An ELCA pastor wrote the following on an ELCA facebook page which was discussing the movie "Son of God" -
"Not a great title in this era of increasingly aware inter-faith-sensitive folks who see Christian History as a history of violence done toward peoples of other faiths because Christians believed that their spokesperson or prophet was the Son of God (misunderstood to mean that Jesus was God). Son of God was originally attributed to Ceasar. The Christians wanted all to know that their allegiance was NOT to Ceasar, but to the Holy One to whom this itinerant Rabbi pointed. The One who sent me, Jesus would say. In other words, we need to make a theocentric move here in order to show consideration for our Muslim, Jewish, Hindhu, Buddhist....and all other friends. These kinds of Christocentric obsessive movies just continue to give the rest of us Christians a bad name." (reported by Lutheran CORE here and originally post from a closed ELCA facebook group here) It is this pastor and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that give Christians a bad name, but worse than that, they are leading people away from Truth, God's Word and Faith in God the Son.
3 Comments
Check out what these ELCA Synods are bolstering:
The Metropolitan Chicago Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is proudly promoting in their synod newsletter:
The Rocky Mountain Synod's newsletter from a few months ago promoted:
Three ELCA synods in Illinois and Lutheran Social Services of Illinois promote Lutheran Advocacy—Illinois, a justice ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Among the issues they advocate for are:
*Contributed to Exposing the ELCA by a seminary student*
I am purposely leaving my identity undisclosed for the time being. The reason is this article is not to be about me but to be heard as the voice of many fellow Orthodox Lutheran seminarians who may be suffering in silence, from their toxic experiences at “progressive”/ liberal ELCA seminaries. On the positive note of looking and praying to the future, I am delighted that groups like the NALC and the LCMC are taking great strides and concern in addressing Lutheran Seminary education. I pray as well that this expose on this particular school illumines how far away some people are getting from not only God’s Word but from what it means to be a Christ-Centered Pastor to disciple, feed your flock with the Good News to grow and go for God’s Will! First, I would like to thank Dan Skogen for inviting me to share with you about the crisis in Christian Leadership Education, not only how I experienced it, but to shed light on a pattern taking shape in theological education today. A part of the problem to begin with, is also a part of the solution; which brings me to sharing this, to be just one of many voices needing to be vocal, needing, for the sake of the Gospel! I am currently studying at an Evangelical seminary not a Lutheran seminary. This wasn’t where my journey began however… With the best of intentions I began answering my call from God to serve back in the fall of 2003 at the church of my conversion experience—Ebenezer Lutheran Church in Chicago. From the fall of 2003, I began to get involved from Bible studies to eventually Stephen’s Ministry, the Diakonia Program which would lead me to officially begin my seminary studies at X Lutheran School, the fall of 2008. As I’ve told people with both an air of grief and burden in my heart… I attended X Lutheran School part-time for four years in actuality but spiritually I was there full-time for four years. With the best of intentions, I had hoped not to be entangled in evil, polarizing politics and “party-line amoral theology” but this was what I would suffer there with seemingly no way out till my Pastor came with me to visit an Evangelical seminary up north to help me transfer out from X Lutheran School the summer of 2012. I had to both, for the sake of my calling from God and for my mental well-being, transfer out of this toxic and dare I say almost spiritually “satanic” environment as what I and others experienced at X Lutheran School. Before this begins to sound as a slanted discussion about X Lutheran School to which I am keeping the identity un-disclosed, I would like to make clear that there have been a significant number of peers I have talked to not only from X Lutheran School but from other “progressive”/ liberal Lutheran seminaries who are suffering in silence the injustice they are experiencing in these schools. Just over a year ago, the most tragic witness was a young man, who like myself, experienced political polarization, condemnation and oppression… but was too fragile to seek help and tragically took his life seeing the glass ceiling frankly oppress him to the point of no return, bereft of Hope… What I will be taking you through are some key theological issues, one by one, to what I saw as an educator, IS the crisis in Lutheran leadership education in America. Let us begin to define some critical key concepts. I don’t know how many people know that the Greek word for church is ἐκκλησία (Ecclesia) which also holds the verbal meaning: called out, summoned. In that same breathe, one of the most significant theological concepts taught in seminary is ecclesiology which is a nice ten dollar word meaning the study and practice of church theology for pastoral leaders. An even more tangible definition is to understand the notion of church as being a ‘culture of belief.’ A culture of belief is one well supported by education, by norms and standards. Luther basically tells us that schools are the preservers of the faith, of the church, quote: “When schools flourish, things go well and the church is secure. The youth is the church’s nursery and fountainhead. When we are dead, where are others to take our place, if there are no schools? God has preserved the church through schools. They are the preservers of the church.” So wouldn’t it be the fact then, that a Lutheran seminary charged with the critical task of equipping men and women such as myself, to be discipleship shepherds, stewards to building and growing the Lutheran faith of their flock be taught about the preservation of Lutheran Christianity and its Spiritual Formation hence reinforcing our culture of belief? No, liberal/progressive theologians and educators alike believe the answer is to fade and adapt into the world’s culture. This process of conformity or indoctrination more or less lends to and strengthens the amoral culture we are now immersed in, creating Lutheran-in-name-only robots who are more or less “chaplains” to the worldly culture and are not pastors for Christ. It was St. Paul who beckoned us to put on Christ and live into his humility in Philippians chapter two: (Philippians 2:1-5a) "1If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, 2make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus..." Going further with St. Paul’s discovery of our spiritual formation call, would be Thomas à Kempis in his devotional, the Imitation of Christ, quote: “As long as you live, you will be subject to change, whether you will it or not - now glad, now sorrowful; now pleased, now displeased; now devout, now un-devout; now vigorous, now slothful; now gloomy, now merry. But a wise person who is well taught in spiritual labor stands unshaken in all such things, and heeds little what they feel, or from what side the wind of instability blows.” Both St. Paul and Thomas à Kempis define not only what Christians are spiritually challenged to do but that this is a significant part of one’s spiritual formation to becoming a