversion of God’s Will regarding human sexuality and the family and stand in direct opposition to God’s requirements in this commandment.

Therefore, passage of the SS and motions violate the Fourth Commandment.

Fifth Commandment: You shall not kill.

Luther’s explanation from his Small Catechism (p. 343):

“We should fear and love God, and so we should not endanger our neighbor’s life, nor cause him any harm, but help and befriend him in every necessity of life.”

The SS and motions advocate sexual activities that endanger both our neighbor’s physical and spiritual life. They advocate full acceptance of homosexual activities which are harmful and destructive to both our neighbor’s physical and spiritual life. The concept of “Neighbor” extends to children and youth which have been identified on page 12 of the SS as a special target of the SS (see above Fourth Commandment). The SS seeks to influence both ELCIC members and non-members to affirm and accept homosexual behavior as God-pleasing activities that are in accordance with His Word. This advocacy will result in a catastrophic harm to both the physical and spiritual well-being of anyone affected by the ELCIC policy.

Therefore, passage of the SS and the motions violate the Fifth Commandment.

Sixth Commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

Luther’s explanation from the Small Catechism (p. 343) states:

“We should fear and love God, and so we should lead a chaste and pure life in word and deed, each one loving and honoring his wife or her husband.”

Notice he does not refer to “spouses”, but to husband and wife, male and female. He recognizes that there is a risk that a person could choose a sexual life that is unchaste and impure. Like all aspects of human existence, the devil can bring death and destruction to a person through their “expression of sexuality”, if it is not in accordance with the Triune God’s requirements.

In his Large Catechism, Luther specifically recognizes the significance of marriage between one man and one woman in the Triune God’s creation (P. 393):

“Significantly he established it (marriage) as the first of all institutions, and he created man and woman differently (as is evident) not for lewdness but to be true to each other, be fruitful, beget children, and support and bring them up to the glory of God.

God has therefore most richly blessed this estate above all others and, in addition, has supplied and endowed it with everything in the world in order that this estate might be provided for richly and adequately. Married life is no matter for jest or idle curiosity, but it is a glorious institution and an object of God’s serious concern. For it is of the highest importance to him that persons be brought up to serve the world, promote knowledge of God, godly living, and all virtues, and fight against wickedness and the devil.”

Homosexual behavior and other non-heterosexual expressions of sexuality are attacked throughout the Bible and BOC. The estate of marriage between one man and one woman is recognized throughout the Bible and BOC as Triune God-pleasing.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the Sixth Commandment.

Eighth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

In his Large Catechism, Luther applies this commandment to include spiritual jurisdiction or administration (p. 401), when the truth of the Word of God is attacked. He states:

“Moreover, the Word of God must undergo the most shameful and spiteful persecution and blasphemy; it is contradicted, perverted, misused, and misinterpreted.”

The SS and motions contain the Word of the Triune God by falsely claiming that the Bible and BOC support sexual behaviors that are prohibited by these documents.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the Eighth Commandment.

Conclusion

The passage of the SS motions violate and sin against 7 of the 10 commandments. Therefore, they should not be accepted as policies of the ELCIC.

4. Do the SS and motions violate the Apostles’ Creed?

First Article: I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

Answer: God has created everything that exists. The order of His creation includes the gift of human sexuality. According to Scripture and the BOC, His divinely created order includes heterosexual relationships between one man and one woman. It condemns all other forms of human sexual activity, including the sexual behaviors accepted by the current culture, and recognized in the SS, such as homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the First Article of the Apostles’ Creed.

Second Article: And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried: he descended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

The acceptance, blessing, affirmation and celebration of sinful behavior in the name of spreading the “love of Christ” proves that the supporters of the SS and motions do not recognize Jesus Christ of the Triune God. If the ELCIC passes these motions and officially blesses, in the name of Christ, sexual behaviors that Jesus Christ has condemned, it demonstrates its worship of another “Christ” that has no connection to the Jesus Christ identified in the Apostles’ Creed, Bible and BOC. If the ELCIC blesses and celebrates sexual sin, it mocks the true Christ’s purpose of redeeming mankind from their sinful lives. Rather than acting as the “Bride of Christ”, the ELCIC acts as an opponent to the true Jesus Christ. It is astounding that supporters of the SS and motions may repeat the Apostles’ Creed weekly, but never grasp the concept that Christ will come again to “judge the living and the dead”. His decisions will be based on the Law He has revealed to man through the Bible and BOC. The proposed ELCIC policy on homosexuality stands directly against the expectations of the true Jesus Christ. It is obvious that supporters of the SS and motions either ignore the contents of the Apostles’ Creed or lie to themselves and others when they recite the Second Article.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the Second Article of the Apostles’ Creed.

Third Article: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The SS and motions deny the existence of the Holy Spirit of the Triune God by perverting the Word of God revealed in the Bible and BOC. The supporters of these initiatives renounce the Holy Spirit of the Triune God of the Bible, by refusing to acknowledge that the Triune God has rules and expectations described in the Bible. By proposing that the sin of homoerotic behavior be affirmed, celebrated and emulated, they set themselves against the Holy Spirit described in the Bible and BOC.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed.

Conclusion

The SS and motions violate all three articles of the Apostles’ Creed. Therefore, they should not be accepted as official doctrine by the ELCIC.

5. Do the SS and motions violate the Lord’s Prayer?

Answer: Introduction: Our Father who art in heaven.

The introduction presents a relationship that recognizes God as the authority, ruler compared to man’s lower role in the relationship as a child. Unfortunately, the advocates of the SS and motions present a relationship where modern man’s understanding of human sexuality overrides the knowledge, expectations and experience of God the Father, the creator of the universe. This delusion of working against the precepts given by God to man, then claiming that God and his prophets simply made a mistake since they could not comprehend the realities of modern Canadian society, is absurd.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate the Introduction of the Lord’s Prayer.

First Petition: Hallowed by thy name.

Luther states in his Small Catechism (p. 346), regarding the meaning of this petition:

When the Word of God is taught clearly and purely and we, as children of God, lead holy lives in accordance with it. Help us to do this, dear Father in heaven! But whoever teaches and lives otherwise than as the Word of God teaches, profanes the name of God among us. From this preserve us, heavenly, Father!

The SS and motions are not in accordance with the Word of God revealed in the Bible and the BOC. The supporters of these initiatives profane the name of God by advocating doctrine that is incompatible with the one true faith of the Triune God.

Therefore, the passage of the SS and motions violate, the First Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Second Petition: Thy kingdom come.

Luther states in the Large Catechism (p. 427):

So we pray that thy (God’s) kingdom may prevail among us through the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit, that the devil’s kingdom may be overthrown and he may have no right or power over us, until finally the devil’s kingdom shall be utterly destroyed and sin, death, and hell exterminated, and that we may live forever in perfect righteousness and blessedness.

For God’s kingdom to prevail amongst man, it must be a kingdom based on God’s expectations for man’s conduct. This kingdom will not come to those who willfully ignore the Triune God’s expectations and bless, celebrate and encourage behavior that God, again and again, describes as sinful.

Therefore, the SS and the motions violate the Second Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Third Petition: Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

The Triune God’s will is described in detail in the Bible and interpreted in the BOC. The description of His Will does not include affirmation, celebration or encouragement of homosexual behavior.

Therefore, the SS and the motions violate the Third Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Fifth Petition: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

This petition recognizes that man has debts to God. Man sins against God when he commits actions against God’s expectations. By encouraging humans to sin by engaging in homoerotic behavior, the SS and motions work against the recognition of these sins by those who commit them. The proponents of the SS and motions do not recognize that the advocating of sinful behavior is in itself a sin, and refuse to acknowledge this blatant sin before God.

Therefore, the SS and the motions violate the Fifth Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Sixth Petition: And lead us not into temptation.

Luther states in his Small Catechism (p. 347):

“God tempts no one to sin, but we pray in this petition that God may so guard and preserve us that the devil, the world, and our flesh may not deceive us or mislead us into unbelief, despair, and other great and shameful sins, but that, although we may be so tempted, we may finally prevail and gain the victory.”

Rather than praying this petition, the proponents of the SS and motions are actually praying, “Lead us into temptation.” Instead of rejecting the devil and the world, the prayer of the proponents of the SS and motions is to affirm, encourage and celebrate disgraceful and shameful sins of sexual immorality.

Therefore, the SS and the motions violate the Sixth Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Seventh Petition: But deliver us from evil.

Luther’s explanation of this petition in his Small Catechism (p. 348):

“We pray in this petition, as in a summary, that our Father in heaven may deliver us from all manner of evil, whether it affect body or soul, property or reputation, and that at last, when the hour of death comes, he may grant us a blessed end and graciously take us from this world of sorry to himself in heaven.”

Similar to the Sixth Petition, the advocates of the SS and motions are actually praying that God deliver us into evil. Since the sexual immorality promoted by the SS and motions are evil in the eyes of the Triune God described in the Bible and BOC.

Therefore, the SS and motions violate the Seventh Petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Conclusion of Lord’s Prayer: Amen.

Regarding this petition, Luther’s Small Catechism states (p. 348):

“It means that I should be assured that such petitions are acceptable to our heavenly Father and are heard by him,…”

The SS and motions are no doubt unacceptable to the Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC, since they are opposed to the behavior God demands regarding human sexuality.

Therefore, the SS and motions violate the Conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer.

Conclusion

The SS and motions violate the Introduction, six of seven petitions and the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer and, therefore, should not be passed by the ELCIC.

6. Do the SS and motions violate the Triune God’s divine order of creation?

Answer: Yes. Genesis 1:27-28 states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Orthodox Christianity in general, and orthodox Lutheranism in particular, has affirmed that God’s divine order is that sexual activity should be confined to one man and one woman in a committed relationship in order to procreate.

7. Why does the SS quote Luther and BOC documents but refuses to cite quotations from these sources that relate directly to human sexuality?

8. Did Christ warn his disciples that false prophets will appear and deceive many people?

Answer: Yes, Jesus warned that just because someone mentions His name, does not mean they are not a false prophet.

Matthew 7:15 – 23:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”

9. Does the SS properly quote non-Biblical references including the BOC and Martin Luther?

Answer: No. The SS uses translations that are false. For example, the SS quotes Martin Luther’s Explanation of the Sixth Commandment as follows (SS p. 6):

“We are to fear and love God, so that we lead pure and decent lives in word, and deed and each of us loves and honors his or her spouse.”

An accurate translation is (Tappert p. 343):

“We should fear and love God, and so we should lead a chaste and pure life in word and deed, each one loving and honoring his wife or her husband.”

The SS translation changes “chaste” to “decent” and “his wife or her husband” to “spouse”. This SS false translation ignores Luther’s key concept that sexual relations should be confined to a husband and wife. The word “spouse” in the mistranslation in modern Canadian culture can denote either a man-woman, woman-woman or man-man relationship. This was clearly not Luther’s intent when he wrote the Small Catechism, that he would be quoted to support the Christian church affirming, encouraging and celebrating homosexual activity. His view reiterated in his voluminous writings never supported homosexual behavior. To quote him in support of homosexual marriage is dishonest.

10. Is “context” a Christian theological concept?

11. The Athanasian Creed states that Jesus Christ is “begotten before the ages of the substance of the Father.” How is it possible for the ELCIC hierarchy to ignore the fact that God the Father’s law is also the law of Jesus Christ?

Answer: It is not possible. The attempt by the ELCIC hierarchy to ignore that the Law is from both God the Father and Jesus Christ is illogical. The idea that Jesus Christ wants His church to accept, affirm, bless, encourage and celebrate behavior that is against His Law is bizarre. The attempt to portray Jesus as somehow existing apart from the Father and an opponent to the Law is false. Jesus’ own comments regarding His role in the Law, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:17-19)

12. Is the concept of “sexual orientation” recognized in either the Bible or BOC?

Answer: No. Non-heterosexual sexual activity is condemned throughout the Bible and BOC.

13. If Jesus believed in encouraging deviant sexual behavior, why did He not proclaim sexual freedom during his ministry?

Answer: There is no evidence that Jesus ever affirmed, encouraged or celebrated non-heterosexual behavior. There is no evidence that the Triune God has any desire that homosexual behavior should be celebrated and encouraged in a Christian church.

14. Is the doctrine of inclusion, acceptance, encouragement and affirmation of sinful behavior espoused by the SS ever indicated in the Bible and BOC?

Answer: Sinful behavior is not accepted, encouraged, affirmed or celebrated in the Bible or BOC. Sinful behavior is described and condemned in many places in the Bible and BOC. Homosexuality is explicitly included in descriptions of sin.

15. Does it matter if ELCIC members worship a god that possesses few of the characteristics of the Triune God rather than the one true Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC?

Answer: There is only one Triune God and anyone who worships a false God is in danger of going to hell. The Creeds were created to enable humans to insure they were worshipping the one true Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

16. What is heresy?

Answer: A belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church; a belief opposed to authoritative opinion in any area of thought. (The Living Webster’s Dictionary).

17. What is apostasy?

Answer: An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion or departure from one’s faith, principles, or party. (The Living Webster’s Dictionary)

18. Is the whole issue of human sexuality a minor concern that should be settled ASAP so it does not restrict the ELCIC proclaiming Christ’s love to all?

Answer: There are many problems with the SS and motions. Affirming and accepting sin is anathema to the Triune God. It is logically impossible for an organization to proclaim Christ’s love to all, if the god they proclaim is not the true Christ. The ELCIC hierarchy have presented a false Christ that bears little resemblance to the true Christ proclaimed in the Bible and BOC. This issue of human sexuality is a litmus test to determine if the ELCIC worships the Triune God or some other false god formed from the personal revelations of the ELCIC hierarchy.

19. Are the proponents of the SS and motions proclaiming a counterfeit Christ?

Answer: Yes, the god they proclaim is a false god. Simply calling a god “Jesus Christ” does not make that god the Son of the Triune God. There is no evidence that the true Jesus Christ approved, affirmed or celebrated homosexual behavior or wished His Church to approve, affirm or celebrate homosexual behavior.

