Grant that the healing medicine of the Gospel and the Sacraments. . ."
Fraud: 1. a) deceit, trickery; cheating b)Law intentional deception to cause a person to give up property or some lawful right. 2. something said or done to deceive; trick; artifice 3. a person who deceives or is not what he pretends to be; imposter; cheat. [Webster's New World Dictionary, c. 1982]
In this essay I am asking President John Moldstad to carefully review an item on the ELS website under the heading 'Exiting Links.' My request is that President Moldstad will then ask the webmaster to remove 'Christian Life Resources' (CLR. I contend that CLR is not what it appears to be, or what it claims to be, but is a social and political organization that exists to perpetuate itself.
The ELS maintains a website for the purpose of disseminating information to the members of the synod. As a religious organization one would expect that the items presented are consistent with the policies and principles of the members who are voluntarily a part of that organization. Lutheran principles recognize that individual Christians belong to two worlds, the world of the spirit and the world of the secular.
The ELS website provides information to its readers about things pertinent to the general interest of its members. The reasonable assumption is that the items so selected pertain to the work of the church as a whole and not to the proclamation of ideas and issues that are political or social in nature.
The website includes a section labeled 'Exiting Links' with the implied suggestion that the websites listed are worthy of reading and support. One such site is the CLR.
The 'Exiting Links" listed in the ELS website site may be the individual choice of the individual (the webmaster) who has created and maintains the site. I would think that the ELS website would fall, organizationally speaking, as the responsibility of the ELS Board for Publications. That this inclusion of CLR has occurred would be the result of the ELS, to be new at internet stuff and, as such, dependent upon people who know and understand computers. These webmasters conveniently, would be able to inject an item or two from their own individual set of values and beliefs into the common area of view.
The CLR, and those who support it, would assert that since it deals with 'life' its purposes, programs, and actions are beyond reproach. The actuality of the CLR, I assert, is to foster its own designs and purposes of gathering money from well-meaning Christians and of fostering its agenda through newsletters, programs, a store, and an annual convention.
A CLR fundraiser was held in my church several years back. To promote sympathy for the CLR and to raise funds, plastic baby bottles were distributed to the membership of the congregation. The appeal was to collect loose change and to place this money in the plastic baby bottle. The injunction was to return the change-filled bottle on the Sunday designated to be 'Life Sunday.' This fund raising tactic was, I believe, right out of Chaucer's 'Pardoner's Tale' and an example of religious fraud.
The social and political values of CLR are not universally shared by all of the members of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Although it may be reasonably assumed that the political and social values of CLR are supported by many in the synod, it is not appropriate for the synod to publicly endorse CLR.
There are, I think, several historical examples from ELS history which would offer some guidance. I deliberately pass over the larger question from classical Lutheran theology of the doctrine of the two kingdoms as this concept is almost too well known to bear repetition.
I submit two examples from our synod's history to support my contentions. My first example is of recent vintage. About two years ago, some well-meaning members of the ELS expressed fear that the church was under attack by the world-at-large. As an attempt to educate the members of the ELS to this danger, these proponents petitioned the synod to make their political and social insights known under the guidon of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Review by committees appointed by yourself, President Moldstad, resulted in this resolution not being adopted. I believe that these committees ruled wisely.
The second example from ELS church history comes from the Old Norwegian Synod. [My source for information here is the book 'A Century of Urban Life The Norwegians in Chicago before 1930' by Professor Odd Lovoll [Norwegian-American Historical Association, 1988)] Chicago was one of many places in the 19th century where the temperance movement found support. The Norwegian clergy, with good reason, I believe, went after the saloons 'with a vengeance.' The effects of alcohol abuse upon the society of the day were damaging and wide-spread.
There was good reason for Norwegian-Lutherans to support the temperance movement but there were other reasons for the Norwegians not to participate. President H.A. Preus ruled, wisely, I think, that the temperance society 'undermined congregational unity and ministerial authority.' One of the main objections to [an individual congregation being a part of the temperance movement] was that "its existence was its independent status outside the congregation's control."
I think that the lesson from these two historical examples is as follows. What a group of individual Christians think is important in the secular arena is their own opinion. The social and political opinions of certain interest groups within the synod are not properly expressed as being representative of the entire Evangelical Lutheran Synod . Secondly, if the church doesn't control an organization, then it can potentially undermine the unity and ministerial authority of the church.
As a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod by virtue of my membership at King of Grace Lutheran Church, I must tell you that I do not need any (well-meaning, to be sure) individual or group of individuals to tell me what I should think or not think about items in the public square. As a member of the ELS I do not want my church body to represent itself as a supporter of a non-church controlled secular organization (i.e. CLR) that wishes to disseminate its information to an unsuspecting public.
I am asking you to remove CLR from the ELS website.
It is not enough, President Moldstad, for CLR to be publicly endorsed and supported for its stance on 'life' issues. The synod need not be a conduit for the political and social views of those who think that a certain civil issue is worthy of church endorsement. The solution proposed by these proponents ignores the purpose of the church's very existence.
I offer, in conclusion, the words from today's prayer from the Treasury of Daily Prayer: "Almighty God, our Father, Your blessed Son called Luke the physician to be an evangelist and physician of the soul. Grant that the healing medicine of the Gospel and the Sacraments may put to flight the diseases of our souls that will willing hearts we may ever love and serve You; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever."
Norman Teigen
October 18, 2009
normanteigen@gmail.com
***
GJ - CLR (nee WELS Lutherans For Life) started because they could not be in fellowship with the LCMS Lutherans For Life. Now CLR is both secular and generic Protestant.
One Biblical issue would be "husband of one wife," if one claims to be on the ministerial roll.
Here is an interesting story about a Planned Parenthood director who is now a pro-life activist.
Parachurch organizations are obviously out of control in ELS/WELS - just look at all the offshoots of Church and Change, which claim to be ELS/WELS yet operate on their own.
