Is Social Justice Making Inroads in the Missouri Synod

Welcome once again to the Conversations That Matter podcast, I'm your host, John Harris, for an important discussion this morning. Even if you are not a Lutheran, you're going to want to listen to this discussion because no matter what denomination, or even if you're in an independent church organization you're part of, ministry, obviously social justice has made inroads into all kinds of places.

And it's not even just social justice, it's modern secularism, it's modernity, it's all these anti-Christian secular notions or humanist notions, if you want to call them that, that have made their way deep into the heart of Western churches and ministries.

And so as we're listening to what's happening in the Missouri Synod, I'd just like you to think about your own context, whether you're Lutheran or not. And if you are Lutheran, please take up, write a letter, do something positive to help your denomination escape the tragic shipwreck that other denominations have fallen into.

With me to help discuss this, because he is way more knowledgeable than me, is David Ramirez. David Ramirez is the pastor at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Fort Wayne, and he's been following this very closely.

So David, I appreciate you joining me. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks a lot for having me on.

What Is Happening With the Annotated Large Catechism

So what's happening? I noticed there was a Twitter thread that gained a lot of attention in the Missouri Synod from Ryan Turnipseed, I believe is the name. At least that's the Twitter account name. And a number of people sent this to me, and it was just jaw dropping that the Luther's larger catechism, there's a new edition that is to be published, and the changes are just incredible in regards to LGBT issues and just a whole bunch of things.

So walk us through that. What is actually happening right now?

So I'd clarify one thing right off the bat, that the catechism itself was not changed. The stuff that has been found objectionable or unclear by a wide variety of folks and undoubtedly the stuff that you saw was actually contained in essays that were included in with a new edition of Luther's large catechism.

So the catechism itself, the text remains absolutely unchanged. But I think this goes to the heart of maybe some confusion in the project in general. And so it's no less concerning. So Luther's large catechism is obviously larger than the small one.

And he's going on this tangent and that tangent. And so the plan was to provide annotations, notes to help readers understand the context more. So very well and good. But for some reason, I think this kind of caused a lot of the problem was that they decided to include something like 60 or 70 essays in the same volume.

And I don't see how that makes a lot of sense. Because that's one of our confessional documents that we not only use for teaching, but all pastors promise to uphold the teachings of the large catechism as a true and pure exposition of the word of God.

And so to connect these essays, it's not changing the text, but it's giving it tons and tons of teaching weight. I don't know if that makes sense, but by putting it in the same volume. And so this new edition with notes and essays that came out on January 20th.

And I'm giving the exact date for the listeners because things moved incredibly fast. So on the 20th, that new edition came out on Kindle. So people got it. And there is a lot of concern automatically of what was contained in these essays.

As you alluded to, there was at best confusing language, at worst, very troubling and bad terminology, bad frames, bad examples that seem to just meet or ape the leftist talking points that we see in kind of SJW or woke America.

And so that caused a lot of concern. And you alluded to Ryan Turnipseed's thread, and it's actually not an anonymous account, come to find out. I assumed it was. I've never met a turnip seed in my life, but he's a real person.

He's a layman. I think he's like 20 years old out West somewhere. I'm not quite sure. But no, he confirmed he's a real person. And so I don't even understand or can relate who exactly said what, where and when on Twitter.

But I think credit for raising the alarm or at least spreading the word should be given to Ryan because he put together a thread. I assume that's the same thread. It was like, I don't know, nine or ten tweets all put together.

And he kind of documented and was raising the alarm. And it was incredible how many people saw it. I think it was like 200 something thousand impressions, which I know not everyone read it thoroughly, but that's huge for the Lutheran world.

I don't know about other denominations, but Lutheran Twitter is pretty small. But that was incredible. And so the concerns that were raised there then got spread by a million different means. I saw so many emails that people either sent to me or said that they were talking to other people about it.

Phone calls were being made saying, what in the world is going on? Because everyone thought, at least me, I shouldn't say everyone. I thought it was just going to be the large catechism with annotations.

So I was kind of excited about the project and I still am. I hope there's still a lot of good stuff that can be salvaged. But anyway, more and more concerns spread over the weekend. And finally, on Monday evening, around 730, the president of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, Matthew Harrison, he put out a statement saying we're going to halt production or distribution of the book.

