ELCA Professor Benne Sees the Light

Unintended effects: —How the ELCA’S aim for unity fractured the church

Dr. Robert Benne

Dr. Robert Benne

In its 2009 Churchwide Assembly in August of 2009 the Evangelical Lutheran Church took the momentous step to allow for the blessing of gay and lesbian unions as well as for the ordination of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships. It was the first major confessional church to take those steps. In anticipation of much disagreement about its decisions, the church struck what it thought was a compromise so that we could “journey together faithfully” even though there was no consensus on these issues. The instrument for compromise was the “bound-conscience” doctrine. Realizing that we now had no authoritative teaching on homosexual conduct, the Sexuality Task Force proposed and the Assembly agreed that all of us respect each other’s “bound-conscience” on these matters as we went about the life of our church. Also, since the official line of the church was that these issues were not church-dividing anyway, we could live with such a settlement. (It was unexplained why the ELCA should be immune to the church-dividing nature of these issues when many churches in America and in the world were experiencing painful divisions over them. Indeed, the leaders of the ELCA mistakenly projected their own assessment on the church at large.)

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Since there is now no authoritative teaching and since we can claim “bound-conscience” on whatever teaching we prefer, this means that each parish and ultimately each individual has to decide which teaching is normative for them. In one fell swoop the Assembly turned the ELCA into a collection of congregations and individuals.

What has happened is that the conflict that the Assembly could not or would not solve has been ratcheted down to each parish and finally to each individual. The “compromise” has become the occasion for some hard fighting. Some churches are leaving the ELCA out of their “bound conscience.” Each attempt to leave—even when successful—creates enormous tension and conflict. Even churches who had prepared their laity for the crisis still have many members who believed that, in spite of all, the congregation should remain in the ELCA.

Other churches are withholding their benevolence money from the regional Synod and the ELCA in response to the ELCA decisions. This, too, creates conflict between the members who agree with the local leaders’ decisions and those who believe the parish ought to support the ELCA in spite of or because of its decisions. Those same churches are often taking time to decide whether to leave or stay, which extends the difficulties. Still other churches are taking milder actions: articulating where they stand on these matters and often providing options for members to divert their benevolence monies into their preferred causes. One church has contrived a “bound-conscience” fund for those who wanted to keep their benevolence away from the ELCA. (The Assembly certainly did not anticipate this use of the doctrine!)

The so-called compromise also presses individuals to decide where they stand, which congregation they want to belong to, as well as where they want their pledges to go. So a game of musical chairs is going on among many laity as they try to match their convictions with that of a particular congregation. A goodly number moved to other denominational chairs when the music stopped in August. Others moved to Lutheran congregations that fit their “bound conscience.” Many are still in a quandary about what to do. This “church shopping” presses churches to decide where they stand, which also causes tension.

In the face of this widespread fracturing, a small portion of churches have embraced the decisions of the ELCA and are moving quickly toward openly blessing gay and lesbian unions and calling ordained gays and lesbians in partnered relationships. Some of those parishes have been engaging in those practices for a long time; others now have official permission to exercise their “bound conscience” by adopting them. Laypersons in the latter group who disagree with this agenda no doubt depart for other more “orthodox” churches.

A far larger number of churches—perhaps even the majority of parishes in the ELCA—try to duck the challenge. Their pastors or laypersons say: “this is not an issue in our parish,” which can mean a number of things. It can mean that the pastor and/or the majority in the church agree with the decisions of the ELCA but are not going to make a big thing about it. They will face the issues when they come up. It can also mean that the issue is not important enough to get steamed up about, which follows the ELCA lead by viewing these issues as non-church dividing. These congregations, too, will face the issue when they have to. In either case, pastors and laypersons who are disturbed by the changes in the ELCA have to decide whether they can “go along to get along” in those congregations. Some will keep quiet, others will protest or leave. The largest number of congregations for whom “this is not an issue” more likely hope that this will not become an issue because it could indeed be church-dividing. These congregations are sometimes in a fragile enough condition that a controversy over sexuality issues may well spell the doom of the parish. If they take a clear position pro or con on the Assembly decisions they will lose people. And they cannot afford that. Other parishes are doing pretty well and don’t want to upset the apple-cart by introducing controversial issues. These are generally orthodox in teaching and practice and intentionally distance themselves from the workings of the ELCA.