20. Does adopting a policy of non-compliance of purity laws mean that all Old Testament laws may be violated?

Answer: No. The proponents of the SS and motions have made the illogical deduction that since some of the purity laws need not be strictly enforced, therefore, all the laws of the Old Testament are inapplicable to the “current context” of the ELCIC. If the SS and motion proponents’ logic is followed, it would make sense to ignore verses 21, 22 and 23 from the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus:

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord,

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

21. Similar to the acceptance of the false translation of the words of Jesus regarding the institution of the Lord’s Supper used by the ELCIC, should the SS and motions be passed so the ELCIC can move forward?

Both the Lutheran Book of Worship (“LBW”) (p. 89) (1978, Augsburg Publishing House) and Evangelical Lutheran Worship (“ELW”) (p. 130) (2006, Augsburg Publishing House) make the following statement in the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper:

Again, after supper, he took the cup and gave it for all drink, saying: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sin.”

(emphasis added)

The Service Book and Hymnal (“SBH”) (p. 12) (1958, Augsburg Publishing House et al)

After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; this do, as oft as yet drink it, in remembrance of me. (emphasis added)

The Bible (New International Version, 1984) references that describe the institution of the Lord’s Supper are as follows:

Matthew 26: 27 – 28

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mark 14: 23-25

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.

Luke 22:20-21

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.”

1 Corinthians 11:25-26

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The false translation issue is how the Lutheran Book of Worship and Lutheran Worship hymnals falsely translate the word of Jesus, instead of stating that Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (emphasis added), the LBW and ELW state, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sin.” (emphasis added)

The SBH correctly records the words of Jesus, “Drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, and for many,..” (emphasis added)

The NIV translators and other translations of the Bible continue to use the word “many” rather than “all people” because the Greek word used is, “polus”. This word means many, much, plenteous.(Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (“SC”)) It does not mean “all”. It is instructive to look at the next use of this word “polus” by Matthew. He uses the exact same word, “polus”, thirty two verses later in his narrative in Matthew 26:28 as he uses in Matthew 26:60 which reads as follows:

But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. (emphasis added)

Mark uses exactly the same word, “polus” in Mark 15:3-4 which reads:

The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.” (emphasis added)

One could make the argument that Matthew and Mark actually meant “all” when they wrote down “many”, but this is a completely illogical argument since they both use the word “all” in close proximity to their use of the word, “polus”, meaning many.

In Matthew 26:27, the verse before the use of the word “polus” for many, Matthew uses the word “pas” which means all, any, every, the whole (SC). The verse reads:

Then he took the cup gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it all of you.” (emphasis added)

In Mark 14:23 the verse before the word “polus” for many, like Matthew, Mark uses the word “pas” which means all, any, every, the whole (SC). This verse reads:

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. (emphasis added)

The SBH faithfully translated the word of Jesus accurately. The LBW and ELW present a lie to the users of their publications, since there is no evidence that Jesus ever said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sin.” (emphasis added). This means that for the past 35 years Lutheran pastors have been standing in front of thousands of congregations composed of millions of people proclaiming a lie. There is no evidence that Jesus ever said what the LBW and ELW say that he said.

No matter how attractive and seductive the idea that Jesus used the words, “for all people” rather than “for many” in His words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, there appears to be no question that both Matthew and Mark intended to use the word “many” rather than “all people”. Is use of the words, “all people” more in line with the current “cultural context”? Undoubtedly. It is likely that the use of these false words, “for all people”, are more comfortable for many clergy and laity in the ELIC. The cultural context and comfort level of clergy and laity should never supplant the unadulterated truth of the Triune God revealed in Scripture.

Sometime between 1958 (SBH) and 1978 (LBW) the hierarchy and members of the Lutheran Church in America (“LCA”), the American Lutheran Church (“ALC”) and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada (“ELCC”) decided to change the words of Jesus to suit their personal values and beliefs. No matter what their motives or how attractive this new “improved version” of the word of Jesus, they simply are not true. To use these false words every Sunday calls into question every statement made by pastors in church services, including their sermons. If a pastor cannot accurately recite the words of Jesus that are written in the Bible, how can anything else they present be trusted?

One may ask how the false translation is related to the ELCIC in 2011. If the hierarchy and members of the ELCIC, LCA, ALC and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America can cavalierly prepare and promote hymnals that result in pastors making unsupported, fictitious, statements to their congregations on a weekly basis for 35 years, it is unsurprising that the ELCIC hierarchy has been led to the point of affirming and celebrating homosexuality as God-pleasing sexual expression.

The use of false translations and organizational inertia can have catastrophic effects on the faithfulness to the Triune’s God’s Word. Just because many pastors and members of the ELCIC hierarchy accept the concept of celebrating homosexuality, it does not mean that they are acting on behalf of the Triune God.

22. In terms of voting on the acceptability of the sexuality motions and SS, do convention delegates have any responsibilities to ELCIC members and the Triune God beyond their own personal view of homosexuality?

Answer: All convention delegates have a responsibility to the Triune God to make decisions on the basis of His revealed truth in the Scriptures. The personal views or personal family circumstances of individual delegates should not be the basis of their decisions.

23. Does the existence of homosexual practices in modern Canadian society require the ELCIC to change its theology to satisfy the current culture?

Answer: Homosexual practices have existed throughout human history, including the time period of both the Old and New Testaments. If the Triune God wished to conform to the culture He would have permitted and affirmed homosexual behaviour. Rather than affirm homosexual behavior, he explicitly condemned it in both the Old and New Testaments, and affirmed the opposite, heterosexual behaviour. The idea that the ELCIC should change its core doctrine to match the cultural norms of 21^st century Canada, is not supported by Scripture or the BOC.

24. Is there any evidence that Jesus Christ abandoned the Word of God to relate to people in the culture of His day?

Answer: Jesus related to many people from many levels of society including prostitutes, tax collectors, members of the religious hierarchy, men, women, children, Jews, Gentiles, etc. There is no evidence that His relationship with the individual person, no matter what their social, political or economic standing, ever caused him to change his proclamation of the truth of the Triune God’s Word. Those that argue that, because Jesus talked to a prostitute and refused to condemn her, (John 8: 7-11) (afterwards commanding her to “Go now and leave your life of sin.” John 7 – 11), somehow means that Jesus accepts sinful behaviour such as homosexuality, are not using logic to form their opinions.

25. Is the content of the Scriptures and BOC relevant to the ELCIC in 2011, since the Bible and BOC were written by long dead white males that were conditioned by their cultural context, backward patriarchal societies, and possessed no knowledge of modern Canadian society?

Answer: The ELCIC Constitution and 2,000 year old orthodox Christian theology confirms that, regardless of their sex, cultural background, view of the roles of men and women or lack of knowledge of modern Canadian culture, their writings are the Word of God and the only source of doctrine and interpretation for the ELCIC.

B. Government Determination of ELCIC Theology, Ethics and Morality

26. Is the abdication of responsibility for ELCIC sexuality policy to the Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada appropriate and/or in accordance with the Constitution?

Answer: No, the Federal Government of Canada is not mentioned in the Constitution. The idea that the doctrine and policy of the ELCIC should be determined by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government is in conflict with the Constitution (See Question 2 for further commentary). The motions that propose this transfer of authority from Scripture and the BOC appear to be an attempt by the ELCIC hierarchy to pass motions that never mention homosexuality, but still achieve the objective to permitting pastors to perform ceremonies that encourage, affirm and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

27. Does the recent change in Federal or Provincial Government policy in respect to active homosexuals, change the Triune God’s expectations?

28. If and when the Federal Government or a Provincial Government changes marriage policy (e.g. permitting polygamy, etc.) will ELCIC congregations be forced to affirm these sexual combinations if their pastor is in favor of the newly permitted sexual combination(s)?

29. Would the passage of the motions set a precedent for future doctrinal issues of the ELCIC?

Answer: Yes, if the ELCIC has abdicated responsibility for human sexuality doctrine and policy to the Federal and Provincial Governments, the precedent has been set for other ELCIC doctrine issues. For example, since the Federal and Provincial Governments do not recognize a Triune God, but adopt official policies of neutrality to all faith groups (Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.), this stance could be used in the future to introduce universalism as the official policy of the ELIC and change any worship of the Triune God to include “the gods” from all faith groups.

C. Pastoral Leadership

30. Is it appropriate for the individual conscience of pastors to determine the policy of ELCIC congregations regarding the congregation encouraging homosexuality by blessing/affirming/encouraging homosexuals?

Answer: Only if ELCIC congregations wish to cede power and control of the performance of “marriage” ceremonies of homosexuals to their pastor, rather than the congregation. This transfer of power in the hands of professional church workers is consistent with a change in organization from congregation based to ELCIC hierarchy based. The Anglican Church of Canada places virtually all power over all congregational assets in the hands of the Bishops.

31. Since all ELCIC Bishops and many NCC members are pastors, does this mean they are expert theologians who should be trusted with determining ELCIC doctrine?

Answer: Like all humans, pastors, NCC members and even Bishops are sinners who can ignore the truth of the Scriptures and BOC as easily as the most simple-minded congregational member. The fact that they have attended seminary in no way means they cannot err in their interpretation of Scripture. Although the idea of transferring all power and responsibility to the “so-called religious experts” may appear attractive, this is not the model of relating to the Triune God described in Scripture or recognized in the Christian Church throughout the ages. Each person is ultimately responsible for their relationship to the Triune God. Pastors and Bishops can only provide limited support to this relationship. They are not a conduit to the Triune God.

32. Is it possible for ordinary lay members of the ELCIC to expect to discern the Will of God if it is in conflict with the views and opinions of the ELCIC religious leaders?

Answer: Yes. The views and opinions of the ELCIC hierarchy are irrelevant if they conflict with the Will of the Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC.

33. Did Jesus Christ always respect and follow the policies of the religious authorities during His ministry?

Answer: No, He did not. He made fun of the religious leaders, told parables against them and insulted them. Matthew 23:27-28:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to be people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

The main concern of Jesus was the revelation of the Will of the Triune God rather than modifying his behavior to meet the expectations of the religious hierarchy of his day.

34. In the context of this debate regarding official ELCIC policy, should the personal opinions of the “experts”, the ELCIC bureaucrats and clergy be given greater credence than the Bible and the BOC?

Answer: There is no provision for ELCIC doctrine and policy to be determined by the personal opinions of so-called “experts” and ELCIC bureaucrats. Doctrine and policy must be in accordance with the Bible and the BOC, as per the Constitution (See the answers to Questions 1 and 2 above).

D. Decision Making Process of the ELCIC Hierarchy Regarding the Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Motions

35. Does the sexual behavior of relatives of the NCC, pastors and/or convention delegates require them to recognize their inherent conflict of interest when formulating ELCIC policy that violates the ELCIC Constitution?

36. Can one judge the extensive ELCIC hierarchy consultation processes with ELCIC members worthwhile when no reports are publicly available that summarize the data collected (e.g. no publicly available report on the feedback from the ELCIC Sexuality Study or the Draft Sexuality Statement)?

Answer: If the results of the consultative process are not publicly available, it is impossible to determine how the Holy Spirit has moved members of the ELCIC regarding the doctrinal issues related to human sexuality. No matter what feedback was provided to the ELCIC hierarchy, the final conclusion of each consultative process was to promote and celebrate homosexuality by permitting homosexual marriage and allowing active homosexuals to be ordained.

37. Is the use of the consultation process with ELCIC members simply a public relations exercise that has no bearing on the final result of the recommendation from NCC (e.g. Social Statement and ELCIC reorganization)?

Answer: Possibly. The final results of the SS and motions reflect the personal views of the NCC. No information has been released on the breakdown of the comments that were received during the consultative processes. This would lead one to assume that the submissions of ELCIC members do not agree with the affirmation and celebration of homosexual behaviour.

38. Should the ELCIC discard existing ELCIC policy, the 1970 Statement on Sex, Marriage and Family without comparing and contrasting both the existing policy and the new Social Statement?

Answer: No, it is illogical to completely ignore existing policy. The existing policy should be included with the draft SS, so that convention delegates can see the significant differences between the two documents.

39. How does ELCIC hierarchy believe that their unorthodox interpretation of sexuality can surpass two ELCIC convention votes and 2,000 years of recorded church history?

Answer: The votes of two ELCIC conventions, the Constitution and 2,000 years of recorded church history appear to be irrelevant to the agenda of ELCIC hierarchy. This is the only logical explanation to the continuous attempt to pass the celebration and acceptance of homosexuality. Like the Quebec separatists, who believe that one vote in which 50%+1 of the votes cast can force Quebec to leave Canada, the ELCIC hierarchy believe that one convention vote with 50%+1 of the votes cast can radically alter ELCIC human sexuality policy. No matter how many Convention votes reject homosexuality as a God-pleasing activity, the ELCIC hierarchy proceeds on the basis that they only need one vote in favor of homosexuality to massively change ELCIC doctrine and policy.

40. Must all changes in church doctrine and policy be tested against the content of the Scriptures?

Answer: Christianity in general and Lutheranism in particular, have determined the validity of personal revelation only when measured against Scripture. Therefore, all new doctrine must be tested and evaluated against the contents of Scripture.

41. Who is responsible for the current theological and ecclesiological crisis that has engulfed the ELCIC?

Answer: It is simplistic to blame one person or group of people for the current theological crisis facing the ELCIC. Although many may blame Bishop Susan Johnson and the NCC for the current specific proposals to affirm and celebrate homosexual behavior, this approach is illogical and irresponsible. The responsibility for the crisis lies with ELCIC members who have quietly watched the ELCIC degenerate into an organization that does not honor the Word of God or follow its own Constitution. The ELCIC hierarchy can only take action to move the ELCIC away from reliance on the Scriptures for theological direction, if the delegates of ELCIC Conventions continue to elect NCC members and Bishops that wish to change the doctrine and policy of the ELCIC. Over the past thirty years, individual pastors and congregational members have continued to vote for delegates that support the current ELCIC hierarchy. In spite of the direction of the ELCIC, congregations continue to support its work with benevolence gifts. If congregation members disagreed with the direction of the ELCIC they would have taken action to oppose its movement away from orthodox Christian doctrine.