And I know that some folks in the Synod and also on Twitter have said, well, this is really horrible because he's been mobbed by Twitter folks and they've just whipped up this frenzy. And so this is really bad.

And I can't believe that that's accurate. And I know for a fact it's not accurate because I personally know dozens and dozens of people who sent in letters. I think it's very dismissive and ridiculous to say that the president of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, who I don't think reads Twitter, is going to let a Twitter storm influence him like this.

Full credit where credit is due. Everyone on Twitter, on Lutheran Twitter, really raised the alarm and they were essential to get this relooked at. But I know, like I said, personally, dozens of people who sent in letters to the president, to their district officials.

That's our local regional leaders. And if I know dozens and dozens of people, undoubtedly, and I don't think this is any exaggeration, hundreds and hundreds of people sent letters in, as he alludes to in a statement.

Do you mind if I read that? Is that OK? Please go for it. Yeah, thank you. So, well, yeah, he put it up on Twitter and Facebook. So the timestamp is, yeah, seven thirty eight on Monday. And this is what is written, a message from President Harrison, grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.

In light of the concerns raised, I have asked CPH to cease distribution of the new annotated large catechism. This will allow us time to evaluate the comments and critiques received and revisit our doctrinal review process, which is my responsibility.

We steadfastly proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sinners and stand forgiven and unafraid, committed to Jesus Christ and his inerrant scriptures in the face of all cultural opposition. I ask for your patience.

Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president, Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. I think that this also shows us and the whole world and the church that that he received tons and tons of comments and critiques.

And this is what caused him to put a pause as someone I don't know who said it, but someone said, you know, he put a pause on this project. I also think that he owned the situation. I mean, he says, you know, we need to evaluate, we need to review.

And he said, this is my responsibility. So in the Missouri Synod, the chief doctrinal reviewer, the one who oversees doctrine and practice and is to address concerns like this is President Harrison. And I don't understand all of the internal processes and who did what, where, when, but this project was done under the auspices of our CTCR, which is, you know, our theology and church relations committee or board that does a lot of doctrinal work, but also the office of the president.

So I've got to really say that while I think that there were failures by the CTCR and the office of the president to let it get to this point, I'm really pleased and proud of our president who took responsibility and took the ball and said, OK, we got to deal with this.

There's enough serious critiques. And I mean, this was kind of risky for him to do. It was gutsy. And it certainly didn't earn him a lot of friends. I mean, maybe it helped him gain respect among people who are concerned.

But I mean, to halt production like this, I don't think this has happened in at least a decade or so. It's happened before. So it's not unique, but it hasn't happened in recent, at least extremely recent history.

So, yeah, I think it was a it was a gutsy move. I think it was a faithful move. And I think, you know, it's good for him to ask for patience and to say, you know, please let me do my job. And I mean, I think that, you know, anybody who cares about these issues, your viewers and especially the Lutherans out there, pray for him, you know, pray for him to be discerning and wise and and to to continue in this boldness, I guess.

Denominational Drift, Social Justice, and the Missouri Synod's Response

Yeah, I'm encouraged to see it because this is often not the case, especially in Southern Baptist circles, which I've covered probably more than any other denomination. But I would say it's the same way, I think, to an extent in PCA and other denominations, even some of these Pentecostal denominations that have problems with social justice.

They don't tend to have leaders who are willing to then listen to what laymen are writing them or lay pastors or even even just pastors. I mean, sometimes there's there's a professional class that develops in the managerial elites in these denominations and they tend to run things.

And in the Southern Baptist Convention, since I'm more familiar with that, you'll notice even at their annual meetings, when you have concerns come up from the audience, there's even favoritism when it comes to what microphone they call on and strategies to shut down conversation or debate on topics that they don't feel are conducive to their agenda.

And this is such a contrast to that, to have the president of a denomination say, you know, we might have gotten some things wrong. A lot of people wrote in, let's put a pause on this and let's let's get to the bottom of it.

That's unique. And I hope that the Lutherans, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, keep this attitude because it's a good one. It means that there's at least some humility at the top. I want to show people what because this is serious, though.

I mean, we're positive about the fact that this is on pause, but correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't mean that some of these changes won't actually go through.

It's just you're absolutely correct. I mean, there's no there's no guarantee that the objectionable material will be gone.

Yeah. Yeah. And so and I don't think you went into a lot of detail about what that objectionable material is. If I could just pull up this is the. If people can see this, I think they can. This is the thread that people are talking about here.