future pastoral leader. Soon I would come to discover that not only this wasn’t taught but that it would set myself and others apart from those in favor of softening law and gospel to cater to an amoral world culture where right and wrong are entirely subjective to the self and really no norms and standards apply … My new school has been a bittersweet joy for me, I love how immersed I have been in the Bible, I love their intense focus on Spiritual formation and pastoral care though my heart wonders and dreams… why can’t the Lutheran community make more of a presence with several seminaries being dedicated to Confessional, Orthodox, and Evangelical Lutheran Christianity especially in states where there is only one school? X Lutheran School was essentially the only game in town or in Illinois… Taking a stand as I had when I was studying at X Lutheran School, had gotten me embroiled into a giant, near “diabolical” political arena along with other peers mind you, either being condemned publically or by grades. In being targeted publically, I was basically never or very rarely asked to serve in the school’s worship rotation… I would soon notice that favored candidates by the synod and the school were given secret preferential treatment. These individuals would either be elevated here or given special internships… As I recall, one young man who was ordained about a year or so ago, was previous to that, given not only a two-year internship at his home church but ordained to serve his home church as his first call before he was finished… since he was implemental in talking his Northern Illinois congregation out of leaving the ELCA… I never entered seminary to become a politician but down there, I was labeled more or less with a scarlet letter that I’m a burgeoning “conservative” Lutheran and the “party-line” theology and philosophy of that school was ultra-liberal Lutheran “Unitarianism.” I use another ten dollar word, Unitarianism, in its philosophical use as a theological, post-modern movement away from the pillars of faith being our creedal understanding of a Trinitarian God and Jesus as both FULLY Divine and FULLY human. There are other topics stemming to this which I am planning to outline for you. In calling out the practices of the school to be “Lutheran Unitarianism” brings me to talk about skepticism (or apostasy) and agenda. Both of these words, are worlds in themselves theologically, but the two sub-categories to where skepticism was implemented to deconstruct theological norms or the walls to our culture of belief were Soteriology or Atonement theories and Theodicy. Yes, more ten-dollar words, definitions first: Soteriology or Atonement theories are creedal statements to understanding Christ’s work of Grace upon the Cross for our salvation. Classically and Confessionally, the Bible defines for us what would be known as Christus Victor, which literally means Christ victorious in Latin. Christus Victor’s atonement theory is that Christ bore the Cross to defeat sin, death and the devil for our Salvation. This would be adapted to a degree to our understanding along with Augustine’s that Christ taking our place illumines the power of Grace. Theodicy is a whole theological understanding in itself trying to reconcile and rationalize the reality of Satan and evil in the world as well as God’s response. Free Will theodicy has been where liberal theologians have essentially tried to erase the reality of Satan from our understanding of sin and evil in the world. Now with these definitions essentially defined, what did I experience at my former school about these two topics? In regards to atonement theory, I was taught that the prevailing ‘contemporary view’ of Christ’s work of the Cross is more or less, “the rejected prophet,” model since historical skepticism has taken the liberty of reinterpreting Jesus’ divinity to be both “blurry or murky” and may have only happened during certain events in the stories of the Bible such as John the Baptist’s Baptism of Jesus and Christ’s death upon the Cross. So let me get this straight… If it is planted in my head (as training to be a pastor…) that Jesus may or may not have been divine at all… what is his importance? Why would His Cross and Grace even matter? That’s where agenda comes in which we’ll take a closer look at later. Agenda being making Jesus into the Social Justice action figure donning the democratic party’ hat and all its ramifications… In speaking about theodicy comes from one of my more painful experiences at my former school where I was failed for a class around a paper I wrote challenging the prevailing free will theory that Satan is merely a metaphor… With concrete statements I proved that not only is Satan real, but even went as far as to quoting Luther himself! This particular Luther quote is rather ironic in light of our conversation today… Quote: “By God's grace, I know Satan very well. If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words—or the words of others?” Speaking further upon Luther’s quote: “If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures…” brings me to talk about agenda and theology—or “progressive”/ liberal education’s process of rounding out pastoral leadership training into chaplaincy to worldly culture. First agenda-based theology I was subjected to at X Lutheran School was Feminist Christology in the Systematic Theology class I had. Ok, you’re probably asking why would this be offensive or bordering on blasphemy for you? Well, we have obviously come to an understanding through the authority of Scripture that women served which I do champion. What I do not believe in and found rather disturbing in my Christology portion of the class is that we spent the entire unit on the identity and person of Christ either debating his sexuality or if he was made to express a bias against women… They would try to strengthen their argument through historically once again disproving and challenging scripture. One of the articles referenced below speaks directly to this. This is my Lord and Savior, how dare they challenge and question the legitimacy of his sexuality? It is disrespectful to our heavenly parent, that’s the first issue; secondly it is agenda by how it politicizes Christ to be quote, “politically correct.” Frankly I believe it is catering to the sin of pride and narcissism. I am woman, hear me roar! Please… I am first and foremost, a child of God, a human being created in His image, Imago Dei, just like you were as well. Another liberal theological movement within the Lutheran community is what is known as “pure Grace” preaching. My experience of it is that it is really a new label for cheap Grace preaching. This is definitely a “party-line” agenda indoctrinated into X Lutheran School most likely in step with the main synod’s wishes for parish ministry to completely conform to their “Lutheran-in-name-only” manufactured pastors. Before I talk about what happened to me there as well as a couple of other students… Let me define for you Costly Grace. Costly Grace is a term that comes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great 20th century Lutheran Pastor and martyr, who most excellently defines Christus Victor in light to our loving and Gracious response to a loving and Gracious God. A definition of Costly Grace as defined by Bonhoeffer himself is, quote: "cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. It is Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ." Or, even more clearly, it is to hear the gospel preached as follows: "Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness." The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship. In