42. Do the SS and motions indicate that the ELCIC hierarchy is following Christ or editing Christ?

Answer: Like the editing of Jesus Christ’s words of institution of the Lord’s Supper (See Question 21 for further commentary), the content of the SS and motions indicate that the ELCIC hierarchy edits the statements of Christ to fit their own agenda. For two thousand years, orthodox Christianity has faithfully maintained the accuracy of the Scriptures. Sadly, the ELCIC hierarchy disregards this legacy and twists the plain meaning of Scripture to meet their personal agenda. Rather than using the Word of God to guide their personal beliefs and biases, they use their own personal beliefs and biases to guide the Word of God. This is a catastrophic development since this approach destroys the truth of God’s Word as revealed in Scripture. If every generation of the 80+ generations that have existed since the time of Christ had changed the Word of God to suit their individual and cultural “context” there would be no resemblance to the original Good News proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23) it is logical that all humans would like to change the Word of God to meet their desires. Editing Christ is not appropriate behavior for anyone who claims to be a Christian. The proponents of the SS and motions are attempting to edit the Triune God’s Word. Acceptance of the concept of editing Christ rather than following Christ will lead the ELCIC into heresy and apostasy. (See Questions 16 and 17)

43. Should Susan Johnson be re-elected as Bishop of the ELCIC?

Answer: Under the leadership of Susan Johnson, the NCC has introduced many new initiatives and continued programs of previous Bishops. In the past four years, Bishop Johnson and the NCC under Susan Johnson’s leadership, has supported the following agenda:

Homosexual Marriage: Proposal to change ELCIC doctrine and policy to marry homosexuals, by allowing pastors to marry anyone qualified by the rules of the Federal or Provincial Governments of Canada.

Ordain Active Homosexuals: Proposal to change ELCIC doctrine and policy to accept, affirm, encourage and celebrate homosexual behavior by ordaining homosexuals for the pastoral ministry.

Expand Acceptable Sexual Behavior for ELCIC Members of All Ages: If passed, the SS and motions, will include various expressions of human sexuality beyond the norms specified in the Bible and BOC. The ELCIC will also likely begin to promote non-heterosexual expressions of human sexuality to the youth and children of the ELCIC (Page 12 SS).

Reorganize the Governance of the ELCIC to Centralize Power and Control in the ELCIC Hierarchy: In a letter to congregations of April 3, 2011, Bishop Johnson advises the following regarding the Report of the Structural Renewal Task Force:

“The report proposes that the ELCIC be re-organized into three synods, that existing conferences be reconfigured into “areas” (groupings of congregations) supported by leadership teams, that conventions of the National Church and synods be held triennially and that National Conventions be smaller in size.”

In spite of the fact that the Bishop and NCC received this report in March, they did not release the report until May 14, 2011, 54 days prior to the ELCIC convention. The change in convention frequency from 2 years to 3 years is likely to coincide with the convention frequency of the Anglican Church of Canada. The 50% increase in time between conventions will give the hierarchy of the ELCIC more power and control since they will only have to face the convention once every three years rather than every second year. The reduction in the size of National Conventions will unquestionably result in less input and control from congregations, since all delegates will be chosen by Synod conventions rather than individual congregations. This change in delegate selection will increase the power of the clergy, since clergy will now help determine lay delegates rather than individual congregations.

What is particularly troubling regarding proposed reorganization is that Bishop Johnson is planning on making massive changes to the operations and function of the ELCIC without giving any time for congregations and delegates to review the proposals. How can delegates adequately review the proposed constitutional changes if they are published only 54 days prior to the convention?

Absorption of the ELCIC by the Anglican Church of Canada (“ACOC”): Over the course of her four year tenure as ELCIC National Bishop, Susan Johnson has authorized the expenditure of thousands of dollars of ELCIC funds and countless hours of ELCIC human resources to enhance the relationship between the ELCIC by the ACOC. In a time of severe budget limitations for the ELCIC, the Bishop has proposed opening a new joint office with the ACOC in Ottawa, in addition to the existing Winnipeg head office.

Mismanagement of Severe Fiscal Challenges of ELCIC: The ELCIC is facing severely restricted financial resources due to reduced payments from synods. In light of these severe restrictions Bishop Johnson has proposed reorganizing the ELCIC to establish a mandatory apportionment tax to be assessed on synods amounting to 25% of the synods annual revenue. Rather than managing financial resources carefully, the Bishop continues to expend thousands of dollars on a closer relationship between head office staff of the ELCIC and ACOC and the promotion of homosexuality. Paradoxically, Bishop Johnson uses the financial crisis as the reason to reorganize the ELCIC to concentrate more power in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy rather than recognizing that the proposed policies of the ELCIC are not supported by congregations. There is no more blatant example of the mismanagement of ELCIC resources that Bishop Johnson’s plan to open a new office in Ottawa with the ACOC. (See Question 89 for further commentary)

Rejection of Constitution, Scripture and BOC: Bishop Johnson has rejected the Constitution, Scripture and BOC by supporting “marriage” of homosexuals and ordination of active homosexuals.

Conclusion: Based on the action of Bishop Johnson over the past four years, it appears likely that, if re-elected, she will continue her present course of remaking the ELCIC. If the Holy Spirit is calling delegates to support her initiatives, they should support her candidacy. If the Holy Spirit is calling delegates to support a candidate that will set the course of the ELCIC on a path that adheres to the constitution, recognizes Scripture as the only source of the doctrine of the ELCIC and interprets Scripture based on the BOC, they should support an alternative candidate.

E. ELCIC Hierarchy Call for Social Cohesion and Unity of ELCIC Members

44. Does the Triune God call His followers to social cohesion in order to maintain a peaceful, quiet, comfortable organization?

Answer: No, He calls His followers to serve the Triune God. The Scriptures are primarily composed of descriptions of individuals and groups that struggled and resisted the truth of the Triune God. Neither Scripture nor the BOC ever advocate social cohesion at the expense of the proclamation of God’s Word through both Law and Gospel.

45. Is the concept of “unity” presented on page 10 of the Social Statement a call to preserve the ELCIC’s present and future financial resources, or an honest attempt to follow the requirements of Scripture?

Given the opposition of the NCC to the motion to protect congregational property at the 2009 convention, and the ACOC head office control of all congregational property, “unity” may, in the future, mean the control by synods or the ELCIC head office of congregational property. Both the Eastern Canada Synod and B.C. Synod have attempted to gain control of congregational property in the past (see www.solid-ground.ca for further details). If individual members or congregations leave the ELCIC, the congregations are currently permitted to take their property with them to another church body. The call for unity in this “context” may simply mean that it may take some time for the ELCIC to implement the required changes to constitutions and organizational structure to gain control of congregational property.

46. Will the ELCIC hierarchy call for unity apply to the ELCIC if the SS or motions are not passed?

Answer: At two prior ELCIC prior conventions, the concept of affirming homosexual behavior was rejected by the convention. Rather than accepting this direction from the convention, the ELCIC hierarchy simply brings the issue before a third convention. It appears that the ELCIC hierarchy will continue to push this initiative until a convention approves the affirmation and celebration of homosexual behavior. Unity appears to be a concept that only applies if the ELCIC hierarchy is successful in achieving their objectives.

47. Does the Constitution recognize the concept of unity?

Answer: Section 2 and 3 of Article III recognize that the ELCIC stands in the “historic continuity of the communion of saints…” This unity will be broken if the ELCIC passes the SS and motions, since they represent doctrine that is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.

F. Illogicality of ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality and Proposed Motions

48. Does the SS and motions recognize the one true Triune God?

Answer: No, the SS and motions worship a new god formed from the personal desires of sinful humans.

49. Are there any boundaries on the behavior of humans, if all violations of God’s Law can be excused on the basis of acceptance, context and culture?

Answer: The acceptance of the SS and motions sets the precedent that no behaviours of humans can logically be prohibited, since the criteria for the acceptance, affirmation, encouragement and celebration of behaviours prohibited by the Triune God are based on the personal desires of ELCIC bureaucrats, ELCIC delegates and Federal and Provincial politicians. If the ELCIC can willfully violate the Scriptures, BOC and historic church practice to pander to the desires of the homosexual community, it is symptomatic of an organization that has little or no connection to the Triune God revealed in Scripture and BOC.

50. Can Satan use acceptance, encouragement, affirmation and blessing of Biblically identified sinful behavior to advance his agenda?

Answer: Satan can use any action of humans to his advantage if it involves turning away from the Triune God to their own sinful desires. Historically, the primary reason to maintain the integrity of the Scriptures was to protect the divinely inspired word of the Triune God from assault by the devil.

51. Does naming a personal desires god (“pdgod”), “Jesus”, make this pdgod, a person of the Triune God?

Answer: Simply naming a personal desires god “Jesus Christ”, does not make the pdgod the Triune God of Scripture and BOC. Scripture, BOC and the Creeds all describe the nature of Jesus. None of the descriptions of Jesus indicate that He is a God that exists to satisfy the personal desires of humans if these desires are in conflict with His Word.

52. If the pdgod is a false god, not the Triune God, is the falsification of naming the pdgod “Jesus” and ignoring God’s law a salvation issue, since only the one true Triune God can give salvation?

Answer: Ignoring the Triune God and depending on salvation from some other “fairy tale” god is a salvation issue, since only the Triune God can give salvation to humans.

53. Why would the Triune God repeatedly condemn homosexuality if it was not harmful to humans?

Answer: If one accepts the Christian concept that the Triune God loves humans, it is irrational to assume that His commands regarding human sexuality are not intended for the benefit of humans. Proponents of the affirmation of homosexuality appear to believe that they are more intellectually advanced than the Triune God revealed in Scripture.

54. How can the ELCIC logically claim to be a “Christian church” and advocate the encouragement, blessing, affirmation and celebration of sinful behavior?

Answer: It cannot. Scriptures describe a world where the Christian church is an enemy of sin, not an advocate. The only coherent conclusion that one can draw from an organization that blatantly promotes, encourages and celebrates sin is that such an organization is not a Christian church.

55. Must the NCC motions relating to sexuality be approved if the convention accepts the SS?

Answer: Unlike the first draft of the social statement and the ELCIC Study on Human Sexuality, the final draft of the SS does not conclude by specifying that homosexuality should be affirmed and celebrated. Based on the contents of the SS, there is no requirement that the motions encouraging homosexuality need to be passed. Although the SS has many flaws, it does not include the requirements that individuals actively engaged in homosexual behaviour must be permitted to be “married” in ELCIC congregations or that the ELCIC must ordain active homosexuals.

56. Why does the Social Statement contain several Biblical references but no reference to the many verses relating directly to human sexuality?

Answer: All the Biblical references related to human sexuality condemn non-heterosexual behaviour. In order to affirm many other types of human sexual expression, the SS has to ignore all Scripture that relates directly or indirectly to human sexuality.

57. Does the Triune God revealed in the Bible and BOC have any expectations beyond accepting and affirming all human behavior formed by “context and culture.”

Answer: The Triune God has many expectations and does not accept or affirm all human behavior. These expectations are repeated throughout the Bible. An appropriate starting point is the Ten Commandments and their explanations in the BOC (See Question 3 for further commentary).

58. Why has the Social Statement ignored all other sexuality issues that face members of the ELCIC such as divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy, etc.?

59. How can ELCIC congregational members continue to support an organization that acts in direct conflict with the Bible and BOC?

60. Does the ELCIC hierarchy address the Church’s responsibility of properly administering the Office of the Keys given to the Church, by Jesus Christ?

Answer: The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, but to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent. (emphasis added) No mention of the responsibility of the Office of the Keys is mentioned in the SS or motions. It is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the ELCIC or any organization that claims to ignore those who engage in sinful behavior and refuse to repent.

61. Has the Bible ever required God’s people to abandon God’s Word to relate to people in their current culture?

Answer: No, just the opposite. The Bible and BOC calls humans to recognize their sinfulness and repent. Paul warns the followers of Jesus in Romans 12:2, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is- his good, pleasing and perfect will.” The idea that the ELCIC must change to compromise core doctrine to meet the expectations of the current Canadian culture is not supported by the Constitution, the Bible or the BOC.

62. How can the ELCIC ordain active homosexuals and expect them to proclaim the good news to the world when they unrepentantly proclaim themselves above the constraints of God’s Law?

Answer: This will be one of the many illogical results of passage of the motions. It is impossible for a person to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ contained in Scripture through Law and Gospel and simultaneously encourage and celebrate the breaking of God’s Law.

63. Are people who engage in homoerotic behavior sinners?

Answer: Yes, all humans are sinners.

64. Are people who engage in heterosexual behavior sinners?

Answer: Yes, all humans are sinners.

G. Christ’s Love

65. Which activity proclaims Christ’s love for one’s neighbor, proclaiming the truth revealed in the Bible and BOC or encouraging one’s neighbor to break God’s law by engaging in prohibited sexual behavior?

66. Is the “love of Christ” more than acceptance, tolerance and affirmation of human’s behaviour including sinful behavior?

Answer: Yes, the love of the true Christ of the Triune God excludes affirmation and celebration of sinful behavior. Christ died to save all sinners including homosexuals. He did not die in order that His church could accept, affirm, encourage and celebrate sinful behaviour such as homosexuality.

67. If homosexual activities are a sin, is this sin particularly bad or heinous?

Answer: Homosexual activities are sinful, but they are no more or less sinful than other behaviors such as idolatry, thievery, murder, envy, hating God, etc.

H. Future Impact on ELCIC Members and Congregations

68. Since the sexuality motions condone, lift up and celebrate the active homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to the active heterosexual lifestyle, will all future church documents, Sunday School materials, worship resources, etc. reflect this new policy?

Answer: Based on the strong push by the ELCIC hierarchy to promote homosexuality, including ordaining active homosexuals, it appears reasonable that all future worship resources, Sunday School materials, etc., will, at a minimum, present homosexual behavior in at least as favourable light as heterosexual behavior. If the ELCIC changes its doctrine to marry and ordain homosexuals, it would make sense that the ELCIC would affirm homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable God-pleasing expression of human sexuality. Future decisions by Federal and Provincial governments may also result in changes to ELCIC Sunday School materials, since sexual behavior acceptable to the ELCIC would be determined by Federal and Provincial government action rather than the Bible or BOC.

69. Will the ELCIC change the scripture readings for congregational worship services by either mistranslating the many prohibitions of homosexuality and affirmations of heterosexuality or by selectively omitting Scriptural passages which prohibit homosexual behaviour from lectionary readings?

