An ELCA Missionary Who Doesn't Want To Change People

3/30/2014

By Pastor Tom Brock of pastorsstudy.org. Facebook users can follow Pastor Brock by going here or twitter users here.

Rachel Swenson is a 2013 graduate of the ELCA’s St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minn. This year she is serving in Vryheid, South Africa, with the ELCA Young Adults in Global Mission program. She recently wrote an item for the ELCA’s blog “Living Lutheran” (find it at www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2014/02/140220b-On-accompaniment). Here is part of what she said:

For those of you who are unaware, accompaniment is the ELCA Young Adults in Global Mission buzz word. While my technical job title is missionary of the ELCA, I am not a traditional missionary. The job of the 60 YAGM scattered across the globe is to accompany — to walk with the people in our new communities, to share their sorrows, their victories…
We are not sent to fix, to change, or to rectify. We are sent to live, sent to grieve with our brothers and sisters, sent to find God in seemingly hopeless situations. We are sent to live, sent to dance with grandmothers and teetering toddlers, sent to witness God in all her splendor.

Yes, she said “God in all her splendor.” If you read her entire article, she doesn’t mention the word “Jesus.” There is no word about evangelism or bringing people to saving faith in Christ. Its all about “accompaniment.” Put this alongside the fact that the ELCA’s national magazine “The Lutheran” recently printed an article by Pastor Peter Marty called “Who Gets Saved?” His answer is that pretty much everybody is saved, whether they believe in Jesus or not. Little wonder young adult ELCA missionaries are confused and unable to share the Gospel.

For the record, Lutherans believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). At least we have believed that for 500 years, but things are changing in the ELCA.

13 Comments

Didaskalos link

4/1/2014 12:09:42 am

Even though the ELCA is busy deconstructing Jesus, voting in its conventions to nullify His Word, and peddling heretical universalism, other Lutheran denominations take the Lord of the Church, His Word, and His Great Commission seriously.

“. . . The goal of The Wittenberg Project is to honor our Lutheran heritage as we approach the 500th anniversary of the Reformation by nurturing and strengthening the faith of Christians and introducing the Christian faith to non-Christians . . .

“What can be more exciting and worthwhile than helping to deepen the faith of Christians and introducing the faith to non-Christians — and doing it in the very place used by God to restore the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ to the church and to the world 500 years ago?” . . .

"Recently the Rev. Dr. Albert B. Collver, director of LCMS Church Relations, discovered an article in a large German newspaper detailing why 95 percent of German people have stopped attending church. The reason? Because the state church stopped preaching the Gospel. . . .

“Lutherans in the U.S. should care that a record low number of people regularly hear the Gospel in Wittenberg,” said LCMS President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison. “We ought to care that there is not a conservative Lutheran option for Christians in Wittenberg — and we are planting a congregation there. We ought to care that the true faith was rediscovered by Luther in Wittenberg, our catechism was written there, Luther preached several thousand sermons there, and now for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, we will be there confessing the very same faith — not watered down, not post-modernized, not deconstructed — that Luther himself believed and confessed: Christ the God-man, for all.”

http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/wittenberg-project-to-open-doors -- "Wittenberg Project to open doors for evangelism"

Kathy Suarez

4/1/2014 04:14:25 am

When I first read this article about being nice to people in other countries, I missed "God in all her splendor." (Guess it's not a typo.) Are ELCAites allowed to use pronouns in reference to God? Here is part of a newsletter from Pastor Gladys Moore of St John's (ELCA) in Summit, NJ. --

"God has assured us that God’s word, given to us believers in word and sacrament, will not return to God empty but will accomplish all that God wants it to....

"... Please join us for these times of renewal as we open our hearts to God’s life-giving water, praying that God lead us out of our spiritually dry, wilderness places into resurrection life. May this Lenten season be a time for us to rediscover who we are as God’s people at St. John’s, and to risk using all that God has given us to help re-create this world into a place of justice and peace for all.

"... For like the snow, God’s word that named and claimed you in baptism as a beloved son or daughter will not return to God empty; it will accomplish all that God intends to do in and through you and your precious life."

4/1/2014 06:52:37 am

ELCAnites, masters of Bible-nullifying traditions, disdainfully eschew Jesus' choice of pronouns for His Father: "You've never known Him, but I know Him. If I were to say I don't know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know Him, and I keep His word." [John 8:55]

Jesus uses more masculine pronouns for His Father in three short sentences than you're likely to find in an ELCA hymnal plus all ELCA presiding bishops' press releases combined.