contrast to this is costly grace: costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." In tearing down this structure which empowers us to know profoundly the price Christ paid for our sins upon the Cross as well as removing the Law more or less which enables us to respond to God to confess and transform in light of the Gospel, is their solution to reaching out to the world. You can’t maintain however, our faith this way… it destroys the power and importance of Christ and trivializes him into a Lutheran Unitarian social justice figure head! This once again, is what got me into trouble down at X Lutheran School since I wrote sermons in their preaching class from a Costly Grace perspective. They only had preaching as pass or fail as well as they had one professor there who told me when I argued to set up a trial to refute the fail notice I was given that quote: “You obviously don’t want to learn my technique, so I can’t help you…” The greatest irony after receiving this grade and all the poor grades and support from them is that my new seminary, upon transferring, actually gave me some scholarships to help me attend… There were two other persons I knew who fought the “Pure-Grace preaching agenda” at X Lutheran School and of course did not get their grades reversed… One has left X Lutheran and went down the street to the University of Chicago’s Divinity School, the other peer I know recently suffered his endorsement being revoked upon his internship supervisor claiming he subconsciously plagiarized one of his sermons! He has since left the school with over $200,000 in student loans and a young daughter to support. He for the moment has given up to the tyrannical arm of that synod and the seminary! But then from what I have heard from many, is that black-balling is a common practice. My own theory upon this is that the true reality of hell is a graceless wilderness. It is graceless because if you turn away from even remotely coming to learn and grow spiritually what Grace actually means how on earth can you live it and give it? Satan’s rule upon us is through our personal greed and utter indifference to the Will of God and love to neighbor. In closing with the big picture: How does taught apostasy or skepticism, coupled with feminist Christology, Jesus the Rejected Prophet or Unitarian Lutheranism plus “Pure Grace” or cheap Grace preaching effect the future of the Lutheran church? What church… it will be gone, it will be destroyed unless voices begin to truly be vocal and Reformation takes a bolder march into the 21st century. It saddens me that there are peers out there who are too afraid to be vocal. I have to be vocal not just for my conscience but for the sake of the Gospel… I cannot turn the other way and completely look forward without beckoning for Reform! I am grateful to be in candidacy with a Reforming body of Lutherans who not only care deeply about Lutheranism but truly and most importantly, care deeply for the authority of Scripture and the centrality of Christ, Our Lord and Savior, Our Sanctifier and Redeemer! AMEN Definitions of all the "ten dollar words"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The ELCA must worship a God that has no power. A God that can not do miracles. A God that has to make up a birth story of His Son to make people believe He is special. A God that can not create a child in the womb of a virgin. That is the powerless, lying god of the ELCA.
Here is what the ELCA and many ELCA leaders are saying about the details of the birth of Christ -
A Pew Research Poll this week reports that "Roughly three-quarters of adults (73%) say they believe Jesus was born of a virgin.” (read here) But the people who are suppose to disciple us do not believe what God tells us in the Bible? Something is wrong here folks! Denying Scripture is not just an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America problem, just look to the ELCA's liberal Lutheran twin to the north. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC) pastor Dawn Hutchings has this to say about the Nativity account, "For this story is a parable and like all parable’s it represents a truth that cannot be fully expressed in words. Like all good parables the truth is not to be found in the details, but rather in the Spirit of God that breathed life into the parable. " (read here) Not believing the virgin birth account, Pastor Hutchings speculates that Jesus was the result of Mary being raped. She writes, “Some say the evidence is clear, if you’re willing to see it. After all there was a large cohort of Roman soldiers encamped near Nazareth. The people of Nazareth had participated in an uprising against their oppressors and the Roman’s had raided Nazareth in retaliation. There are numerous Jewish accounts of Roman raids that include details of strategic rapes. Could our young heroine be the victim of such a rape?” (read here) This Christmas (and beyond) please, please stay clear of these Bible-denying Lutheran denominations. (I received this the other day. It's written by Pastor Tom Brock) -
Today I walked through my old alma mater, Luther Theological Seminary in St Paul, Mn. It is known as probably the most conservative of the ELCA seminaries. You wouldn’t know it from the number of gay/lesbian bumper stickers in the parking lot. Upon entering the main building a sign was up promoting a new book at Luther’s Bookstore, “Pastrix” by ELCA Pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber. She was a favorite speaker at the ELCA Youth Assembly and a few months ago spoke at the historic Central Lutheran Church in downtown Minneapolis—using the “f” word in her speech. I flipped through her new book and she repeatedly uses the “f” word, referring to the 12 disciples as a “bunch of “f” ups”. Former ELCA Head Bishop Mark Hanson praises the book on the dustcover. Even more disturbing is that Bolz-Weber in a sermon on Christ the King Sunday denied that Christ died in our place to pay for our sins. To quote: And just to be clear: The cross is not about God as divine child abuser sadly sending his little boy off to be killed because we were bad and well, somebody had to pay. Can someone deny the things of “first importance” as Paul puts it in I Corinthians 15:3, and still be a Christian? Yet she is a favorite speaker at ELCA events. This attack on Christ’s substitutionary atonement is also going on at the ELCA’s Wartburg Seminary. Professor of New Testament David Lull wrote this: " . . .I can’t get past the idea that God had a thirst for innocent blood that had to be quenched, or that God’s justice required a death-penalty for sinners until Jesus’ death satisfied God’s wrath. Even if Bible passages can be made to support these ideas, I can’t get past the idea that God had been unforgiving before Jesus died. That’s not the God I find in the Bible." “Even if” the Bible teaches it, Professor Lull rejects it. So now the day has come that the ELCA allows pastors and professors to deny the central teaching of the Christian faith: that sinless Jesus Christ died in our place to pay for our sins so that we could receive the forgiveness of God. Like I said, a very sad day walking through Luther Seminary. Jim Hazelwood, Bishop of the New England Synod of the ELCA went to a youth camp this summer and taught the heresy of universalism to the 450 youth in attendance. The bishop held what he called, “Text and Talk with the Bish” where he invited the youth to text him any questions and then stood before them for 15 minutes and answered many of the texts he received.