Answer: The ELCIC and predecessor organizations such as the Lutheran Church in America, American Lutheran Church and ELCC have shown no reluctance to change historic documents to meet their requirements (See Question 21 for further commentary). So it would be logical for the ELCIC hierarchy to simply mistranslate or change any Scripture references that contradict the official doctrine and policy of the ELCIC regarding human sexuality.

70. Does the statement, “This church seeks to assist children and youth in developing healthy attitudes and behaviors regarding sexual expression.” (P. 12 Social Statement) mean that the ELCIC will promote, encourage, affirm and celebrate various sexual behaviors of the modern culture included in the Social Statement such as homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, two-spirited, queer, intersex and questioning behaviors (p. 3 Social Statement)?

Answer: Based on the new theological assumptions that there are virtually no limits on the sexual behavior of members of the ELCIC, it would make logical sense to encourage diversity of sexual expression within the ELCIC. This encouragement could take the form of affirming and celebrating non-heterosexual behavior, including exposing youth and children to other forms of sexual expression beyond strict heterosexual relationships.

71. If a pastor has indicated he or she is not currently planning to bless homosexuals, why should congregational members care about the official human sexuality policies of the ELCIC?

Answer: Congregations should be concerned because they will be supporting, through their benevolence offerings, an organization that is working against the Triune God. It is also possible that the pastor will change his or her mind and begin to marry homosexuals after the controversy has died down. There is also no guarantee that the next pastor that is called to the congregation will not be an active homosexual who may insist on “marrying” homosexuals.

72. If the ELCIC passes the sexuality motions and accepts the Social Statement, are future actions of the ELCIC unhindered by any unredacted reference to the Bible and the BOC?

Answer: If the Convention approves the SS and motions which are directly contrary to the explicit commands of the Triune God as revealed in Scripture and interpreted in the BOC, it is difficult to imagine any future actions of the ELCIC restrained by the contents of the Bible and BOC or historic Christian church practice.

73. Is it likely that there will be an influx of active homosexuals into ELCIC congregations should the SS and motions pass?

Answer: It is unknown how many active homosexuals in Canada will join the ELCIC if it begins to marry and ordain them. The number of homosexuals joining the ELCIC is irrelevant to the determination of ELCIC doctrine, since the Constitution contains no reference to the possible popularity of changes in official ELCIC doctrine.

74. Is it likely that there will be a significant number of present members and congregations of the ELCIC who will leave the ELCIC should the SS and motions pass?

Answer: Congregations and individual members have already left the ELCIC due to the continual debate regarding homosexuality in the ELCIC. It is likely that, if the motions and SS are approved, additional congregations and individuals will leave. This may be a positive development for those who want to change the governance structure of the ELCIC to place more power in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy, since many of those that would fight these initiatives will have left to join a non-ELCIC church.

75. If a congregational member participates in an ELCIC congregation primarily for social reasons, will the acceptance of the SS and motions have any significant impact on their weekly worship experience?

Answer: If the SS and motions are passed, most ELCIC members who attend their congregations primarily for social reasons may find there is little impact on their worship experience. The level of controversy in the congregation may diminish since those members that believe in the truth of the Triune God as revealed in the Bible and BOC will likely feel conscience bound to leave the ELCIC and join a Christian Church.

76. Will any good come out of the fight over the official ELCIC policy regarding human sexuality?

Answer: This fight over the doctrine of the ELCIC regarding human sexuality is an opportunity for each congregation, lay member and pastor to indicate the God in which they believe. This is a battle between those that defend the Triune God whose truth is revealed in Scripture and properly interpreted in the BOC and those that believe in a personal desires god that has no connection with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

77. Is it difficult for an ELCIC congregation to leave the ELCIC?

Answer: The details of leaving the ELCIC are contained in each individual congregation’s constitution. At this time congregations are free to leave with all their property, including real estate.

78. Are there other Lutheran church bodies that have not made the acceptance, affirmation, promotion, encouragement and celebration of homosexual behaviour official church policy?

Answer: The ELCIC is not the only Lutheran church body in Canada. Congregations and individual members have a wide variety of Lutheran church bodies that are not proposing to bless, encourage or celebrate sin. The following list includes some of the choices available to Canadian Lutherans:

Association of Free Lutheran Congregations-Canada (AFLC) www.aflccanada.org

Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC) www.calc.ca

Church of the Lutheran Brethren-Canada (CLB) www.lbcanada.org

Life Together Churches (LTC) www.lifetogetherchurches.com

Lutheran Church - Canada (LCC) www.lutheranchurch-canada.ca

Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) www.lcmc.net

North American Lutheran Church (NALC) www.thenalc.org

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod – Canada (WELS) www.wels-canada.ca

I. ELCIC Reorganization and Prospective Takeover of ELCIC by Anglican Church of Canada (“ACOC”)

79. Does the proposed reorganization transfer power from congregations and lay members of the ELCIC to clergy members of the ELCIC?

Answer: The proposed reorganization radically dilutes the voice of the individual congregation at the ELCIC head office level by changing the composition of the Convention to include only those delegates elected by each ELCIC synod. Of the 152,500 ELCIC members, less than 1,000 are Clergy. In spite of representing less than 1% of ELCIC membership, clergy normally control the majority of votes at Synod conventions. For example, at the 2010 convention of the Alberta Synod, clergy delegates controlled 52% of the votes. At the 2010 Eastern Synod Convention, clergy delegates controlled 57% of the votes (Registration Minutes of the 2010 Alberta and Eastern Synod Conventions). Clergy will control which clergy and lay members are elected to all ELCIC offices, both at the Synod and National level. The result of the reorganization will be that those that draw resources from the ELCIC (clergy) will be in control of the organization. Those that supply the organization with resources (lay members) will be in a minority. The inherent weakness of this structure is evident in the relatively strong financial health of congregations where lay members control the organization compared to the ELCIC National Office where clergy control the organization. This dysfunctional structure may result in a significant conflict over the control of congregational assets including real estate.

80. If Synod conventions elect 30 lay delegates and 20 clergy delegates to the ELCIC convention will this mean that the convention will not be controlled by the clergy?

Answer: The important issue is not whether the delegates are clergy or lay, but rather who selected the delegates. Synod conventions usually have a majority of clergy rather than lay delegates. Therefore, they will likely vote for lay candidates that are sympathetic to clergy concerns.

81. Does the proposed reorganization enhance the power of the ELCIC National Bishop?

Answer: Smaller NCC and reduced convention frequency from two years to three years increase the power of the ELCIC National Bishop.

82. Will the proposed reorganization reduce the overhead expenses of the ELCIC?

Answer: Reducing the synods from five to three may result in a slight decrease in overhead expenses. Costs of NCC may be smaller. Convention costs will be lower since the size of the convention is reduced and frequency is changed from biennially to triennially.

83. Does the proposed reorganization address the causes of the precipitous decline in congregational support to both ELCIC synods and the ELCIC head office?

Answer: No. The root causes of the steep decline in giving to the ELCIC head office is the attempt by the ELCIC hierarchy, through initiatives like the SS and motions, to ignore Scripture and the BOC. Individual congregations have not suffered a decline in member contributions. In fact, they have increased, almost doubling from 1986 to 2006. Contributions to ELCIC head office have declined in nominal dollars by approximately 50% and almost 67% in real purchasing power during the same period (Page 9, Structural Renewal Task Force Report (“SRTFR”)).

84. Are the Social Statement and sexuality motions initiatives to draw attention away from the proposed reorganization that will concentrate power in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy?

Answer: It is difficult to determine the strategies of the ELCIC hierarchy regarding the reorganization of the ELCIC. It is disheartening that Bishop Susan Johnson and the NCC have refused to give access to the proposals to change the organizational structure of the ELCIC until just before the convention. In terms of long term impact on the ELCIC, the proposed reorganization could have significant negative impact since it will radically concentrate power in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy. This concentration of power in the hands of church bureaucrats, rather than congregations, is the current structure of the ACOC.

85. Is a massive transfer of power from congregations to the ELCIC hierarchy through a church reorganization appropriate with little time to review and analyze the ramifications of the ELCIC proposal (the proposal was publicly released on May 11, 2011, 54 days prior to the Convention)?

Answer: No. In the past, even insignificant changes in the constitution and Bylaws of the ELCIC have been published in the Bulletin of Reports at least four months prior to the convention.

86. Does the prospective reorganization of ELCIC power to the ELCIC hierarchy increase the likelihood of a takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC?

Answer: The ACOC has conventions on a three year cycle. The ELCIC currently has conventions on a two year cycle. If the three year cycle proposed by the ELCIC matches the ACOC conventions it will increase the likelihood of a takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC since the merger convention could happen simultaneously. The concentration of power that will result from reducing the size of the convention will also give more decision making power to a small group of delegates rather than delegates representing individual congregations. The proposed reorganization of the ELCIC shifts power from laity to clergy. This clergy domination and control of policy and assets is consistent with the existing structure of the ACOC.

87. Are there any significant differences between the ELCIC and ACOC in terms of organization, structure and operations?

Answer: Yes, there are significant differences, especially in the amount of power wielded by the National Bishop and Regional Bishops. The following summary outlines some of the differences between the two churches. Delegates should review the ELCIC reorganization proposal when it becomes available to determine if the proposal moves the ELCIC closer to the current ACOC structure.

Comparison of the ELCIC and ACOC

The following summary outlines some basic fundamental differences between the two organizations, the ACOC Diocese is equivalent to the ELCIC Synod. The source for this comparison are the official documents found on the two official websites of the two church bodies, www.elcic.ca and www.anglican.ca. and personal interviews of church officials:

Membership

ELCIC - 152,500
ACOC - 800,000 +

Congregation Property Ownership
ELCIC - Owned & Controlled by the Congregation
ACOC - Owned & Controlled by the Diocese

Entity that Controls Church
ELCIC - Congregation
ACOC - Bishops

Resources

# of Head Office Staff
ELCIC - 16
ACOC - 68

Fundamental Building Block of Organization
ELCIC - 607 Congregations
ACOC - 29 Dioceses

Call of Pastor

ELCIC - Individual Congregation
ACOC - Diocese Bishop

Employer of Pastor
ELCIC - Individual Congregation
ACOC - Diocese Bishop

Hire Pastor/Priest
ELCIC - Individual Congregation
ACOC - Diocese Bishop

Bishop Term
ELCIC - Four Year – Elected By Conventions
ACOC - Lifetime to age 70

Source of Funding For Church Hierarchy By Congregation

ELCIC - Voluntary – Determined By Each Congregation
ACOC - Mandatory - Varies by Diocese, 15% - 25% Apportionment (Tax) on Congregation’s Gross Revenue

Source of Funding of Church Head Office by Synod/Diocese
ELCIC - Voluntary – Determined by Synod
ACOC - Mandatory Assessment - Normally 27% apportionment (tax) depending on financial situation of diocese

Title of Clergy
ELCIC - Pastor
ACOC - Priest

Description of Employment of Pastor/Priest
ELCIC - Called
ACOC - Licensed by the Bishop

Responsibility to Pay Pastor/Priest
ELCIC - Congregation
ACOC - Normally Congregation

Theological Documents
ELCIC - Bible and Book of Concord
ACOC - Bible and Church of England Documents

Confirmation
ELCIC - By Congregation
ACOC - By Bishop

Obedience of Clergy to Bishop Required in Ordination Service
ELCIC - No
ACOC - Yes

Special Ordination for Bishops
ELCIC - No
ACOC - Yes

Bishops May Set Policy and Practice Contrary to National Convention Decisions
ELCIC - No, highest decision making is ELCIC National Convention
ACOC - Yes, for example Bishop of Montreal plans to introduce Same-Sex Blessings in his Diocese in 2009, in violation of the 2007 ACOC Convention

Local Option Available
ELCIC - No, ELCIC National policies are binding on synods and congregations
ACOC - Yes, by diocese, see above

Convention Composition
ELCIC - One Group of Both Clergy and Laity
ACOC - Three Distinct Houses – Bishops, Clergy and Laity

Official Theological Connection to Other Non-Canadian Churches
ELCIC - No
ACOC - Yes, ACOC is a member of the Worldwide Anglican Communion

Congregation Free to Leave the Organization
ELCIC - Yes, all property is owned and controlled by each congregation
ACOC - No, all property is owned and controlled by the Diocese, individual members may leave without any claim on congregational assets or other church assets

Legal Liability Exposure
ELCIC - Divided into 607 Congregations, 5 Synods and National Office

ACOC - Divided into 29 Dioceses, and National Office

National Convention Delegates Clergy & Lay
ELCIC - Elected by Congregation
ACOC - Elected by Dioceses

Race Based Requirements For Some Standing Committee Members

ELCIC - No

ACOC - Yes – Indigenous persons (ACOC Constitution VII.39.c) iv)

Name of Head of Church
ELCIC - National Bishop
ACOC - Primate

Some Members of Standing Committees Appointed by National Bishop/Primate
ELCIC - No - Committee members are elected at conventions
Yes – Primate appoints some members of 4 of 5 Standing Committees e.g. 6 of 21 members for Partners in Mission and Ecojustice Committee(ACOC Constitution VII. 39.c.) iii))

Administration of National Church Between Conventions
ELCIC - NCC
ACOC - Primate

Qualification Required For National Bishop/Primate
ELCIC - Any pastor on ELCIC clergy roster
ACOC - Restricted to the Bishop of one of the 29 Dioceses (ACOC Canon III, II, 10)

Restriction on Nomination Of Candidates for Bishop/Primate
ELCIC - No restrictions, all ELCIC clergy are eligible
ACOC - All nominations must be submitted by 29 Bishops. Clergy and Laity can only vote on candidates nominated by the 29 Diocese Bishops (ACOC Canon III, II, 13)

Cancellation of Pastor/Priest’s Employment
ELCIC - Congregation
ACOC - Revocation of the license is at the sole discretion of the Diocese Bishop (ACOC Canon XVII 11. a.) &; j.)

Reporting Requirement of Bishop/Primate
ELCIC - National Convention
ACOC - None

Responsibility for Administration of Head Office Activities

ELCIC - NCC

ACOC - Primate

# of times “congregation” or “parish” is mentioned in the constitution of each church
ELCIC - 39
ACOC - 1

Control of Congregational and National Church Property

Although the two churches may share some common theological concepts, the two organizations function under completely different organizational structures. The ACOC concentrates virtually all the power and control of resources of the entire ACOC in the hands of the Primate and Diocese Bishops. The ELCIC places control of church assets in the hands of individual congregations. ELCIC National and synod resources are controlled by conventions, not individual bishops.