It is understandable why churches want to duck the issue, but I suspect in the long run they will not be able to do so. Laity are slowly awakening to what is happening and will raise inconvenient questions about the direction of the congregation, synod, and the national church to which they belong. Besides, they might be directly confronted with pairs asking to be blessed. Then they won’t be able to duck.

Given this account, at least two insights are relevant:

First, it is easy to sympathize with orthodox individuals and congregations who are struggling about what to do. They didn’t ask for this. Therefore, it is important for the time being to respect the various decisions that are being made by the orthodox. Each parish situation and each individual situation is different. Some parishes and individuals simply cannot leave at this time. But as the full consequences of the church’s decisions become more visible and concrete—changes in the teaching materials, the rites, and the composition of the clergy, the path ahead may become clearer. As groups such as the Lutheran Coalition for Renewal and Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ become more viable ecclesial bodies than the ELCA itself, the inclination to leave may be more intense.

Second, the fall-out reveals the foolhardiness of changing doctrine and practice before there are compelling biblical and theological arguments for doing so. In deciding it had no authoritative teaching on homosexual conduct, the church tossed the problem to congregations and individuals to decide for themselves, which is a sure-fire formula for conflict. The authorities in the ELCA were warned repeatedly that this maneuver would lead to the fracturing of the church. That is precisely what is happening.

***

GJ - Did these people ever read The Lutheran? I wrote for the magazine and knew three of the editors, two of them senior editors - Stauderman and Trexler. I met with Stauderman in his Philly office and had a meeting with Trexler at a conference in Michigan. Trexler published an editorial in The ELCA Lutheran, about 23 years ago, saying, "We have been ordaining homosexuals for years." In other words, it was not a real point of contention.

The LCA lasted only 25 years, always bragging about how great it was. The quotas were well known before the merger, and they included minority, homosexual, lesbian, and female representation.

I wrote about this in the much-hated Christian News, simply astonished that no one in the LCA or ALC wanted to do anything except applaud the merger or sit on their hands.

WELS was very embarrassed that their new recruit would point out Wisconsin snuggling with the Lavender Mafia in ELCA. The Love Shack at 2929 could not get enough of joint projects with ELCA and Missouri - all the while deriding Missouri and ELCA for having no "fellowship principles."

WELS leads the way in promoting a Talmudic approach to fellowship, while outdoing the Pharisees in hypocrisy. They have the close relationship between unionism and doctrinal indifference wrong. Unionism is the result of doctrinal indifference, not the cause. The cure is not creating another set of phony rules to violate, as The Guilt Factory (formerly The Love Shack) does with aplomb.

The solution is doctrinal integrity based upon the Word and the Confessions. Those who love the efficacious Word and the Biblical definition of the Sacraments will not have any urge to worship with the Babtists (Stetzer and Stanley), the New Agers (Sweet), and the Pentecostals (C. Peter Wagner). Their getting away with it only proves that the Conference of Pussycats is comprised of apostates.

Englebrecht is bad? What has Buchholz done about Jeff Gunn? Nothing. I had to correct that. After the DP swore to defund and kick Gunn out, Rev. Jeff was put on the board of Willowcreek's Little College in Milwaukee - and almost hired there. In fact, two other members of the stealth congregation are on the board, making DoubleCross the most influential WELS parish in WELS, education-wise. Ain't that sumthun, as my Grandpappy used to say.

From many such baby steps of apostasy came ELCA.

Some Kind Words from LPC:

Why we need Dr. Ichabod

Dr. Ichabod is the type of author, blogger that keeps me sane in Lutherland. I am not kidding. Let me explain.

Prior to coming to Wittenberg, I was in a Lutheran list-group some 5 years ago or so, and in that list-group there was a free exchange of ideas. Some orthodox conservative, some confused, some liberal, some having denominational identity crises etc. The free flow of interaction there impressed me. I came away concluding, hmmm, these people are not cultic, they are not a bunch of fundamentalist fruit cakes, Lutherans are honest and willing to follow where evidence leads them. I am happy to be named like them. That is what I thought about Lutherans.