Bishop Hazelwood blogged about his heretical teaching, sharing that one student texted, “Do you think god sends nonbelievers to hell?” Bishop Hazelwood gave this answer to the youth, “No, I don't think God sends nonbelievers to hell, because God is not in that business. Plus it's not about what we believe, it's about the fact that God believes in us." (read here) What kind of answer is, “God believes in us”? And it doesn't matter what we believe? Bishop, you are teaching the non-Biblical belief of universalism, the belief that all people will be saved. People of the ELCA, do you see the damage this teaching will do to the 450 youth listening and the countless number of people who hear this belief that is constantly spouted within the ELCA? Bishop Hazelwood's statement is downright false, deceiving, dangerous and against Christian teaching. God tells us in John 1:12, “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” Over the past day I've been getting a number of comments in support of Dr. Wil Gafney, an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, an ELCA Seminary. The people writing recently found a blog I wrote back in May regarding a blog written by Dr. Gafney where she posted a picture of Jesus as a female. (read my blog here) Those who commented thought the picture was great. They expressed that Dr. Gafney is a wonderful professor and attempted to justify what she did and wrote. Many of them justified the female Jesus picture by pointing to the verse where Jesus says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” - Matt. 23:37. Somehow, because Jesus referenced a female chicken, these people think Jesus was a woman.
Some of the comments I received: From an ELCA pastor – Dr. Gafney's “. . . teaching and preaching build up the faith and instill a deep interest in knowing more about our Scriptures, something you sadly know nothing about. Go and educate yourself.” From another ELCA pastor - “Do you honestly have so little imagination that you cannot see that God is greater than gender, color or race? Your God is too small, too white and too male as far as I can tell.” “I am so glad that ELCA pastors in training are being taught by Dr. Gafney. Too few seminarians are learning robust feminist and womanist theologies . . .” “I think Dr. Gafney is one of our most gifted and prophetic voices in our church.” “It troubles me that my beloved church may actually have paid for your education which you are now abusing in order to propagate such flawed and hateful statements. Shame shame on you.” “Clearly the author of this reflection is at best novice and at worst ignorant of how social realities impact theological reflection. Please spend time doing something more productive than objecting to the scholastic innovation that comes from Dr. Gafney.” “I think the Christa image is beautiful and thought-provoking.” “The Rev. Dr. Gafney opens up, by her meticulous scholarship, access to images of God that are not only scriptural but deeply needed in a world that is increasingly polarized by racist, sexist and homophobic agendas.” Most of the people who support Dr. Gafney's female Jesus picture are liberals who warp Christianity and Scripture to their own liking so much so that many of them do not even worship the God of the Bible anymore. In their lost-ness, they would likely still sing Dr. Gafney's praises even in view of the professor's belief that Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, is the Holy Spirit. (see here) I'm not joking. As you can see, that is what she believes. Is this thinking and foundation for teaching “scholastic innovation” and “meticulous scholarship?” No. It's heresy! People in the ELCA need to know what is happening in their church and what their leaders are teaching. The ELCA is responsible for the professors they hire. Today we are going to look at an ELCA professor who teaches at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Her name is Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney, and she is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament. Dr. Gafney, in her blog about a young actress, posted a picture of Jesus as a woman and said this, “And the world that lynched a Jewish single mother's child simply can't handle God in black female body. (See Janet McKenzie's iconic image of Jesus using a black woman as Christ/a.)” (see image and quote here)
How many ways can an ELCA Seminary Professor be wrong in just one sentence? And, how is it okay to post a purposely false representation of God the Son? What kind of teacher would do that? Jesus was male and presenting Him as female is blaspheming Jesus and dishonoring God and the Truth. Not surprisingly the ELCA seems to be perfectly fine with this. It has been reported that Dr. Mary Streufert, the ELCA Director for Justice for Women, from the Office of the Presiding Bishop did the same thing. (see here) Let's now go back and analyze what else Dr. Gafney said in the sentence quoted above. She said that Jesus was “lynched.” That is not true. She said Mary was “single.” That is false, Mary in all likelihood was a widow, not single at the time of Jesus crucifixion. Do I even need to address the Professor calling Jesus “Christa?” Someone wrote this comment to Dr. Gafney upon reading her article, “Thank you for an image of Jesus that will help me to continue in my studies to be a pastor in a church that still believes Jesus was white and God is a Father. Highly respected theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. had this to say about seminaries, “Theological education is a deadly serious business. The stakes are so high. A theological seminary that serves faithfully will be a source of health and life for the church, but an unfaithful seminary will set loose a torrent of trouble, untruth, and sickness upon Christ’s people. Inevitably, the seminaries are the incubators of the church’s future. The teaching imparted to seminarians will shortly be inflicted upon congregations, where the result will be either fruitfulness or barrenness, vitality or lethargy, advance or decline, spiritual life, or spiritual death.” (read here) Read these articles to see what other sickness and untruth the unfaithful ELCA seminaries are setting loose upon God's people. (here) Last month transgender ELCA pastor Megan Rohrer wrote an article that was posted on the ELCA website, Living Lutheran. It was also promoted by the Southeastern Synod of the ELCA on Facebook. The article contained some troubling statements that go against Scriptural Truth.