The imperial structure of the ACOC property ownership is consistent with its history as an outgrowth of the Church of England. Since Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church in 1536 and created the Church of England, significant assets were controlled by the Church of England. The ACOC structure is based on the Church of England structure which assumes control of both congregational property and other assets used to fund church operations. This structure may have been appropriate in 1536 in an organization with large economic assets, but it is not appropriate in 2011 for the ELCIC National office that is suffering from a lack of financial resources.

Some may view the transfer of ELCIC congregational assets to the ELCIC synod or national office as the solution to the ELCIC resource deficiency. This course of action is not logical given the history, theology and existing structure of the ELCIC. Merger with the ACOC would likely require congregations to transfer all congregational assets to the church hierarchy. It is highly doubtful that the ACOC would follow the ELCIC policy and transfer hundreds of millions of dollars of ACOC assets from the church hierarchy to individual congregations. Recent court cases involving congregations that have sought to keep their property when they left the ACOC due to the homosexual blessing issue indicate that the ACOC hierarchy will employ any legal tactic to maintain control of congregational property.

Pastor/Priest Employment

Lutheran theology recognizes the office of pastor that exists when a group of people gather in a congregation and extend a call to serve the congregation to an individual qualified for the task.

Anglican theology requires that all priests, in their ordination vow must make a canonical vow of obedience to the bishop of the diocese. The bishop, at his discretion determines the employment terms, duration, etc. of a priest serving a parish.

It is hard to believe that in a ELCIC/ACOC merged church that the ACOC Bishops would willingly relinquish control and administration of all clergy in their territory to congregations. It is likely ELCIC pastors would simply become ACOC priests, by swearing an oath of obedience to the bishop. Administration of clergy would in all probability remain under the authority and control of the territory bishop.

Relation of Congregation to Synod/Diocese and National Church

As a matter of standard policy, ACOC dioceses demand up to 25% of all offerings received by a congregation. In the ELCIC, congregations independently determine the level of financial support to give synods. This difference in policy regarding support for the regional and national expression of the church is a significant difference between the two organizations. If a merger or takeover occurred, ELCIC congregations would likely be forced to conform to the policy of the ACOC since it had over five times the number of members as the ELCIC.

It is highly unlikely that in the event of a merger or takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC, that the ACOC hierarchy would willingly give up the ability to impose a mandatory tax on congregations to fund the hierarchy’s expenses.

Power of Bishops to Control Behavior of Pastors/Priests

The power of the Bishops to enforce their will is another significant theological difference between the two churches. ACOC Canon XVIII, III Ecclesiastical Offenses includes the following offences by a priest that are subject to discipline:

7. iii) disobedience to the bishop to whom such person has sworn canonical

obedience.

contemptuous or disrespectful conduct towards the bishop of the diocese in matters pertaining to the administration of the affairs of the diocese or a parish.

Since the ELCIC operates under the priesthood of all believers, there is no specific disciplinary provision for either “sworn canonical obedience” oaths or the imposition of discipline on a pastor that exhibits “disrespectful conduct of a bishop of the diocese in matters pertaining to the administration of the affairs of the diocese or a parish.” If a merger or takeover were to take place, it is likely ELCIC pastors would be required to take an oath of obedience to their bishop and would be subject to the same standard of disciplinary responsibility of Anglican priests.

Current ELCIC/ACOC Relationship is Unequal

The ELCIC Constitution has been amended to include an appointee of the Council of General Synod (“COGS”) of the ACOC (ELCIC Administrative Bylaws, Part VIII, Section 2). This means that the ACOC Church Council appoints one member of the ELCIC NCC. The NCC is responsible for the operation of the ELCIC for the two years between conventions. The NCC passes budgets, administers millions of dollars of ELCIC assets, plans conventions, supports the pension liability, makes recommendations on policy changes (e.g. for the ELCIC to accept same-sex blessings), etc. Members of the NCC are very powerful since they are responsible for virtually every significant action of the ELCIC between conventions.

The ACOC reserves many of the activities of the NCC in the ACOC to the Anglican bishops. The only body that fulfills some limited responsibilities of the NCC in the ELCIC is the COGS. The membership of the COGS as described in the ACOC Constitution contains no provision for any member of the ELCIC to serve in either a voting or non-voting capacity (ACOC Constitution VII. 33). The ACOC does not permit a representative of the ELCIC to participate in the critical management and policy issues of the ACOC. This policy of the ACOC is in stark contrast to the policy of the ELCIC which permits the COGS to appoint a full-voting member to the NCC of the ELCIC.

The ACOC Constitution does permit the ELCIC to appoint one of the 21 members of the Partners in Mission and Ecojustice Committee (“PMEC”)(ACOC Constitution VII, 39, c), vi). This committee is one of five standing committees of the ACOC. Its responsibilities do not include the broad church policy management and administration decisions made by the NCC in the ELCIC. The mandate of the PMEC is described fully in Appendix 13 Section 4 of the Canons of the ACOC but the first two items are:

Engage itself and the wider church in biblical, theological and ethical reflection, listening for the Spirit and discerning God’s mission for the church and the world.

Create an ethos of ecojustice and evangelism in our church life.

Based on the relatively restricted responsibility and authority given by the ACOC to an ELCIC representative, it appears that the ACOC does not view the inter-church relationship between the ELCIC and the ACOC in the same light as the ELCIC.

The ACOC states that it has over 800,000 members compared to the 152,500 members claimed by the ELCIC. Therefore, if the two churches did merge, or if the ACOC took control of the ELCIC, the resulting entity would be composed of over 80% Anglican members. This new body would undoubtedly adopt the same polices and organizational philosophy that has ruled Anglicanism for the past 400 years.

Anglican Church is in Crisis

The ACOC is currently engaged in rampant infighting between those that support same-sex blessings and those that do not support this initiative. Several groups of individual Anglicans have left the ACOC to start up their own parallel organization that is administered by an Anglican Bishop from South America. The ACOC is currently engaged in several legal disputes with former congregational members over church property. The ELCIC is also engaged in legal actions against congregations at both the national and synod level, but not nearly to the extent of the ACOC. Although ELCIC is not of one mind on the issue of same-sex blessings, the level of disagreement has not reached the level that exists in the ACOC. To merge with an organization that is undergoing significant strife and turmoil is not logical.

Limited ELCIC Resources

ELCIC Bishop Susan Johnson and NCC have correctly determined that the ELCIC has suffered a decline in the availability of financial resources. This situation does not mean that the ELCIC should expend significant resources attempting to merge or develop a closer relationship with the ACOC. On April 1 to 3, 2011, an ELCIC news release reported that the executive councils of the ELCIC and the ACOC held their first joint meeting in Mississauga, Ontario. Given the cost of the ELCIC Bishop salary and travel costs as well as the travel costs of other ELCIC executive members, it is likely that it cost the ELCIC at least $ 10,000 for this meeting. This action by the ELCIC executive committee is just one small example of the financial and human resources that are expended for little, if any, return. Tens of thousands of dollars are spent annually by the ELCIC for meetings, etc. with ACOC representatives that have not been justified by any measureable benefits to the ELCIC. It may be that congregations have chosen to reduce their level of giving to the synods and ELCIC since they do not agree with ELCIC policy initiatives, including the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars of ELCIC resources on improving relations with the ACOC. Any move towards a closer working relationship or merger by the ELCIC with the ACOC could result in even less support from congregations to synods and the ELCIC or the ACOC in the case of a merger.

Joint Ottawa Office of the ELCIC and ACOC

Another example of the waste of financial resources is the plan to open another administrative office of the ELCIC in Ottawa, in addition to its current head office in Winnipeg. There is no provision in the ELCIC Constitution or Bylaws to fund two administrative offices, but Bishop Susan Johnson and the ELCIC hierarchy are planning on paying for at least some portion of another administrative office in Ottawa. The relevant section of the ELCIC March 31, 2011 News Release reads as follows:

Working under the theme “Growing Together,” the councils will meet together for Bible study, Eucharists, and several items of business including a proposed joint Anglican-Lutheran office and the joint Anglican-Lutheran national meeting planned for 2013 in Ottawa. The ELCIC and ACOC councils will also meet separately. (emphasis added)

The ELCIC and predecessor church bodies have never had a need to fund an extra administrative head office in Ottawa. If the ELCIC was truly experiencing a financial crisis that requires a massive ELCIC reorganization, it is ridiculous to staff and fund an additional administrative office in Ottawa. One plausible explanation to the initiative seems to be that this office will draw the ELCIC and ACOC closer together to eventually enable the ELCIC to be absorbed by the ACOC. Another possible explanation is that a looming financial crisis may encourage convention delegates to support a reorganization of the ELCIC that concentrates power in the hands of the National Bishop and the ELCIC hierarchy.

In addition to the actual significant costs of operating the office, rent, salaries, etc., oversight that requires committee meetings of church bureaucrats from both the ELCIC and ACOC will likely be required. In proposing this additional new office, Bishop Susan Johnson has not identified any benefit that the expenditure of thousands of ELCIC dollars will give to the ELCIC. There has been no identification of what function this office would perform, except demonstrating that the ELCIC and ACOC can fund an extra administrative office.

If ELCIC clergy or laity wish to gain a greater understanding of the ACOC, they can, on their own time and at their own expense attend ACOC congregations or review the ACOC website to gain an understanding on the structure and operations of the ACOC.

It is likely that there will be no economic savings from any combined initiatives. The Ottawa office is a good example of wasting scarce financial and human resources to proceed along a path to the combination of the two churches. The ELCIC head office spends little of its resources on programs that have a direct impact on the local congregation, a significant portion of its funds are spent on administrative costs for staff and committee meetings. Another layer of bureaucracy to manage the relationship with the ACOC would only add to costs of the ELCIC. It is difficult to understand how a “partnership” between the ACOC and the ELCIC could reduce staff or meeting costs if the two organizations were to remain separate entities. The logic of a takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC will become clear when the argument is made that the joint initiatives such as the Ottawa office are so expensive that it only makes sense to combine the two churches in order to save money. Paradoxically, the more wasteful and inefficient the joint initiatives between the ELCIC and ACOC, such as the Ottawa office, the higher the likelihood of the ACOC absorbing the ELCIC.

In a time of restricted fiscal resources, it is illogical to spend financial and human resources on meetings with ACOC and other joint initiatives with the ACOC such as the Ottawa office, unless the ELCIC hierarchy is planning to propose that the ACOC takeover the ELCIC in the immediate future.

Commitment to Partnership Between ELCIC and ACOC is Illogical

Aside from a merger between the two church bodies or a takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC, no areas of partnership or resource efficiency between the two churches have been publicly identified by Bishop Johnson or the NCC. It is doubtful that any additional efficiencies would result from spending more economic and human resources to “deepen” the full communion relationship. If anything, the resources required to administer and manage a deepened full communion relationship would likely require significant additional costs, since the two organizations are fundamentally different in operation and structure. Members of the ELCIC and ACOC can now legally take communion in congregations of the ELCIC and ACOC. ELCIC pastors and ACOC priests can serve in congregations of the ELCIC and ACOC. Bishop and the NCC have yet to reveal how closer relations between the ACOC and the ELCIC will result in savings of ELCIC human and financial resources.

Partnership is normally a term used to describe individuals working together for a common goal. The ACOC’s resistance to allow even one ELCIC representation on the COGS, is an indication that it is doubtful that the ACOC is desirous of a true, equal “partnership” between the ELCIC and ACOC.

Responsibility of Those ELCIC Members Wishing Closer Ties to ACOC

There are members of the ELCIC, including laity, pastors and members of the ELCIC hierarchy who have a sincere interest in the developing a closer relationship with the ACOC. Many of these individuals believe that the ACOC has a superior organizational structure and that the ELCIC should move to the ACOC structure. ELCIC members should recognize that these individuals may feel that they are called by God to this hierarchical structure based on entrusting the control of all church property and resources to the diocese bishops. ELCIC members should joyfully release any bishop, pastor, lay member or congregation who wishes to join the ACOC and express their Christianity in the ACOC. Congregations of the ELCIC at the present time can freely leave the ELCIC with their property and, if they wish, transfer ownership and control of all their property to the ACOC dioceses in their area. With the approval of the relevant ACOC Bishop, ELCIC pastors can serve ACOC congregations. If congregational members wish to be members of the ACOC they can simply transfer their membership to an ACOC congregation.

The fact that some members of the ELCIC hierarchy wish to merge with the ACOC is no reason for the ELCIC, as a matter of policy, to expend significant human and financial resources on building a deeper relationship with the ACOC, unless the majority of the members of the ELCIC believe this is the best course of action. Many members of the ELCIC want to remain Lutheran and sincerely believe that the ELCIC exists to be a Lutheran church, and that the ACOC exists to be an Anglican church.

88. Does a takeover by the ACOC of the ELCIC threaten the ownership and control of congregational property?

Answer: Yes. The ACOC dioceses control all ACOC congregational property. At the present time, in the ELCIC, congregations own and control their own property.

89. If the ELCIC is suffering from lack of financial support that necessitates a radical reorganization, why is the ELCIC expending thousands of dollars in direct and indirect costs to cooperate with the ACOC, including the proposal to open a new ELCIC/ACOC office in Ottawa?

Answer: It is difficult to understand how the ELCIC hierarchy can logically spend thousands of dollars of ELCIC benevolence funds to enhance its relationship with the ACOC hierarchy while claiming that the ELCIC national office is suffering from financial stress that requires a massive reorganization. Perhaps the financial crisis is intended to force the reorganization that will result in virtually all power concentrated in the hands of the ELCIC hierarchy which can then agree to the absorption of the ELCIC by the ACOC. The opening of a new joint ELCIC/ACOC office in Ottawa requiring staff, rent, office expenses in Ottawa is absurd given the financial condition of the ELCIC. The idea that closing down ELCIC synod offices is required to conserve financial resources, but opening a new office in Ottawa with the ACOC is a wise use of limited ELCIC resources is irrational.