The presence of Dr. Ichabod says that there are brave Lutherans out there who are willing to follow where ever the evidence (as per God's Word) leads them. Because if I look at Internet Lutherland, minus Ichabod, I will come away getting the impression that this is some exclusive club of pastors that feather their own nest, not perhaps in terms of money, but in terms of influence, i.e. a clique and thus a cult. The mark of a cult is that dissenters are eliminated, they are marked and avoided. Also, if blogdom is an indication, I will get the impression that Lutherans are mindless-herd-following people, they got no one who checks where the herd is going.

You might disagree with Dr. Ichabod, but it will do you good to read him, even if his style does not conform to yours. Onion skinned folk need to thicken a bit when they wonder off his blog, for he pulls no punches. In the end, your friend is the one who loves you in truth, rather than the one who loves your feelings. In fact, if you do not like him, the more you should read him. If you are from a different school, you should read him for proper scholarship demands that you read your critics, he could be giving you good service if by listening you adjusted what he found what is weak about you.

Let me suggest something, do not start with his posts, start with his sermons first. First you got to see the guy's pastoral nature, then you can read the posts. When you do, you will get a proper context of why his style is that way. This is the problem with people I know who criticize Dr. Ichabod to me. They read the posts but never bothered to read or listen to his Sunday videoed Divine Services.

Lastly, though the Synodical pastors do not like him, for people like me who come from outside the family, a refugee who has seen quite a bit, it is Ichabod who gives a good name to Lutheranism to me. For there are lots of Lutheran pastors out there receiving accolades, yet they do not behave like Luther, far from him, who was willing to stand alone. So I wonder why they call themselves Lutherans when they appear to be scared.

Just sayin...

Of Justification | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Lies about Romans 4:25 and the Gospel

Fierce UOJ Advocate from LutherQuest (sic)


Of Justification | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod: "17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: 'There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,' Rom. 3:28."

KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Here it is in your beloved Reformed NIV:

NIV Romans 4:23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-- for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

The Gospel of John Refutes the UOJ Two-Step

Norma Boeckler is working on a storybook in color, to be available in the future through Martin Chemnitz Press.

KJV John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Christian doctrine is taught by the Word of God, not by people who invent categories and parade their opinions as dwelling in the minds of the Concordists. The Deutschlander essay clearly reveals that the Synodical Conference uses its own opinions to judge the orthodoxy of the Concordists, who were insufficiently articulate in defining double-justification or in such agreement that they did not even need to mention it.

Even if the ELS, LCMS, and WELS had a joint convention and voted for UOJ, it would still be their opinion and not Christian doctrine. Nor will they ever convince those left untouched by the brainwashing of the synodical schools.

The Gospel of John is the unifying Gospel, the one which supplements and unites Matthew, Mark, and Luke by virtue of its harmony with the first three. Moreover, the apostolic authority of John is the strongest of the four, generously recording the very words of Christ.

I remember Robert Preus saying that Pentecostalism came from the unbalanced attention given to Christ, culminating in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. A. Schweitzer won the prize for writing the dullest book about Jesus with the best title in English. The original in German was "The History of Life-of-Jesus Research." See what I mean? People still buy Quest, but no one can read it. The good doctor was everyone's favorite crackpot for decades.

A denomination's teaching about the Holy Spirit can be more revealing than what it claims to teach about Jesus. Most people are discerning enough to know that false teachers are toying with the doctrine of Christ, so the Holy Spirit is sidelined.

The Era of the Holy Spirit
That is unfortunate, because the era of The Church is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. We have the Scriptures as God's own revelation through the work of the Holy Spirit. All preaching and teaching is the work of the Holy Spirit, although varying in its purity. All genuine faith comes from the Holy Spirit. The sacraments are effective because of the Holy Spirit working through the Word. Prayer is prompted and helped by the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to the pope, there is no Christian doctrine preserved and passed on by word of mouth through His Holiness and his bishops, the so-called Deposit of Faith. No doctrine can be assumed or extrapolated from the Scriptures, which clearly and plainly teach God's wisdom. No action of God can be attributed to Him apart from what is already revealed in His Word.

Any activity of the Holy Spirit divorced from the Word is called Enthusiasm in the Book of Concord. This word Enthusiasm is a convenient summary of what the Holy Spirit teaches in Isaiah 55:8-10:
1. God's Word always has the divine power of the Holy Spirit, so it never returns empty. (Double negative to emphasize the positive and eliminate any exceptions.)
2. It shall accomplish what God wills.
3. It shall be abundant in its effect.