Statement number one: In universalistic fashion the author stated (and was quoted by the Southeastern Synod Facebook page) "You don’t have to be Lutheran to believe that all children are worthy of food, but it is beautifully Lutheran to see all people as children of God." (see here) Note the line, “it is beautifully Lutheran to see all people as children of God.” Boy that sounds nice. . . but the fact of the matter is it's utterly and completely false. That belief has its basis in universalism, an un-Biblical teaching, prevalent within the ELCA, that all people are saved and going to heaven. (read more about the ELCA and universalism here) God's Word tells us who the children of God are and who are not. - This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. - 1 John 3:10 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - John 1:12 - Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” - John 8:42-47 As you can see Scripture clearly tell us that some people are not children of God. But that is hard for liberal ELCA leaders to accept because it goes against their universal non-Biblical salvation theology. Statement number 2: Remembering that the author thinks all people are children of God, he/she writes: “I hope these words will remind you that the God who named and claimed you, loves you more than there are grains of sand in the world and despite all the flaps and folds you may see when you look in the mirror, God declares that you are good.” Yet Jesus tells us in Mark 10:18 “No one is good—except God alone." The Bible also says: - “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” - Romans 3:11-18 - If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! - Matthew 7:11 No one but God is good. People need to receive and believe in Christ to become “children of God.” (John 1:12) When was the last time you heard that in the ELCA? People scoff when conservative Lutherans point to goddess worship happening in the ELCA. The scoffers either do not believe it or think it is very isolated. They are wrong. (see here)
Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, an ELCA Seminary. She is an ordained Episcopal priest who teaches the future leaders and pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (see her school bio here) In a Dr. Gafney blog dated February 11, 2013 the seminary professor compiled some questions she would like to ask the prophet Elijah. She said: “When you killed the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal but not the four hundred prophets of Asherah was it because you really didn’t mind a little goddess worship on the side? Are we feminists right in saying that Asherah was just the Canaanite articulation of the Holy Spirit and not really another God?” (see here) First, Dr. Gafney doesn't know if the prophets of Asherah were spared by Elijah that day or if they were even present at the referred to gathering. We do know that 1 Kings 19:1 says Elijah “had killed all the prophets with the sword.” So it seems more likely that they were killed with the prophets of Baal if they were there. Secondly, and the reason for my blog, did you hear professor Gafney reveal that she believes: Asherah is the Holy Spirit, not another god? This is completely false. Yet that is what she publicly proclaims. I can not believe the ELCA would allow a professor who thinks this way to teach their future leaders. The Bible says this about Asherah:
So, if it's wrong (and it is) why isn't the ELCA leadership stopping it and why are they letting people who believe it be instructors in their seminaries? Professors at Wartburg Theological Seminary (ELCA) are known to promote and teach universalism. Dr. Duane Priebe, Professor of Systematic Theology at Wartburg wrote this in the first printing of the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible, “Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or ever know about him (5:3-10; 25:31-45).” page 1658. Wartburg professor Dr. David J. Lull, Professor of New Testament, published an article where he said, "Jesus did not have to die as a condition of God’s forgiveness of sins. Mark knew that Jesus knew that God had always forgiven the sins of 'many/all,' and that God would keep on forgiving their sins." (see here)
Today we will look at and quote from a sermon given at Wartburg Theological Seminary, in the chapel, by Rev. Dr. Craig Nessan. Dr. Nessan is the Academic Dean and Professor of Contextual Theology at the ELCA seminary. On February 27, 2013, during Dr. Nessan's sermon, he went into a strange diatribe on salvation, saying that some people think they know who will be saved. At one point Dr. Nessan, in my view, seemed to be mocking God with a number of statements including this, “God knows who deserves to live and who deserves to die.” This was Dr. Nessan's way of setting up his view of salvation for those listening (future ELCA pastors). The scripture readings for Dr. Nessan's sermon came from Luke 13:22-31 and 2 Chronicles 20:1-20, to which he called the later “texts of terror.” Luke 13:29 says, “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.” From this verse Dr. Nessan switches to the 2 Chronicles passage concerning the country of Judah and tells the students that the people to the east, west, north and south are the Ammonites, Philistines, Syrians, and Moabites. This was another step in Dr. Nessan's leading his listeners in his universalist way of thinking, by associating these peoples, who worship false-gods, with those who would inherit salvation. Completing his plan, teaching and leading the seminarians toward universalism, Dr. Nessan refers to Luke 13:24 where Jesus says, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door . . .” and Dr. Nessan concludes, “It makes me wonder, what is the shape of that narrow door? Who gets in if the narrow door is shaped like the cross? Who gets in if its shaped like the 'loaf?' Who gets in if its shaped like the 'cup?' Who gets in when it is given and shed for you, to the east? And given and shed for you to the west? And given and shed for you to the north and to you to the south? Given and shed for all for the forgiveness of sins?” (listen here) Dr. Nessan failed to proclaim and uphold God's Truth revealed in Scripture. He taught heresy to future pastors and untold lives will be adversely affected because of