And, you know, I don't know if there's more to this that, David, you can add. But the accusation here is that the let's see, it says first we have the LCMS speaking for conservative Lutherans entirely denying self-defense and bearing arms being moral.

So that's the first issue. And I could read that if you want, but well, if you don't mind me jumping in for a second, I'd love for you to jump in.

I so I would say this more generally, and I'll give my opinion on where each one of these fit in, if you like. But I think that that the critiques on the on these essays and the content of these essays that were linked to the large catechism, they fall into a couple of categories of critique.

One is I think that some of these issues truly could just be a lack of clarity, frankly, because some of these folks I know and I've read other writings. I mean, I can't speak for them. I haven't talked to them in the last week.

However, I think some places it's just a lack of clarity and there is no false theology intended. So I just want to say that up front, but that's not to minimize the problem. I mean, you're going to put an essay next to the large catechism.

You should be extra one hundred percent clear. The second category, I would say, is whether it's intended or not, I can't see into people's heart, but whether it's intended or not, like I said before, there's a lot of terminology and examples and framework, assumed framework that that has been imported into these essays that gets used in, I would say, an uncritical manner, whether that's intentional or not is kind of immaterial.

It's there and it and it turns into a bunch of signaling for Marxist or woke ideas. And that's just bad, regardless of intention. That's that that stuff's got to go. And then you have the issue of authorship, which I don't know if you saw that wasn't talked as much online in the Missouri Synod, where we feel very strongly about who should teach authoritatively in the church.

Historically, we don't have females or women writing and teaching theology as is very, very clear in the scriptures. We don't need to go all into that. That has been we've been getting slightly loosier and goosier about that in recent decades.

And so there's several female authors who, of course, I don't know. I'm not trying to personally slander them, but they have no business teaching in a document like this. It's very inappropriate. And it goes against our history and tradition.

And I would say some of these essayists are, though they cannot serve in a church according to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, they are permitted to give commentary on the very catechism used to teach people in the church.

Yeah, it makes no sense. Yeah. Yeah. So there's been this reductionistic view that has gained in strength in the Missouri Synod. And this is a decades old problem. The Missouri Synod used to be very clear about the God given order of creation specifically between men and women in the home, in the church, even in the state or the civil government.

And there's been this reductionistic drift to just say, well, what's authoritative preaching? And sometimes people avoid using the word teaching in the church and they'll say, well, that means women can't be pastors.

Yeah, but, you know, what the role of the pastor is, is defined as being the one who preaches and teaches. And so folks have tried to kind of go around this. And this is another sign of that. So that's a deeper issue than kind of these hot button actual words or phrases or things that were taught in the document.

Another related concern on authorship was that we had some non-Missouri Synod folks. I don't know if you're aware of this. For some reason, another Lutheran body that split off of the very liberal ELCA, which we talked a little bit about last time, some authors from what's called the NALC.

And now we get into Lutheran alphabet soup, which makes everyone glaze over and fall asleep. But the NALC, to give them credit, they left the ELCA, but they still have female pastors. They still don't believe in inerrancy full throatedly.

They I mean, there's just I could go on and on and on that inviting those guys, many of whom are are are guys with a lot of integrity to leave what they left, but yet have them teach in this document makes zero sense.

And then, of course, most egregiously was there is an ELCA pastor that was invited to teach in this. Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. It's just absurd. So those are kind of the different levels of, I would say, confusion that's caused by this.

But I know you want to get into to the actual texts, but I just want to lay that.

Out there. Yeah, it's very important. Denominational boundaries being, I guess, on the on the very the borders of them being kind of undefined or at least open to outsiders.

And then well, there's a time and place like like what you just said, like on the borders. You know, I'm glad I'm glad you put it that way, because, you know, if you're going to have maybe like a church relations discussion or fellowship talks with someone and you say, hey, you know, let's let's write something so we can talk to each other.

But everybody knows that this is more of an exploratory document. This is not to be for, you know, totally trustworthy stuff used in the parish or something like that. That's fine. What's objectionable is is that you have these guys teaching in a in a book, writing essays that's connected to the large catechism, one of our confessional documents.

And and that should be our own guides. And that's not to say, oh, we're so arrogant and proud that we can't learn from anyone else. But it's saying, no, we've been blessed with lots of thoughts of people who can teach faithfully.