Yoshitaka

4/7/2014 02:06:29 am

In my Japanese Bible, the pronouns for God are not "he," though gendered pronouns do exist in Japanese. Rather (to use the John 8:55 reference) it is the neutral (neither masculine nor feminine) "that one." Other passages would use what could perhaps be translated into English as "its" (note: this is not as impersonal as it may sound in English). So is my Japanese Lutheran (Christian) tradition disdainful in not using a masculine pronoun for God? Or is this all a matter of linguistics? [Same would go for French or German, with masculine and feminine pronouns used for the context of masculine or feminine nouns]

Eric Ash

4/1/2014 08:03:10 am

When I was in an ELCA seminary, and this was nearly 30 years ago, we were given guidelines telling us not to write papers or sermons using personal pronouns for God, especially male personal pronouns. Some of the older professors still said "He," but many went through the linguistics contortions like the above comment shared, and some professors reveled in calling God "Her." In chapel when we prayed "Our Father," you could hear some people shout "Our Mother." Hymns were similarly bowdlerized. It was tough being an orthodox Lutheran then, and we know it is worse now.

Bob S. link

4/1/2014 03:05:44 pm

I've been a Lutheran pastor for 32 years beginning in the ALC and then three difficult years in the ELCA. In my estimation the reason the ELCA and other mainline denominations are 'dismantling Jesus' and the gospel is because of a very low view of scripture beginning with Genesis 1:1 to Rev. 21:22. As I was taught at Luther Seminary the bible has mistakes, contradictions and insertions from the early church, it is NOT inerrant or infallible. Man's opinion has more authority than God's word. So open bible insert mistakes and pull out immorality and universalism and a whole lot more. Any denomination that does not view the bible as inerrant in headed down the same slop as the ELCA.
I agree with didaskalos that there are Lutherans who stand on the inerrant word preach salvation by grace through grace alone. I'm one of many who has left the ELCA and joined the American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC). Thanks Dan for posting this link on your Facebook page.

Kathy S

4/7/2014 04:31:09 am

Yoshitaka --

This really has nothing to do with linguistics -- it has to do with theology. The ELCA and other liberal denominations are trying to undermine the "masculinity" of God (obviously, God is neither masculine nor feminine), which undermines His masculine attributes of strength, leadership, etc., etc. This in turn undermines the family and the church. Women's Ordination is also part of this problem, although I know many will disagree here.

4/7/2014 01:26:08 pm

Jesus regularly, frequently refers to His Father as, well, His Father:

"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing His work."

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

"Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

So if the Bible is substituting a pronoun for the noun "Father," what other pronouns logically apply other than "He" or "Him or "His"? And these are the pronouns Jesus uses.

See also: "Is God Male?" -- http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1165

1. God is referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.”
2. God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.”
3. This does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns have always had the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female, just as “Man” has been used for centuries to refer to both men and women (1978, 120[10]:154). . . .

But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but rather with what God tells us to do. C.S. Lewis addressed this point in his book, God in the Dock:

"Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?

"Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable (1970, p. 237)."

Scripture makes it clear: “O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.... Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, ‘He made me not’; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, ‘He hath no understanding’?” (Isaiah 64:8; 29:16). Since when does the clay have the right to dictate to the potter or override his decisions? As a believer in God and His inspired Word, and yet as one speaking from an inherently masculine viewpoint, Lewis went on to say:

"We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.... It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer.... A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles... (1970, pp. 237-238)."

It is not man’s (or woman’s!) place to question God’s sovereign authority or divine will; neither falls under mankind’s jurisdiction. As Kreeft and Tacelli noted: “One issue is whether we have the authority to change the names of God used by Christ, the Bible and the church.

The traditional defense of masculine imagery for God rests on the premise that the Bible is divine revelation, not culturally relative, negotiable and changeable” (1994, p. 98). Christ Himself left us the perfect example (as He always did) when He said: “Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name” (Matthew 6:9). The fact that biblical designations of God are placed within the specific framework of the masculine settles the matter once and for all. It simply is not a matter up for discussion.

4/7/2014 02:11:32 pm

Well, Didaskalos, how do you answer the critics who say that biblical Israel was a patriarchal society therefore God is presented in masculine terms. You can't just fall back on "The Bible says so."

4/7/2014 09:28:09 pm

I say it's a red herring, Kathy. The kind of society Israel was is not the determiner for the Bible's saying exactly what the Bible says. And, yes, I can and and will fall back on "the Bible says so" because it's a matter of what the Bible is to a Christian. Is it the Word of God or does it (as the apostate liberal churches say) CONTAIN the Word of God, in which case a liberal church denomination can sit in judgment on the clear language of the Bible, just as those denominations have sat and continue to sit in judgment on what's sin and what isn't sin. Dan's website has a profusion of instances in which the ELCA has capriciously amended God's Word.