this. God clearly tells us his plan for salvation and how one is saved. John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.” John 1:12 tells us, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” (Also see Romans 10:9-10, Romans 3:21, John 8:24.) God tells us we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), and it is not Dr. Nessan's dangerous false-doctrine of universalism. After hearing the sermon, one seminarian on Facebook said, “Chapel at WTS messed me all up today. I think that is a good thing.” Responding to the seminarian's comment, an ELCA pastor said tellingly, "Jesus Christ is present in . . . religions." Why would a Christian denomination pay a lecturer to speak at their events who does not believe Jesus physically rose from the dead? Why would the same denomination recommend and use that lecturer's teaching resources when he doesn't even believe God exist? Those are good questions every lay person should be asking the leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The lecturer I am referring to is John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (read about it here) and popular New Testament scholar. Let me first show you the multitude of ways the ELCA has sought Crossan and provided access to his teachings, then we will document some specifics of what this man teaches and believes.
What does John Dominic Crossan teach and believe? “Crossan says Jesus was an exploited 'peasant with an attitude' who didn't perform many miracles, physically rise from the dead or die as punishment for humanity's sins. Jesus was extraordinary because of how he lived, not died, says Crossan” (read here). The following are quotes by John Dominic Crossan from his book Who Is Jesus? (found here) "Do I personally believe in an afterlife? No, but to be honest, I do not find it a particularly important question one way or the other." "Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us." "Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets.' Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God." "In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life." “The second coming will not be literal. The second coming is what will happen when we Christians accept that there was only one coming and get with the program.” (see here) During this debate, we find out Crossan doesn't even believe in the actual existence of God - “(Dr. William Lane) Craig: But surely that’s not a meaningless question. It’s a factual question. Was there a being who was the Creator and Sustainer of the universe during the period of time when no human beings existed? It seems to me that in your view you’d have to say no. Crossan: Well, I would probably prefer to say no because what you’re doing is trying to put yourself in the position of God and ask, 'How is God apart from revelation? How is God apart from faith?'” (see here) More Crossan quotes - “In conclusion, what is the historicity of the burial account [of Jesus]? From Roman expectations, the body of Jesus and of any others crucified with him would have been left on the cross as carrion [dead and putrefying flesh] for the crows and the dogs. From Jewish expectations, would not Deuteronomy 21:22-23 have been followed? Maybe, but only the barest maybe… But, even if it was, the soldiers who crucified Jesus probably would have done it, speedily and indifferently, in a necessary shallow and mounded grave rather than a rock-hewn tomb. That would mean lime, at best, and the dogs again, at worst.” (Who Killed Jesus?, 187, 188) by John Dominic Crossan “The tales of entombment and resurrection were latter-day wishful thinking. Instead, Jesus’ corpse went the way of all abandoned criminals bodies: it was probably barely covered with dirt, vulnerable to the wild dogs that roamed the wasteland of the execution grounds.” John Dominic Crossan as quoted in Richard N. Ostling, “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time, 10 January 1994. What others say about John Dominic Crossan - Hank Hanegraaff, Christian radio host says this about Crossan - "Jesus Seminar cofounder John Dominic Crossan claims that there were dozens of virgin birth stories circulating in Greek and Roman mythology during the first century. Says Crossan, 'They’re all over Greek and Roman mythology, so what do I do? Do I believe all of those stories, or do I say all of those stories are lies except for our Christian story?'" “The truth of the matter is that historical evidence for the veracity of extrabiblical virgin birth stories is nil.” (read here). - Dennis Ingolfsland writes this of Crossan - “Jesus was a 'peasant Jewish Cynic,' who never thought of Himself as the Jewish Messiah, much less the Son of God or the Savior of the world. This is the view held by John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, reputed to be one of the world’s leading experts on the historical study of Jesus. According to Crossan and others who share his view, Jesus was simply an itinerant preacher who taught that the kingdom of God had to do with how the world would be run if God sat on Caesar’s throne. Jesus’ ministry had nothing to do with helping people find God, salvation, or heaven.” (see here) - Father Robert Barron, writing about Crossan says - “How does Crossan explain the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? They are, he says, essentially 'parables,' figurative representations of the disciples’ conviction that Jesus’ way was more powerful than the Roman way. They were never meant to be taken literally but rather as poetic inspirations for the succeeding generations of Jesus’ followers. How does he explain the church’s dogma of Jesus’ divinity? It is, essentially, a misleading overlay that effectively obscures the dangerous truth of who Jesus really was: a threat to the cultural, religious and political status quo.” (see here) - Video of Dr. William Lane Craig answering a question about John Dominic Crossan's view on the resurrection of Jesus. (only 5 min. long) - Here is a review of Crossan's book JESUS - A Revolutionary Biography by KIRKUS REVIEW “Here, we get a politically correct Christ stripped of all mythology, a revolutionary social leader who taught 'radical egalitarianism' but performed no miracles, except that of awakening social consciousness (Crossan reads Jesus' casting out of demons as a blow against