90. Is the ELCIC reorganization issue only a foretaste of the struggle for congregational assets and control of the call process between the ELCIC hierarchy and individual congregations?

Answer: If the reorganization is passed ELCIC conventions will be controlled by the clergy through the election of ELCIC convention delegates at the synod conventions. ELCIC conventions have the power to change the constitutional protection of congregational property as well as merge with other organizations without the consent or approval of individual congregations. The Eastern Synod and B.C. Synod have both, in the recent past attempted to take control of congregational property. Greater ELCIC hierarchy control of congregational property is consistent with the path to absorption of the ELCIC by the ACOC, since in the ACOC the hierarchy controls all congregational assets.

91. Why would the ELCIC hierarchy want the ELCIC to be taken over by the ACOC?

Answer: It is difficult to determine because an ELCIC convention has not approved the concept of the takeover of the ELCIC by the ACOC. Members of the ELCIC hierarchy may be attracted by the much higher levels of power and control that the ACOC hierarchy maintains over congregations, both in terms of ownership and control of property and control of the call process and on-going employment relationship of the priest. It is also much easier for the ACOC hierarchy to introduce significant theological changes to official church doctrine than it is in the ELCIC (e.g. Anglican diocese can make the decision to marry homosexuals without the consent of the ACOC National Convention).

92. What are the benefits to ELCIC congregations of a close relationship between the ELCIC and ACOC?

Answer: ELCIC congregations can call Anglican priests to serve in their congregations rather than an ELCIC pastor.

93. Given the disastrous state of ELCIC head office finances and the relatively healthy state of congregational finances (Page 9 SRTF Report), why has the ELCIC hierarchy refused to honestly survey the active lay members of the ELCIC that generously support their local congregation but limit their contributions to ELCIC synods and ELCIC national offices?

Answer: The survey methods used by the SRTF are biased towards clergy opinions and are subject to manipulation. Based on the summary on Page 26 of the SRTF Report, the only individuals who received hard copies of the survey were those that attended Synod conventions. Synod conventions are normally over 50% clergy delegates. The summary also states that the survey was made available to ELCIC members on line at the ELCIC website. Without any adequate publicity for lay participation, it is highly unlikely that individual members in congregations would have any knowledge of the existence of the survey or any incentive to complete surveys. The summary provides no information regarding the total number of participants in the survey nor the breakdown between the number of identified clergy and identified lay participants. By accepting all results from on-line participants, the survey is virtually worthless because there is no control on the number of survey forms completed by an individual. One individual could have completed 50 surveys and be counted as 50 different people. It appears that the survey was designed to determine the views of clergy and convention delegates rather than the views of the regular congregational members that donate the funds to operate the ELCIC. To base any reorganization plans on these survey results is illogical.

As demonstrated by the difference in financial health of the national office of the ELCIC and the congregations (Page 9 SRTF Report), it appears that the members who support the church with their financial gifts have a high allegiance to the local expression of the church where they have a sense of ownership and little or no allegiance to the national expression of the ELCIC which has gradually reduced the role of non-clergy in conventions. The idea that concentrating more power and control in the hands of the clergy through the reorganization will result in higher financial support from lay members is not logical.

94. What is the likely impact of the proposed reorganization on the ELCIC?

Answer: Any further transfer of power from lay members of the ELCIC to clergy of the ELCIC will likely lead to continued reduction in financial support and the continued theological drift of the ELCIC hierarchy away from orthodox Christianity and the one true Triune God.

95. By what authority does Solid Ground Ministry/Canada question the actions of the ELCIC hierarchy?

Answer: All Christians have a duty to proclaim the truth of the Triune God. Both clergy and lay members of the ELCIC have the responsibility and opportunity to expose error and proclaim the one true Christian faith!

The News Release of the ELCIC of April 3, 2011 in Plain Language

2011-04-13T22:17:00.001-07:00

Many lay people find it hard to understand the language of the News Release and ask the famous Lutheran question, “What does this mean?”

In plain language, at the next National Convention the National Church Council will introduce motions to facilitate the following changes:

1. The ELCIC will bring forward motions to reorganize into three synods, have National and Synod conventions meet every three years instead of every two years, and have fewer delegates at National conventions.

2. The ELCIC will replace our current social statement on SEX, MARRIAGE, AND FAMILY (1970) with a new social statement that will allow pastors to marry homosexual couples and the ELCIC to ordain homosexual pastors even if they live with or are married to a homosexual person.

This will lead to the following changes:

- ELCIC pastors may marry homosexual couples but they should be careful not to get their people upset about it. (Motion 2, page 3).

- The ELCIC will ordain homosexual pastors. (Motion 3, page 3).

- The ELCIC interprets the Augsburg Confession, Article 7 to mean that the issues of your congregation conducting marriages for homosexuals and the ordination of homosexuals as pastors are not important enough for people to leave the ELCIC because we can have different opinions on "issues of morals" ( Motion 1, pages 2-3).

The implication is that those who disagree with the changes proposed by the National Church Council have no justification to leave the ELCIC. The ELCIC seems to be concerned that more congregations and members will leave the ELCIC after the motions are passed. A further loss of membership and finances would lead to additional cutbacks.

The church will try to keep the next convention on a high note and emphasize personal spiritual renewal rather that focusing on these controversial issues.

Extracted by Lothar Schwabe

The ELCIC Statement on Human Sexuality (2011): A lay person’s reacts

2011-04-13T22:15:00.001-07:00

I presume you have seen the letter from the ELCIC National Church Council. I'm beginning to agree with the naysayers that the only way to deal with this is to leave the ELCIC. In the short term, the motion, even if it passes, will not make much of a difference to local churches. If one takes a longer term view however these proposed changes are pretty disastrous.

The sheer deviousness of the approach the ELCIC National Church Council is using is absolutely staggering. It is done in this way to drag in people who are sitting on the proverbial fence and of course those who have no clue whatsoever. Unfortunately, I think their strategy will be effective and (barring a miracle) they will pass all motions this summer.

NCC is very smart and consistent - they have been trying for many years and have never given up an inch. The winning formula: First amend the 1970 statement on sexuality through church wide consultations - but make sure the final product is super-liberal (agreeing with homosexuality), which is easy as a committee they control is making the final edits. Then they cleverly hide the word homosexuality or same-sex unions from the motions by wanting to authorize pastors to perform blessings that are legal in the province where they work/live. As a logical consequence, you must then allow practicing homosexuals (whether 'married' or not) to be your pastor - you will probably not even be able to question them on the subject during an interview in a call process, as this would be sexual discrimination. [I don't have problems with a Pastor who experiences same sex attraction, but who earnestly tries to live a celibate life]. Finally, they add a motion for unity - to make sure that any conservative voices don't cry to loudly when the NCC motions are passed.

Wow. I'm speechless! Same-sex blessings, Ordination of homosexual pastors and let's all be friends and united!

I take issue with Motion #2, blessing of same-sex marriages because it is contrary to my understanding of the scriptures. I very much dislike the approach and reasoning taken ("Let’s do this, because the state has approved same sex marriages").

I also take issue with Motion #3 Standards of Ordination & Consecration. Grounds for this is that I consider pastors to be deacons and 1 Timothy 3 mentions the following:

Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. ² Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full^[^a^] respect. ⁵ (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ⁷ He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

⁸ In the same way, deacons^[^b^] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁹ They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰ They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Again, my disagreement with motion #3 stems from my current understanding of the scriptures.

In the context of Motions #2 and #3, I also take issue with Motion #1, Motion on the unity of the Church. I don't have a problem with the motion per se, but with the reasoning and context. Basically it says - we are going to move a bunch of unpopular motions which have the potential to split the Church - but if they pass we can still agree on the lowest common denominator.

None of this really surprises me, and I am pretty sure that all of the motions will pass with a majority. Ultimately though, all of this posturing is
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1,2)

and will have no short term effect on our congregation.

Personally, the 1970 statement on sexuality was fine with me and did not need revising. In contrast, the new statement on sexuality shows no moral leadership whatsoever. This is unfortunately in complete agreement with 'modern' society values. If moral leadership is not going to come from the National Church - where else is it going to come from? It had better come from the local level. Thanks be to God for Scripture, for His Spirit and understanding but even this they try to twist.

The state of affairs is really twisted - what will the Lord Jesus do when He comes back?

Friedrich Brunzema (First Lutheran Church, Toronto)

April 2010

A Pastor’s Devotional Life

2011-03-22T07:52:00.001-07:00

“A Pastor’s Devotional Life” is the theme of an upcoming pan-Lutheran event. While especially beneficial for clergy and seminarians, interested lay people will find it helpful also. This 3-day course, hosted by Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations, will be held at River’s Edge Camp and Retreat Centre, Water Valley, Alberta on June 7, 8, and 9, 2011.

The Course Instructor will be Dr. John Pless of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Registration info and a biography of Dr. Pless can be found at http://www.calc.ca/news.htm . Early registration is recommended by April 6, 2011. For more information contactinfo@calc.ca or Ron Voss 403-932-1892.

The Present Canadian Lutheran Landscape (2010)

2010-11-03T21:40:00.000-07:00

To learn more about Lutheran Church bodies in Canada and the U.S., click here

Booklet of Reports for CALC 2010 Convention

2010-10-21T20:23:00.000-07:00

View pdf

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED ELCIC SOCIAL STATEMENT ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

2010-09-10T21:31:00.000-07:00

By Keith R. Odegard

The Proposed Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (“ELCIC”) Social Statement on Human Sexuality (“the Statement”) is a significant improvement over the radical theology presented in the ELCIC Study of Human Sexuality (“the Study”). Many of the objections raised by Solid Ground Ministry/Canada in its 41 page submission to the Human Sexuality Task Force (“the Task Force”) (www.solid-ground.ca) have been addressed and corrected in the First Draft of the Statement. Members of the Task Force should be commended for correcting erroneous assumptions and false analyses in their deliberations in the preparation of the ELCIC human sexuality guiding document. A brief summary of some of the significant corrections are as follows:

....to read more download pdf

THE BIRTH OF A NEW CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN BODY

2010-09-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

A new Lutheran denominational body was born on Friday, Aug. 27, as Lutherans from throughout North America voted overwhelmingly and enthusiastically to form the North American Lutheran Church (NALC).

The decision to form the new church body was made at the annual Convocation of Lutheran CORE which attracted more than 1,100 Lutherans Thursday and Friday at Grove City Church of the Nazarene in Grove City, Ohio. Thousands more watched the convocation online.

The Convocation adopted a constitution and elected provisional leaders for the NALC. The Rev. Paull Spring of State College, Pa., was elected as bishop of the NALC. Spring served as the bishop of the Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) for 14 years.

Spring and other church leaders were elected for one-year terms. Those congregations and individuals who join the NALC will elect their own leaders at the church body’s first annual meeting next year. Spring has said that he will not be available for reelection.

“We have a great opportunity before us. We not only want to look back toward the past, but to look ahead to the mission God has given us — to confess Christ faithfully, to witness to others, and to grow in God’s mission. This is our opportunity now in Lutheran CORE and in the North American Lutheran Church,” said Spring.

“The NALC will embody the center of Lutheranism in America. The NALC will uphold confessional principles dear to Lutherans including a commitment to the authority of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. Members and congregations of the NALC will have direct involvement in the decisions and life of the NALC,” said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.

The new church body was approved with no opposition. Some current pastors in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who attended the Convocation chose to abstain because of their ELCA responsibilities.

Some of those in attendance asked to be able to sign a document noting their assent to the creation of the NALC. Many waited for more than an hour to do so because they wanted to formally note their involvement in the historic action.
Lutherans around the world celebrated the creation of the NALC. Two of the largest Lutheran churches in the world sent official representatives to the Convocation. Representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania and the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus told the Convocation of the support of their church bodies for the NALC. These two church bodies from Africa are the second and third largest Lutheran churches in the world, each with 5.3 million members. They reported that Lutherans throughout Africa were praying for the Convocation and for the NALC.

“May God bless Lutheran CORE and the vision of the NALC,” said the Rev. Francis Stephanos, president emeritus of the church in Ethiopia and a former vice president of the Lutheran World Federation. “One cannot put the word of Scripture to a vote. . . . The churches of the South will choose Scripture over the mighty dollar.”

The Rev. Dr. Benson Bagonza, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania’s Karagwe Diocese, preached for the closing worship service and participated in the installation of Bishop Spring.

“The presence at our convocation of so many ecumenical and international guests is very significant,” said Spring. “Their presence among us is a reminder that we are not alone in our ministry and that we intend to forge strong ties and relationships with other Christian communities as we go forward in the North American Lutheran Church.”

The Convocation voted to request membership in the Lutheran World Federation for the NALC as a part of the church body’s commitment to an ongoing relationship with faithful Lutheran churches in Africa and Eastern Europe.

The NALC is also committed to a close partnership with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), an association of congregations that many former ELCA congregations have joined since it was formed in 2001. More than 280 congregations have joined LCMC since last August.

“As you make your stand today, I pledge that your siblings in LCMC will stand beside you,” said the Rev. Larry Lindstrom of Farmersville, Ohio, chair of the LCMC Board of Trustees. “I anticipate many congregations will choose to join both LCMC and the NALC.”

A way to move forward together

In addition to creating the NALC, Lutheran CORE’s 2010 Convocation approved proposals designed to provide a way for Lutherans who uphold Biblical teaching to move forward together.
Lutheran CORE will continue as “a confessional and confessing unity movement for all Lutherans regardless of church body.”

“The NALC and Lutheran CORE will link us together as confessional, faithful Lutherans,” said the Rev. Paul Ulring of Columbus, Ohio, who was elected Thursday as the moderator of Lutheran CORE. “We believe that God is at work, so these are wonderful times ahead.” Ulring is pastor of Upper Arlington Lutheran Church.

“Lutheran CORE’s actions at this convocation and the launching of the NALC are significant progress in forming a community of confessing Lutherans that crosses denomination lines and national boundaries,” Chavez said.

“Our Lord’s reconfiguring of the Lutheran landscape not only in North America, but worldwide, is breathtaking and exciting. We pray that Lutheran CORE and the NALC will faithfully follow Him and in all things give glory to our Heavenly Father,” said Chavez. “It has been wonderful to witness the joy and hopeful excitement of so many Lutherans to move forward and do the main thing — proclaim Jesus Christ and His Gospel to make disciples.”