The article I cited earlier says:

". . .From an authoritative standpoint, as Singleton pointed out earlier, God is referred to hundreds of times throughout Scripture by masculine names and masculine pronouns—but never is given a feminine name or referred to by feminine pronouns. Thomas Rees, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, addressed the matter of God as the ultimate authority figure when he wrote that “the essential nature of God, and His relation to men, is best expressed by the attitude and relation of a father to his children; but God is Father in an infinitely higher and more perfect degree than any man” (1955, 2:1261). K.C. Moser, in his book, Attributes of God, stated emphatically that “this manner of referring to God is significant” (1964, p. 12). Indeed it is. While those who were involved in the false religions that surrounded the Jews worshipped a myriad of non-existent gods and goddesses, the Israelites worshipped “Jehovah the true God, the living God, an everlasting King” (Jeremiah 10:10; cf. “the true and living God,” 1 Thessalonians 1:9, NLB; “the only God,” John 5:44). Or, as Spencer, et al. put it in their book, The Goddess Revival: “The Judeo-Christian God, unlike the gods and goddesses of pagans new and old, exists above the limitations of gender” (1995, p. 48). It is an “authority” matter—not a “gender” matter.

"But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but rather with what God tells us to do. . . ."

The Holy Spirit, the author of the Bible, could have caused this to be written and preserved for us through thousands of years: "For God so loved the world that she gave her one and only Daughter, that whoever believes in her shall not perish but have eternal life."

He didn't. And it's not my puny place to edit God's Word to make it say what it plainly does not say.

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

"All Scripture is God-breathed. . .."

"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

It's a matter, Kathy, of Who has the right and authority to decide: God or me. I pick God. The ELCA picks . . . the ELCA.

4/8/2014 05:12:29 am

"It's a matter, Kathy, of Who has the right and authority to decide: God or me. I pick God. The ELCA picks . . . the ELCA."

This brings us to the heart of the Reformation. Who, then, interprets what God says? The Word of God, the Bible? The individual (you) or the Church (the Magisterium)? Of course the ELCA believes very strongly that it is interpreting the Word of God correctly! For many reasons, not the least of which is Christian unity, I believe the Church should have the final say. Lutherans -- the ELCA and other denominations -- follow their own interpretation of Luther's hermeneutic: Luther's own interpretation of the Word of God... and then each small, broken-away church ends up with a particular interpretation of what God's Word means... ending finally with individual interpretation reigning supreme. Is this how Jesus intends the Church to be?

4/8/2014 09:13:46 am

I think the answer is three-fold, Kathy. I think it involves the historic, faithful Christian Church; the present, faithful Christian Church; and the individual born-again believer in Jesus Christ.

The Bible says, “In an abundance of counselors, there is safety.” If I want to know how to interpret the Bible, I’m going to start with the early Church. I’m going to read about the Council of Nicea and early credal statements. I’m going to read Irenaeus and Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Martin Luther. (I do have, in addition to the Book of Concord, a seven-volume set of Luther’s sermons. Many of those sermons take a Bible text probably smaller than this post will eventually be, and the resulting sermon runs about 20 printed pages!) And I’ll read contemporary theologians: Francis Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, R. C. Sproul, Al Mohler, and others, from a variety of Christian traditions: Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Reformed. No one church or denomination possesses the whole counsel of God.

But it’s MOST -- repeat, MOST -- important for me to immerse myself in God’s Word a lot, being willing to follow the Bible’s admonitions and heed its declarations of its own veracity and authority over me: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” "I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

And as I spend serious time in God’s Word, I need to ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance as I do so. Whatever my church says Christian faith is, the tenets of Christian faith are not going to countermand the Word.

Take one example, the Virgin Birth.

In my study of the Bible, I see Old Testament prophecies about the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. Then I read Gabriel’s words to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come on you. The power of the Most High will cover you. The holy Child you give birth to will be called the Son of God.” Then I read in Matthew 1: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.”

So then if leaders, pastors, and seminary professors in my denomination — oh, let’s say a certain Lutheran one — say the Virgin Birth is old-wives-tales mythology, I need to “Test everything. Hold fast to that which is good.” A straightforward semantic interpretation of the Bible indicates at first glance that something’s wrong with a church’s repudiation of the Virgin Birth. And when I follow up with past and present defenders and teachers of the faith, I find that my denomination is out-and-out heretical. If I don’t have a Savior who’s virgin-born deity, I don’t have a Savior. Time to bail out of that heretical denomination.

4/9/2014 03:39:35 am

It is true that "No one church or denomination possesses the whole counsel of God," but we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. There is one Church that has the fullness of counsel. From the beginning, in the counsel of the saints, the faithful Christian/Catholic/Universal Church has taught the Virgin Birth, the male Priesthood, and that homosexual acts are a sin. You and I both believe what the faithful Christian Church has taught for 2,000 years.

You study Scripture a lot. Many study the Bible and we all come to a variety of conclusions, many diverse interpretations. If the Church is to have unity, we must accept directly and literally what Jesus said in the Bible: "You are Peter and upon this rock I found my church." Until we can accept the traditional and authentic interpretation of this Scripture that the faithful Church has held from the beginning, we will not have the Christian unity which is the will of Christ.

The interpretation of Scripture is three-fold: the Text, the Tradition of the Faithful Church, the individual believer.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

An ELCA Missionary Who Doesn't Want To Change People

Leave a Reply.

Dan Skogen

Categories

Archives

Home

Share

Exposed Blog

HELP

Contact