John 16:8-9
Jesus taught what the Holy Spirit would do in one verse:

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove [convince, convict] the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

What is sin?

John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Sin is not believing in Christ. Before they believe in Christ, they are in sin (not "in Christ"). They are only in Christ when they believe in Him.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

This verse used to puzzle me. Perhaps many people pass over it. John 16:10 is in perfect harmony with the actual meaning of Romans 4:25 -

After presenting Abraham as the father of faith, who was counted righteous because of his faith, Paul wrote -

KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed [counted, reckoned] to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The empty tomb of Easter and the Ascension means faith in Christ as the Son of God, Savior, Redeemer, Lamb of God. Righteousness and faith go together because we are justified by faith. Jesus was raised from the dead, we would believe and be counted as righteous. Without the Gospel, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no righteousness imputed to individuals.

KJV Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Deutschlander called attention to 1 Corinthians 15:2 in his nefarious essay. No wonder - it refutes his thesis that everyone receives grace and forgiveness without the Word, without faith. I selected ten verses because they close with God's grace being bestowed on him. Of course, Paul does not speak of grace without the Word. The risen Christ appeared before the Apostle and taught him the Word, bestowing His grace through the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle John and the Apostle Paul agree with each other:

KJV John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Both taught and preached so people would believe and be justified by faith in Him.

There is not the slightest indication the Scriptures that anyone is forgiven apart from faith. Some expressions about justification are unfortunate, misleading, and wrong. Among them are the twisted statements of the UOJers, such as Walther and J. P. Meyer.

The Intrepids would rescue people from the slime-pits of Decision Theology, but their UOJ sends WELS, Little Sect, and Missouri pastors--giddy with Enthusiasm--to such Decision Theology mavens as Andy Stanley, Ed Stetzer, and Groeschel.

The Intrepids cannot find the spine to take on Church and Change, because the cornered rats fought them claw and fang. The Intrepids are eager to warn people away from justification by faith.

The Apostle John should have the last word on this...for now -

KJV John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

UOJ Primer Shows How Confused The Syn Conference Loyalists Are

Carried away by UOJ


Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "UFOs Can Also Be Proven in the Book of Concord":

Deutschlander proves the "caricatures" of UOJ to be true in these horrendous statements,


"But God remains gracious; and that grace, which by its very definition is not and cannot be earned or deserved, is active in seeking man’s salvation, man’s restoration to the innocent, the not-guilty, the just status with respect to God’s standard that man enjoyed before the Fall. 


And that grace is perfectly and completely expressed in the obedience of One, which obedience is now charged, imputed and declared over all. Just as the “all” and the “many” are identical in guilt, so now are the “all” and the “many” identical in righteousness, in innocence; just as the guilt and the death were not merely available or possible on account of Adam’s Fall, so the restoration and the justification is the gift to all as an accomplished fact through the obedience of One, which obedience—again—is imputed. 


To state it negatively, all sin has already been forgiven; it is a mutually exclusive proposition to say that God has given the obedience of His Son to all, and to say as well that man’s sin is not forgiven until he does something, or until he believes it. 


The imputation of guilt did not require that the individual sin, nor that he believe himself a sinner; likewise the imputation of Christ’s obedience needs no work or belief of man to effect it or complete it. In sum, the sin of the whole world has already been forgiven."

There is no air left in the room when UOJ enters.

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Synodical Conference Navel Gazing - The Intrepid D...":

I hear a variation of that motto - "if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, them baffle them with BS". We know that the brilliance is not there.

UFOs Can Also Be Proven in the Book of Concord

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Introduction to the Deutschlander UOJ Essay, 1977":

Pr GJ.

This is where Prof Deustchlander's scholarship goes down the tubes. Note what he said ... But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them

First the admission of difficulty of establishing the theory without equivocation and then he goes into the brains of the BoC Fathers claiming so and so. He says, "they were apparently unaware"....?

I like to suggest to him that the BoC Fathers were unaware because they knew of only one justification that is JBFA.

This is wild and rampant anachronism and reckless abandonment to one's imagination also, an absolute argument from silence. Only a person bullied into submission can accept this argumentation.

If someone accepts this as evidence that UOJ should be believed, then I suggest by the same method, he accepts my proof that the BoC Fathers believed in UFOs also.

LPC