And why in the world would we have someone who we couldn't commune with because of, you know, not no unity of doctrine? And yet they're going to teach the pastors and then that trickle down into the parishes.

It just does not make any logical sense.

Sure. So, yeah, the more concerning thing and one that I've seen in other denominations is the whole let's approach this subject of women's roles. And instead of asking, what is the design of God? They ask, what can what are all the things that we can do without technically breaking a direct command?

Right. Yeah. And Danny Aiken at Southeastern Seminary called this kinder, gentle, gentler complementarianism. And that's what he said. He believed in that. Well, there might be situations where even a female can preach on a Sunday morning, but it's it's very narrow.

She can't have the role of an elder. But you see this. I remember when J .D. Greer was president of the Southern Baptist Convention, it was like women were on the staff and all these various categories of having authority, but they just couldn't be an elder.

So they could do things that were, you know, impacting the job of an elder. You could write even curriculum, you know, that kind of thing was happening, at least in the Southern Baptist circles. And people at the top did not see a contradiction between that and Paul's exhortation.

I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man. And it's it's fascinating to me because I think it like obviously there's not a cross-pollination between the Southern Baptist and the Missouri Synod Lutherans.

I don't think at least like they're not going to the same conferences. They're not they're in different parts of the country to some for the most part. But modernity affects all of them, all these denominations and the slackening or the loosening of standards of the created order, the categories that God has given us and the assumption that things are just arbitrary seems to have invaded everywhere.

And I totally agree. And I like how you said that attitude of, well, well, why can't I or what can I do? That's the wrong question. You know, I mean, we should just be thankful for God telling us who we are and who we are to be.

I mean, it's kind of like it's kind of like if if a young couple said, you know, to their parents or to their pastor and said, well, how far can we go not to be too salacious, but, you know, how far can we go instead of saying, how can we be careful about purity and what God has designed for marriage?

And I mean, that's the wrong way. How far can I go to the fire before I can get burned? Wrong question. The question is, how can you be safe and careful? Right. Right.

The Problem of Softening Sexual Sin and Gender Dysphoria

So, yeah, let's let's go through some more of this and I'm going to see if I can share the screen here and show everyone what we're looking at. So that was one of the issues. I don't know if we want to go through all of these, maybe not.

Let's go through a few more, though. So the next one he says, this sounds very serious. We have an equivocation of homosexuality, pornography, sodomy, pedophilia, whorishness and transgenderism with heterosexual fornication outside of sex.

That is, the LCMS can't say sodomy is evil without softening it with. But so is straight sex before marriage. So the equivocation of these of the the natural order that God has set up with these perversions of that and read the language real quick.

Some of us are burdened with homosexual lust. And he goes through this vice list there to more often. They are the speck in our neighbor's eye rather than the log in our own. For decades, if we didn't wink at fornication, we certainly turned our eyes from it.

So it's blaming the Missouri Synod for or Lutherans, I guess, for turning a blind eye to these other sins, which maybe there's a point to be made here. But it strikes to me, it hits me as they're they're softening these these legitimate sins that are at our gates, barbarians at the gates, ripping down the gates, coming in and they're saying, yeah, you know, but it's really some the real problem isn't those guys don't pay attention to those.

The real problem is what's happening, you know, further back. And it's like, guys, there may be problems further back, but the barbarians are ripping down the gates. That's how I see it.

What do you think? I honestly have the exact same take, and I'm I'm pulling up my version, not version, but I'm I'm pulling up what what what was said in this, the fuller the fuller context, because I honestly think that that where this paragraph goes wrong is actually the right where you were cut off in the screenshot that you have.

OK, where so it says we shudder in disgust when it suits us. Well, I just want to read the rest of it. We shudder in disgust when it suits us, forgetting that we, too, follow our hearts, that organ which produces every evil thought and sexual immorality with the with the seeming implication, because I do want to not pretend like I know exactly what what the intention was with the seeming implication that we because we're sinners, we shouldn't shudder in disgust at these horrific sins.

And I think that's you know, you're right. I believe there is a point to be made that the church being soft on heterosexual adultery or fornication, things like that did open the door to worse things.

I think that the author does have a point if that's what's trying to be said. But but, man, I totally agree with you. It seems like, hey, just because you have a sin, you shouldn't you shouldn't be disgusted by these things.