colonialism). This is, then, the Jesus of liberation theology, not of the Christian scholarly mainstream (up to now, Crossan has been best known for another unconventional and little-accepted theory, positing the existence of a 'cross gospel' that predates the passion narratives of the canonical texts). As usual, Crossan's scholarship is good, with a command of cultural anthropology, Greco-Roman history, and textual analysis. Eyebrows will rise often, though, as he goes beyond facts into conjecture: Jesus `did not and could not cure...disease' despite his laying-on-of-hands; Jesus never met Pilate or Caiaphas; the Barabbas tale is fiction (a dismissal based largely on Crossan's subjective reading of Pilate's personality), as are the Last Supper, the Raising of Lazarus, the Virgin Birth, etc. Moreover, at his most extreme, Crossan suggests that Jesus' body, far from being resurrected, was probably buried in a shallow grave and eaten by dogs.” (see here) - Mark Allan Powell writes - “Most Christians are aware that Jesus does many things in the New Testament that fulfill prophecies of the Old Testament. Skeptical scholars suggest that, in some instances, the Gospel writers are creating facts about Jesus in order to have him fulfill the prophecies. Thus, they invented the story of the virgin birth because Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin bearing a son, and they decided to say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Micah 5:2 indicates the Messiah will be born there. While a number of scholars may allow that such influences come into play here or there, John Dominic Crossan thinks that much (most?) of the Gospel accounts of Jesus came about this way--including everything in his last week of life. According to Crossan, all the Gospel writers knew about that last week was that Jesus got grabbed by the Romans and crucified (possibly, according to Crossan, he was just caught up in a mob of Jewish rabble that got crucified for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Gospel writers, Crossan thinks, made up the rest--the stories about Jesus’ trial before Pilate, about the release of Barabbas, about Simon of Cyrene, the thief on the cross, the centurion’s confession, the burial in a garden, and of course the resurrection--the Gospel writers made it all up out of nothing to show that Jesus had fulfilled a bunch of Old Testament prophecies.” (see here) There we have it. ELCA leaders seek out this kind of teacher (and others who think similarly, like Marcus Borg – see here). Is it any wonder the ELCA leadership has abandoned Biblical truth for their own “truth” or is this just a result of it? Heretics have control of the ELCA leadership and they teach in their seminaries. Pray for them and also for the people sitting in ELCA pews who they are trying to influence and bring toward their heretical beliefs. Once again an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America leader publically denies Jesus’ virgin birth and Scripture’s nativity accounts, and ELCA leadership allows it. Because of this, I sadly tell you that the ELCA is no longer a Christian denomination.
David Lose, a professor and the director of the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary (ELCA) recently authored an article titled, “Is the Christmas Story trustworthy?” In the article, Professor Lose writes, “I would argue that . . . the gospel writers undoubtedly play fast and loose with the various stories, sayings, and incidents they inherited. . .” (see here) Lose goes on to say how the gospel writers “craft” their stories and should be viewed “more as artists than as historians.” Lose wants us to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John made up their gospel accounts, that the gospel writers lied in order to share some “bigger” spiritual truth. Prof. Lose isn’t the first ELCA leader to recently say this. Just a few weeks ago Exposing the ELCA reported on Rev. Dr. Don Carlson, an Assistant to the Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod, who stated, “I think that the stories are made up. (I’m retiring at the end of May anyway so don’t waste time with the heresy accusations.) They are myth” and later he advises, “tell the old mythic story in a way that that it is heard anew.” Highly controversial scholar Marcus Borg, who has made a nice living speaking at ELCA events and writing for ELCA publications, audaciously says, “The stories of Jesus' birth are myths”. (see here) The ELCA’s official website even encouraged debate and questioned the truth of Christ’s Virgin Birth. (see here) The ELCA has the power to stop this heretical teaching in its churches and in its seminaries. Yet they do not. There is a “crime” being committed against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the ELCA is driving the get-away car. They are an accomplice; allowing this teaching is an endorsement of the teaching. What are we to think of all this? Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Seminary had this to say regarding the Virgin Birth, “Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no . . . We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching. Millard Erickson states this well: ‘If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.’ Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.” “This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.” (read here) Dr. Mohler, in a different article says, “The presence of theologians and pastors who deny the virgin birth in the theological seminaries and pulpits of the land is evidence of the sweeping tide of unbelief that marks so many institutions and churches in our time. . .Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological(ly) incompetent.” “Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.” “No true Christian can deny the virgin birth.” (read here) So with that said, where does that leave a denomination that teaches and/or is accepting of the teaching that the Christmas story and the Virgin Birth are not actually true? If what Dr. Mohler said is true for an individual, it is also true for an institution. The ELCA is no longer Christian. What do you know . . . An ELCA leader doesn’t believe what the Bible says; this time its about Jesus’ birth. Surprise and Merry Christmas! (Do they celebrate Christmas in the ELCA any longer?)