“The future that we envision for confessing Lutherans in North America is one that is centered on the absolute truth of Christ Jesus and committed to making disciples for Him,” said Ryan Schwarz of Washington, D.C., chair of Lutheran CORE’s Vision and Planning Working Group. “Both Lutheran CORE and the NALC will stand in continuity with the tradition of the Christian Church over the past 2,000 years and will orient their activities primarily for the support of congregations in their ministries.”

“Lutheran CORE and the new NALC are two pathways for faithful, confessing Lutherans in North America to remain connected to each other and to the vast majority of Lutherans and Christians globally who reject the theological innovations of the ELCA and ELCIC,” added Schwarz, who was elected to serve on the NALC’s Executive Council.

The NALC is a member of Lutheran CORE and will do much of its mission and ministry in conjunction with Lutheran CORE to help maintain unity among confessing Lutherans and to carry out mission and ministry efficiently.

Lutheran CORE’s 2009 Convocation Sept. 25-26, 2009, in Fishers, Ind., asked that a proposal for the “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism” be prepared and brought to the 2010 Convocation. In response, “A Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE, a Community of Confessing Lutherans” was released in February.

“The North American Lutheran Church places great emphasis on congregational ministry and congregational renewal.” Spring said. “We know that the congregation is not the sole form of ministry in the church. But the congregation is surely the chief community of faith for ministry and renewal. We are hoping that our congregational focus will be evident in the way we carry out our ministry.”

Spring noted that Lutheran CORE and the NALC are committed to faithfully teaching the historic Christian faith as it has been confessed by Lutherans and also to moving forward in faith and mission.

“We are inspired by the groundswell of congregations interested in joining the NALC, as well as the other Lutheran and Christian church bodies interested in discussing fellowship and shared ministry opportunities with the NALC,” Schwarz said.

“Our common commitment to Christ’s Great Commission — making disciples of all nations — is a firm foundation for continued growth of the NALC, broader unity through Lutheran CORE, and building of church-to-church relationships in coming years.”

Lutheran CORE and the NALC are also committed to close ties with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.

Theological Conference addresses crisis in Lutheranism

More than 800 people attended a theological conference featuring some of the most significant Lutheran scholars in America that preceded the Convocation. “Seeking New Directions for Lutheranism” was the theme of the Aug. 24-26 conference at Upper Arlington Lutheran Church in Hilliard, Ohio.

“We are at a crossroads where our theological tradition and the teaching of the Christian faith are being placed in jeopardy,” the Rev. Dr. Carl Braaten told the conference. Braaten is one of the most respected Lutheran theologians in the world.

Lutherans throughout the United States have been wrestling with the implications of recent actions by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America reversing the ELCA’s policy on pastors in same-sex sexual relationships. ELCA pastors are now allowed to be in same-sex relationships and to officiate at same-sex union ceremonies. The ELCA Churchwide Assembly approved a social statement in August 2009 that changed ELCA teaching on sexuality and authorized a reversal in policy regarding pastors in same-sex relationships.

Lutheran CORE leaders note that the problems in the ELCA are really not about sexual behavior but rather about an ongoing movement away from the authority and teaching of the Bible throughout the ELCA, on issues far broader than simply human sexuality.

“It was not our choice to leave the ELCA, but the ELCA has chosen to reject ‘the faith once delivered to the saints,’ so now we are acting to maintain our position within the consensus of the Church catholic,” said Schwarz.

“The ELCA has decided that it is in a position of authority over the Bible itself rather than submitting to the authority of the Bible over all matters of faith and life,” Chavez said. “And unfortunately, most of the attention is given to the sexuality issues, but there are actually much more disturbing trends within the ELCA.”

For more information go to www.lutherancore.org or www.thenalc.org.

Excerpts from an Email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson

2010-07-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

from Jaynan Clark, President, WordAlone Minitries

(To the Reader)
I admit that something just said "Enough already!" as I read Mark Hanson's (Presiding Bishop of the ELCA) release regarding the Gaza strip. This came only days after news that the Tanzanian, Ethiopian and Chinese church leaders would be engaging in ongoing, private conversation with him regarding their concerns with the ELCA's actions last August at the churchwide assembly. Bold public witness based on the Word of God and the historical, confessional Christian teachings were met with an invitation to continue to engage in deep conversation in private behind closed doors. Even if money on or under the table is not in this particular mix we all should be concerned that those leading vibrant, growing Lutheran churches across the globe are in danger of being indoctrinated by those bearing a false gospel.

Mission and support dollars are already being used to coerce the inclinations of member congregations. Such strong arm tactics seem to be in store for any who stand in opposition to the ELCA leaders. Once again, the clear Word to resist the tempting call of mammon that demands allegiance, loyalty and obedience to itself and not to our true God must be proclaimed.

None of us can serve two masters. Jesus warned us clearly about this in the gospels (Matthew 6; Luke 16). When a Christian fellowship morphs into a partnership, then to a business relationship, then to discussions regarding the things that make for institutional unity and peace, the alarm should sound.

The Tanzanian Lutherans are my family. They taught me how to be a pastor and they let me serve in a church, country and culture that not only "allows" for a Biblical worldview but lives it. That isn't the case because it is a "Christian nation," but because it is not. The Christian Lutherans in Tanzania received the Word of God in Jesus Christ from our missionaries. That Truth has given them life and salvation in Him alone and they are not ashamed of Him or His name.

Islam is all around them in addition to many other religions. Demon possession is a reality that no one tries to dismiss as impossible, pre-enlightened thought or mental illness. Spiritual warfare is real and engaged in appropriately by preaching, teaching and confessing Jesus as Lord over life and death, this world and the next, Crucified and Risen. They don't mess with the truth. We now are the ones sorely in need of such missionaries and evangelists in this emerging pagan land.

So "enough is enough" and the time to stand up according to the true Spirit of God as revealed in His Word is now. Your Heavenly Father has not given you a spirit of timidity. It is His temporal adversary who demands this type of silent, even cooperative, obedience. I share portions of an open letter Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, not in order to stir the pot (which would not necessarily be a bad thing in these apathetic days of conformity) but to give "some" of you hope, knowing others will enraged by my words.

There are those of you who have ears to hear the Truth of God's Word, eyes to see His creation through a Biblical worldview and a conscience truly captive to His Word not the sinful self. You, like a growing number of other Christians-some of them Lutheran-know what it means to be in this world but not of it. More than ever before, you don't seem to "fit." The post-modern understanding that there is no absolute truth outside of the self is not understandable to you. You struggle with yourself wondering if it is just you that thinks things have radically changed and not for the better. You may be among those who don't recognize the message of your "church" as anything like what you grew up with. You don't understand what happened to the basic fabric of society that seemed to be common sense and good order. You don't have any trust in your leaders in church and society. You wonder why nobody says or does anything to push the proverbial pendulum back at least for the sake of the children who must navigate themselves through all this relativity, plurality and uncertainty. To even note your concern out loud would make you some sort of negative, judgmental, fundamentalist, fanatic fuddy-duddy. You would be labeled a sexist, racist, hate filled, homophobic, name calling "Pharisee" or worse. You are left wondering why you, the one being called the names, the one being judged, the one being put down are accused of what you are experiencing at the hands of the loving, tolerant, accepting, non-judgmental Christians. The irony of the repeated experience confirms that you are out of sync.

You aren't crazy. It is happening and you are not alone. Your sense that a spiral downward is in motion for church and society is not your exclusive personal opinion and to say so does not automatically make you a naysayer. On this earth it seems that the only group actively speaking out is doing it in song---many of our country music singers have had enough too. They sing out what many conceal down deep within.

Because your hope is in Jesus Christ alone you need to hear, here and now, that you do not struggle alone. Hope that you do not stand alone. Hope that you aren't the only one who thinks our church and our society are spiraling downward. Hope that others want to not only acknowledge the problems but engage in faithful solutions. Even when all seems to be confused or lost, know that Jesus Christ is your only hope and all that you need.

I share the following excerpts from a letter written the first week of June, 2010:

Dear Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, ELCA

I have just read your politically motivated statement about the situation in the Middle East. My gut, my head, my heart and, most importantly, my faith require from me a long overdue, direct response to your manner of leading the ELCA and to the unfinished business you have with me personally.

While you involve yourself in every international crisis, deliver new revelations contrary to God's Word regarding His created order and preside over a once mainline, now sidelined, denomination in complete free-fall, many wait for some of that "proportionality, peace, and justice" that you continue to "talk" about but fail to engage in or to live. Your type of talk is not cheap but is costly in the way it is damaging the witness of Christian Lutherans and other Christians in an ever-expanding infectious manner.

Unknown to many is the ongoing persecution of countless pastors, families and local churches who have dared to stand up and confess the historic, Biblical faith of the church passed down from generations before. You and the other elected leaders do so through private meetings and passive-aggressive actions that involve unjust terminations, recalled mission grants, tainted call processes and threats against pension and property, to name just a few examples, none of which are marks of the faith or of followers of Jesus.

This is your doing and you must now, as elected leader, shoulder the blame along with the other 60+ bishops who cooperate under your heavy hand. Though all will be held accountable for their actions, myself included, I wonder if you will enjoy as much the final "stage" at the end of time when you face your Lord as you seem to revel in the present limelight. Your perpetual people pleasing and your personal cries for justice and unity ring out like those of the false prophets of old for . . . "peace, peace" but there is no peace. (Jeremiah 6)

"Peace, unity, mission, love, grace, gospel" . . . words you use repeatedly apart from their Biblical meanings, are therefore devoid of true content and only carry a false message of hope in self and sin not in our Savior. The religion you preach, teach and confess is based on your own self-revelation of social justice, equality and rights which have not been the basis of the Christian faith for 2000 years. We have rightly, over the ages, referred to those faith groups that add another new revelation to the Scriptures as cults. How is the revelation of the new thing that God is doing in our midst any different?

I have no more patience with this false teaching and destructive action. But who am I to protest? I am just a country pastor unintentionally "on leave from call." Over the years I have had the opportunity to serve as a missionary in Tanzania and in three calls here in the states. For the last decade I've been elected and re-elected to lead a lowly group of Christian, Lutheran confessors called WordAlone Network, now WordAlone Ministries.

I am nothing. I am no one. I have been treated as such by you and yours. How dare I question you and your ways? Who am I to question your judgment, your leadership? You have power. You have position. You have international voice and exposure. I have none of those and for that I thank God, literally, because they would perhaps tempt me to believe that any of this was about "me" or my importance or my personal opinions.

A word of caution: don't continue to make the mistake of underestimating what and whom it is you oppose with your words and deeds. It is not me. It is not WordAlone or LCMC or LCORE. You are at odds with the only "Head" and "Shepherd" the true Christian Church has ever had. If I did not believe that to be the case then I would not have continued for the past 11 years as one of the voices opposing the ELCA leadership's words and deeds.

So while it is not about me, I have now witnessed too much of what has happened to others to "wait" any longer. Because I have personally suffered under your wayward leadership and know what is real and true, I am duty bound, as a follower of Jesus Christ, as a baptized believer in Him alone and as a called and ordained minister of His true church (both hidden and revealed) to uphold the Holy Word of God and the confessions of the Lutheran church, to now, most reluctantly, respond and submit to my present, personal calling to expose the true nature of leadership in the ELCA.

The time has come for someone--unfortunately me--to step up, no matter what the consequences are for doing so and call, "Foul." I intend to bellow like an over-padded umpire in this, my attempt, to stop the exportation of this false gospel and new religion you have presided over and imported into the ELCA and beyond.

I personally have grown weary of waiting for your repentance and public accountability. I have patiently prayed for you and others in the ELCA to come to terms with what you are doing to old pastors, young seminarians, local churches, faithful preachers and international leaders. The confusion and chaos that has resulted is your doing. However, you continue to try to point fingers at others for being the "schismatics" (myself included) while you ignore the words of the Scriptures that remind us that confusion comes from those who preach "another gospel" though there is not another gospel. (Galatians 2).

The Lord has put the writing and sending of this message on my heart in such a burning fashion since you persuaded confessional, Christian, Lutheran, international leaders to engage in "ongoing conversations" with you on a private basis. Then today you address the crisis in the Holy Land as one who seems to have wisdom regarding those things that would make for peace.

I sadly remember the comments of some of the bishops upon their return from an expensive trip to the Middle East. They were "surprised" by how deep the divisions are. Surprised? The whole of Scripture tells the story of the land, the covenant, the blessing, the enmity, the pruning and the grafting.

Surprised? People of the Word are not surprised and know that our Jewish ancestors were blessed to be a blessing while their children still struggle with that identity each day. Those who are held fast by the Word of God know that as Christians, we have been grafted on to the tree and any position of power or arrogance in these matters is unfaithful to our very nature as Christian children of our one Heavily Father who claimed us in Jesus Christ.

You have presided over the importation of a new anti-Biblical revelation into the ELCA and you actively engage in exporting that false gospel through the LWF and the news media. You should be the last person to be called to speak to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. One should get their own house in order by rediscovering its firm foundation in the Word of God, living, spoken and written, before attempting to bring order to another.

This public news release about the Middle East converged with the recent release regarding your desire to engage in "ongoing conversation" with the African and other leaders "in private," to sound a clarion call for me to act.

So this simple country pastor of 25 years cries, "Foul!" I add, "not if I have anything to say about it" will your influence spread to other international Lutheran churches. The ELCT (Tanzania) is one of my home churches and I know what happens in private behind closed doors in "deep conversation" with you and the bishops who serve you and not their crucified and risen Lord.

Our one and only Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead in order to save sinners from themselves, not to deliver them over to their sin and away from Him and His forgiveness and life-changing grace. Those who preach, teach and confess otherwise should not be in positions of authority and allowed to continue the exportation of this new social religion to the mission fields where we once brought the "Good News" as revealed to us in the Bible and embodied in Jesus Christ Himself.

If it is the last ministry that I do on this earth, I will actively preach, teach and confess according to the power of the Holy Spirit that works through and in the written Word, not in opposition to it. Many have risked and given their lives in order to impart this pure, absolute Word of Truth and no post-modern, politically correct, social activism is going to persuade those of us still living by a daily portion of His grace and forgiveness to remain silent or to attempt to cooperate any longer.