Here is what was said by Rev. Dr. Don Carlson, Assistant to the Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod, concerning the two accounts of Jesus’ birth in the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke: “They are very different stories which are quite incompatible with one another. . .I certainly do not believe they are ‘historical’ in any modern understanding of historicity. . .I think that the stories are made up. (I’m retiring at the end of May anyway so don’t waste time with the heresy accusations.) They are myth” (read here). Here is what Rev. Carlson had to say about Christ being born of a virgin: “Focusing on the virgin birth issue, we need to remember that accounts of virgin or miraculous births were not uncommon antiquity. However, we also need to remember that such accounts were intended to express something about the character of the person born. They were a ‘character reference’ or ‘credentials.’ They were not intended to explain where the individual got 23 of his or her chromosomes. An understanding of fertilization and pregnancy in antiquity was, let’s say, ‘agrarian’ at best.” (read in the same article linked above) Toward the end of his blog/article Rev. Carlson gives this advice to pastors: “tell the old mythic story in a way that. . . it is heard anew”. In order to prove his points in the blog, the Assistant to the Bishop recommends a discussion of the birth narratives by the controversial Marcus Borg. (find out more about him here) Pastor Steve Shipman, director of LutheranCORE addresses those who teach like Rev. Carlson. Rev. Shipman wrote: “If a person chooses not to believe the Virgin Birth, they are free to do so. But they have no right then to claim to be a teacher or believer in Christianity. The faith once delivered to the saints is not a cafeteria from which we can pick and choose what pleases us. If Jesus were born in the usual way, then what does it mean that He is 'the Word made flesh'? How can God be his Father in the way the Church has always proclaimed, if he is biologically the child of both Mary and Joseph (or even, as certain blasphemous legends suggest, of Mary and some other man)? Some early Christians made arguments for what is called ‘adoptionism,’ which taught that Jesus wasn’t born Son of God but was adopted into that role at his baptism by John. This was quickly rejected as heresy, because then the good news of the Incarnation simply can’t stand. And it does matter for our salvation that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’ It does matter that ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ If Jesus is just a good human being, even a perfect human being, He cannot save us but would only have saved Himself. But because He is God among us, taking our humanity into the life of the Holy Trinity, we have a marvelous hope for this life and the next.” (read here) What I am reporting isn’t just one ELCA leader preaching heresy. No. Rev. Carlson’s article was posted on the website and blog of Michael Rinehart, bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Bishop Rinehart is responsible for the article’s posting on his blog and he is culpable for what it says. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson, the ELCA’s Church Council and all high-ranking ELCA leaders are also responsible and culpable for what he (and others) say and/or for allowing theologically false-teaching to be preached. Allowing this heresy is the same as promoting it yourself. They are accomplices and are leading people away from God’s Truth and way from Christ. People who don’t believe basic Christian truths and historic stories in the Bible are running the ELCA, teaching in the seminaries, preaching in the pulpits and “teaching” you about Christianity. Honestly, I believe Satan has infiltrated the ELCA and placed his people in leadership positions. Here’s some more information on Assistant to the Bishop Rev. Dr. Don Carlson:
Have you ever had someone tell you that Jesus didn’t understand some of the things going on and happening around Him? Or that our Lord and Savior was in need of correction? Have you had a pastor tell you that the One who said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), needed help figuring out God’s will? That is what Rev. Delmer Chilton, an assistant to the bishop of the Southeastern Synod of the ELCA, wrote in an article that was posted by the ELCA’s Living Lutheran website.
Rev. Chilton, in discussing Mark 7:24-37, wrote, “What if Jesus was the one who did not fully understand and needed some help interpreting God’s will and way in this case? Maybe Jesus needed to have his vision cleared and his worldview adjusted so that he could see just exactly how large God’s love is.” Later he states, “(Jesus) has failed to remember” God’s promise. Rev. Chilton goes on to say, “. . . Jesus stands corrected . . .the woman has helped Jesus to understand a difficult part of the Scripture and a difficult part of his call. The further Jesus goes in his ministry the deeper his understanding of his mission becomes. And this deeper understanding is a result of his encounters with people who aren’t afraid to confront him with hard and difficult truths.” Finally he states, “The good news of God’s grace and love changes people. It heals them, changes their relationships, changes the way they see right and wrong, rich and poor, us and them. It even changed Jesus and the way he saw the world and the way he saw himself in it.” (see here) This is not true and not Biblical. It is incredibly wrong that a high leader in the ELCA publicly teaches this, let alone thinks it. A gentlemen going by the name “Davey” commented on Rev. Chilton’s article saying, “I have never considered before that Jesus did anything by accident. I have never thought of Jesus learning anything from any one. Jesus knew answers before questions were asked. He told people where they have been, where they were going, and healed their sickness without being told of the symptoms. He spoke and the elements obeyed. Why would Jesus need to find out how large God’s love is when Jesus demonstrated that He is in fact…God? Driving a wedge between God the Father and God the Son seems an inadequate and un-Biblical way to define Jesus. Jesus was not on a fact finding mission to take notes from earthlings so He could better understand how God the Father wanted Him to act. Is this yet another new theology coming from the leadership of the church?” (read here) |
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Dan Skogen
Former ELCA seminary student and former ELCA member who is fed up with the ELCA's consistent mockery of God's Word. If you have been helped and blessed by Exposing the ELCA's ministry, please help us continue to proclaim the truth of God's Word to ELCA members who need to hear it.
Give online by clicking the "donate" button below: Categories
All
Archives
May 2024
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. - Ephesians 5:11
|