Under your leadership the ELCA has become embroiled in the worst internal conflict in its history. Congregations and members have become like sheep without a shepherd, scattered and led astray. That is not the work of the Good Shepherd but of His temporal adversary, the Wolf in sheep's clothing and his hirelings. The Word of God is neither confusing nor duplicitous. It guides and comforts by killing and making repentant, forgiven sinners alive again. To be raised up in Jesus Christ is to put off the desires of the flesh, not to surrender to them, and to be given a measure of self control, like daily manna from above, that makes possible serving our Savior and our neighbor, not the self.

The call to feed and tend His sheep is a mandate not a request. Those who abandon His flock to the sheep stealers are hirelings themselves. The Bible is a clear Word. It interprets itself and has its way with sinners by its own God given authority. Lutherans and most Christians have believed and understood this for years. Now you and your court theologians try to convince the innocents in the pews, the generations to come and those yet to hear God's Word, that this is not true. You openly proclaim that Scripture lacks clarity and is unable to address this present age with authority. This is blasphemy against God, His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit.

I may be nothing but a lowly, Minnesota born, mother of four, Lutheran pastor who wears cowboy boots and has friends in low places, but I know what and who is the Truth. He owns me. He bought me with a price, His life, and in this life I will not rest until His Word is preached and His sacraments are administered rightly in His name and the name of His Father.

You may continue to work and witness publicly and privately as an elected leader of a human institution that calls itself church, but others will gather by twos and threes in His name, and there He will be in the midst of them. Others . . . individuals, families and churches . . . will find the faithful and free pastures of new and faithful churches like LCMC. Jesus' own know His voice and they will follow. It may not be a majority, perhaps only a remnant, but they will not bend their knees to another god and a false gospel.

May God our Heavenly Father have mercy on you and bring you to repentance for what you continue to do in "His" name--knowing even the use of "Heavenly Father" is problematic to you and yours. God help us all.

I intend to release this email publicly within the week.

In repentance, bound by and captive to the Word of God not to my own sinful conscience or that of my neighbor,

Jaynan L. Clark
President, WordAlone Ministries

What to Expect from the Bishops

2010-07-17T16:57:00.000-07:00

by James A. Nestingen

April 16, 2010

The controversy fired by the Minneapolis assembly vote ratifying practicing homosexual pastors has exposed a major change in the office of the bishop carried out by the ELCA. The bishops themselves have compounded the difference. The net effect leaves congregations and pastors objecting to the Minneapolis vote without voice or standing. The bishops arrive in parishes not to give an ear to both sides but to enforce the Minneapolis vote. According to numerous reports, they are not shy about using force in the process.

Traditionally, the bishops have been thought to hold three responsibilities. The first appears in the oath of office, in which bishops—like all pastors—promise to preach and teach the word of God according to the Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. The second, going by the usual assumptions, would be to represent and serve the synod electing the bishop and funding the enterprise. Thirdly, the bishops individually and collectively serve the national church.

While the traditional assumptions have been left in place, in actual fact the ELCA has turned the office over. The bishops are still elected according to the procedures provided in the synods and they still officially are supposed to serve pastors and congregations, particularly at the point of call. But like the national assembly’s voting delegates who upon election have no further accountability to those who elected them, once the bishops have assumed the office they do not represent either the pastors or the congregations. The third part of the office crowds out the other two: the bishops become officers of the national church who serve to implement the church’s plans and policies. Accordingly, their oath of office has been redefined: they preach and teach the word of God according to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions as interpreted by the national church. By the same token, they serve the congregation as directed by the national church council and the presiding bishop.

This redefinition of the bishops as officers of the national church has been reinforced by the bishops’ own circling of the wagons. According to several estimates, they spend one-third of their time away from their synods, working together for the “churchwide.” A series of decisions has put them at the front line in the challenges that have faced the clergy and the congregations. Under such pressure, they have learned to rely on one another, developing strong friendships in the process. Mutual reliance and loyalty have forged the bishops together in a powerful bond. Keeping in regular touch through a private internet sight, their first reference is to the presiding bishop and one another. Several of the bishops have spoken directly of their fear of risking their standing with the others.

The effect of this reconfiguration and the entrenchment that has gone with it has shown up in the controversy following the Minneapolis decision. Early in the spring last year, sensing possible trouble, the bishops asked the church council for modifications in the proposal presented in August. This request failed. At least ten of the bishops have confided their opposition to the change in visions and expectations in favor of practicing homosexuals. But with rare and still quiet reservation, those who were hesitant have been pushed along by the biggest majority of the bishops, who voted in favor.

By several reports, neither national officials nor the bishops anticipated the force of the reaction to the Minneapolis vote. If the congregations had gotten their say, they would have most likely looked for a way to be nice to practicing homosexuals without compromising the authority of Scripture. Unrepresented, out maneuvered and outvoted, many congregations have reacted with fury against both the advocates and the strident opposition. Given the biblical word, given the Sixth Commandment, practicing homosexuality should never have become an issue. Consequently, objecting congregations have punished the national church and the synods financially. The result has been extensive layoffs and cutbacks across the boards.

Instead of driving a search for peace, however, the strong reaction to the ELCA’s errant leadership has made the bishops all the more determined to enforce the Minneapolis decision. There are some real exceptions—genuine, God fearing bishops who love Christ Jesus and will mix it up with sinners any day. But generally, the bishops are scared of what is unfolding and so quick to resort to coercion. There have been reports of open hostility, verbal abuse, intimidation, threats and punishment. So, too, some parishes that have scheduled votes to leave the ELCA tell of their bishop patrolling the parish, looking to qualify inactive members to tip the vote in favor of staying. In such circumstances, both sides lose.

Whatever the truth of these reports—usually it is a little less dramatic—they are enough to show the importance of being careful. Those who stand with the biblical word on sexual matters, who therefore stand with the largest majority of Lutherans and other Christians throughout the world, are in the ELCA a minority without standing. If like Luther, your conscience is bound by the word of God, you can’t count on either the bishop’s respect or encouragement. Rather, you have to expect that no matter what your previous relationship, the bishop regards you as a problem to be solved and will use the office accordingly.

“ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality”: A “smoke screen” or an “end run”?

2010-06-18T06:35:00.000-07:00

As I read the first draft of the proposed “ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality”, it seemed to me that the task force is envisioning a very different church than the church I have served as a pastor for 43 years. The Scriptural and confessional basis on which the ELCIC was established has been abandoned for assumptions which are more appropriate to the social and political realms.

The proposed social statement begins with a host of general social and cultural observations. It concludes with the bland observation: “The church is divided on how we read and interpret the Bible” (p. 5, “Encountering the World in Which We Live”). The statement makes a similar vague observation in the next section (p. 8, “Facing God and Being the Church”).

 I would have expected that the writer(s) of the statement would eventually identify the Biblical passages concerning the issue of human sexuality that argue most directly against the revisioning of those passages (e.g. Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Genesis chapters 1-2; etc.). I would have expected the writer(s) to acknowledge their reasons for abandoning the understanding of those passages that have served the ecumenical test of time. But the statement does nothing of the sort.

The second section, “Facing God and Being the Church”, makes a reference to a number of theological perspectives that have been important in Lutheranism: “Saint and Sinner”, “Law and Gospel”. It seems that the overall objective of this section, however, is to argue that our highest goal as a church should be to maintain “unity”, in particular, to maintain the unity of the ELCIC.

The section reminds us that the early church eventually learned to accept certain differences in viewpoint and practice. And the church was greatly enriched and prospered.

 The statement suggests a parallel for our own day. It points out that our contemporary Canadian political and social realms tolerate all sorts of different attitudes and behaviours. The statement argues that the church should be equally accepting and non-judgmental. The goal among us should be “unity-with-diversity”. However, the statement conspicuously avoids acknowledging or addressing those Scriptural passages which explicitly condemn some of those behaviours.

The final section, “Doing ministry”, comes to a curious conclusion. It contends, “Opportunities for ministry will be maximized by permitting congregations to engage in practices that more fully enable persons of various sexual orientations to live as members of the body of Christ and as co-workers in ministry.” There is little indication as to how the task force arrived at that unsubstantiated conclusion. However, that statement seems to summarize the underlying objective of the ELCIC social statement, “unity-with-diversity”, or “the local option” under a different guise.

I would therefore contend that the “ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality” is a “smoke screen”, masking its stated intent. It does not honestly acknowledge or address the Scriptural and Confessional basis on which the ELCIC was established. It masks its arguments behind all sorts of cultural and political assumption and generalities. If adopted, the social statement contravenes Article II of its own constitution, namely,

This church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the church’s doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the church.

I would also contend that the social statement is an attempted “end run” around that constitution. The writer(s) of the statement know full well that altering or even eliminating Article II would be a very unpopular and a much more difficult goal to achieve politically. The writer(s), it seems to me, are therefore attempting an “end run”. They know full well that the adoption of the social statement will ultimately force the elimination of Article II in the constitution.

The Rev. Dr. Peeter Vanker

May 31, 2010

Dr. K. Glen Johnson's Response to the First Draft of the Social Statement

2010-05-25T15:30:00.000-07:00

I have received the first draft of a proposed ELCIC social statement on Human Sexuality and your request for a thoughtful and prayerful consideration of the same.

I have been preparing a series of lectures on the sacraments and the spiritual disciplines for a presentation this Fall. I had just finished reading Luther’s Large Catechism when this draft arrived. I was dumbfounded at the contrast that I found between the catechism and the draft.

Luther was extraordinarily clear about the divisions in his day, the corruption in church and society that he saw, and the appalling biblical and spiritual ignorance that marked the society of his day. In contrast I heard the draft say that there are divisions in our society which are not serious, that we live in a good world made holy by Jesus, that we have some problems in church and society but we can work everything out if we try hard enough, and live in unity amidst all kinds of diversity.

Paul in Romans tells us clearly that we are not to be conformed to this world in all its diversity, but rather to be transformed by the renewal of our minds and hearts. The draft speaks often of our world and our culture and our society and how good our world is, and how we must strive to live in unity in the midst of so much diversity, agreeing to disagree and conforming ourselves to all of the so called God-given diversity of our culture. Conform to the diversity of our culture we are told.

While the draft honours both Law and Gospel verbally,it does not attempt, as does Luther,to ask what God means in the commandments and how we are to live accordingly.

In the fourth commandment we are told, “You are to honour your father and mother.” Luther says clearly that fatherhood and motherhood are special positions in life, higher than any other walk. Accordingly Luther says, “But he(God) distinguishes father and mother above all other persons on earth, and places them next to himself.”(p.401) Father and mother, male and female; that is how we are made and that is where we find the image of God. In that image, called to be co-creators with God, there is no other orientation of any sort allowed for in the creation from the beginning, no matter what variety of diversity is practiced and called for.

In the fifth commandment, “You are not to kill,” Luther simply says that the meaning of this commandment “is that no one should harm another person for any evil deed, no matter how much that person deserves it.”(p. 411) If there was ever anyone who did not deserve to be murdered, it is the unborn child. Even my confirmation class agreed unanimously that abortion was murder. The draft says nothing about the undeserved killing of 100,000 foetuses in Canada every year, that apparently being a part of the diversity our culture and what the task force desires to continue to be in place.

In the sixth commandment we are told, “You are not to commit adultery.” Luther points out, “But inasmuch as there is such a shameless mess and cesspool of all sorts of immorality and indecency among us, this commandment is also directed against every form of unchastity, no matter what it is called. Not only is the outward act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, provocation, and means so that your heart, your lips, and your entire body may be chaste and afford no occasion, aid, or encouragement to unchastity.”(p. 414) The draft is not prepared to name the shameless mess and cesspool of our day for it wishes to bless what God has not blessed.

In the eight commandment we are told, “You are not to bear false witness against your neighbour.” Luther is quite specific when it comes to legal rights believing that they should be safeguarded, no matter what the consequences. “God does not want our neighbours deprived of their reputation, honour, and character, any more than of their money and possessions.”(p. 420) In the spiritual realm Luther tells us, “The Word of God must undergo the most shameful and spiteful persecution and blasphemy; it is contradicted, perverted, misused, and misinterpreted. But let this pass; it is the blind world’s nature to condemn and persecute the truth and the children of God and yet consider this no sin.”(p. 421)

The intention of the leaders of our church and the task force on human sexuality is to find a way to welcome and bless marriages and ordinations of those living in same sex relationships. Because of this the clear testimony of Scripture will be and has been ignored, contradicted and misinterpreted. The draft is deceptive and a clear testimony to this fact.

The quotations are taken from THE BOOK OF CONCORD - THE CONFESSIONS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH - Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J Wengert. FORTRESS PRESS - Copyright - 2000

Solid-Ground

Canadian Rockies Theological Conference

Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings Conference Comments

Discipleship under the Lord of All, Jesus the Christ

The Failure of Dissent and New Beginnings - Rev. D Haugen

Closing Meditation for the Solid Ground Conference

Rev. Tim Johnson Presentation

The Voice of a Dissident

A post-mortem: A delegate’s review of the July 14-17, 2011 ELCIC National convention

Many Lutherans still support traditional marriage

A Crisis of Faith in the ELCIC

Open Letter to Delegates re Proposed Human Sexuality Social Statement and Connected Motions

Letter to 2011 ELCIC Delegates

27 Questions For 2011 ELCIC Convention Delegates With Answers From Solid Ground

95 Questions and Answers Pertaining to National Church Council Recommendations to Delegates Surrounding a new Social Statement, Unity and Restructuring.

The News Release of the ELCIC of April 3, 2011 in Plain Language

The ELCIC Statement on Human Sexuality (2011): A lay person’s reacts

A Pastor’s Devotional Life

The Present Canadian Lutheran Landscape (2010)

Booklet of Reports for CALC 2010 Convention

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED ELCIC SOCIAL STATEMENT ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

THE BIRTH OF A NEW CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN BODY

Excerpts from an Email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson

What to Expect from the Bishops

“ELCIC Social Statement on Human Sexuality”: A “smoke screen” or an “end run”?

Dr. K. Glen Johnson's Response to the First Draft of the Social Statement

A  Crisis  of  Faith  in  the  ELCIC