And isn't that how Matthew that passage from Matthew is used all the time? Judge not, judge not, judge not. And the spirit of all sins are the same. Well, obviously, all sins are the same in some sense.

All sins are damnable before God. All sin, you know, you break one point of the law, you break it all. But but to me, what the author should have said was what was not we shudder in disgust when it when it suits us, but rather we shudder in disgust.

And we should about homosexuality and pedophilia and transgenderism, dot, dot, dot. And we should also shudder and disgust at adultery and fornication and all these other things, because I think you're absolutely right.

It is it is softening our our proper reaction to these sins. And and instead of saying, well, we're all sinners or giving that impression, we should say no. And that should drive us to even see our own sins.

I mean, there's a point of saying you don't want to be a Pharisee. But like what you said, I mean, the barbarians are not at the gates. They're inside the city and raging. And to write something like this is like a clanging gong.

I mean, it is just so foolish when parents are worried about their kids getting groomed at school and by every, you know, Disney product and every movie company. I mean, it's it's just it's a lack of situational awareness and a lack of understanding of the context and what the what the war is being waged out there.

Well, Matthew seven five says you hypocrite first take the log out of your own eye and then you'll see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. And so you're going to be true to the passage.

Then it's like then we should stop being so soft on it. And obviously, there's no example cited here, but the assumption is that we were all soft or complicit in this. OK, stop. And now take the speck out.

You're calling all these other perversion specks. So, yeah, it kind of reorients, though, the the person who says, I want to put a stop to this grooming or this this perversion that's impacting our kids lives.

They're going to hear this and they're going to the wind's going to be taken right out of their sails like, oh, I guess I better stop and better examine myself first. It's like, no, you're standing. You have a right instinct here.

Yep.

So the effect is horrible.

It is. Yeah, it is. I maybe my cynical side thinks that the person who wrote this probably that is what they intend. But given the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's not. But it's either extreme ignorance or some malicious.

Well, and I do not know the author, but this is this is one of the female written essays. And so I don't know if this comes from a, quote, unquote, overly bleeding heart, so to speak.

Right.

Or I don't know. I don't know the lady. But not only are the words not well put and regardless of intent, I believe undoubtedly will have an effect of softening our understanding and rightful horror at these things.

But she shouldn't have been writing this in the first place, plain and simple at all.

Genesis, Creation, and Scientific Theories

Yeah, no, that's a that is a big problem. Why don't we go to the next issue here on the list? Ryan Turnipseed says the conservative confessional Lutherans are saying that Genesis is entirely separate from any scientific theories.

And he quotes, it says, like the creeds, Genesis has no interest in scientific theory. So what do you make of this? Is this a soft peddling of the Darwinism somehow?

No, it's not. Frankly, it really isn't a hit and a miss. I'm I'm pulling it up. So just bear with me for a second. I'm sorry.

Well, you're pulling up.

I'll just read that.

Yeah, please.

These views did not begin with the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed with Irenaeus or Augustine. Instead, they date back to the very beginning of Holy Scripture into the first two chapters of Genesis, like the creeds.

Genesis has no interest in scientific theories. It's not to explain in scientific detail how God made all things, but rather that he made all things by his almighty word and what that means for how we view the world and everything in it.

And it goes on.

Right.

So Ryan Turnipseed is saying this is an attack on Genesis. It's not literal or something.

Yeah.

So the author, I'm not super close with him, but he's a friend of a friend. He affirms six day creation. He's not an evolutionist. And in the rest of the essay, I think he does clean this up. But I'm not going to lie.

And I'd say to his face, I think that the sentence, particularly like the creeds, Genesis has no interest in scientific theories. That's just a bad way to phrase it. It does not seek to explain in scientific detail.

Well, that's true. However, it gives us facts and historical details of creation, which by definition will exclude certain false theories or beliefs about Genesis, like old earth or evolution, all of those kinds of things.

Here, I would categorize this of just a lack of clarity. I really do think this one was unintentional. However, at the same time, this is why you need really careful editing. And if you're going to put essays next to the large catechism, you have to be clear.

And you don't need sentences like that. Because I mean, just on its face, Genesis does have interest in a sense about whether certain theories are true or false. Because Moses, by inspiration, records certain details that naturally exclude certain things.

I honestly am going to chalk this one up for a lack of clarity. I think in the rest of the essay, he makes it clear that he is saying, he's not denying that Genesis is historical. I know he's not pushing any type of Darwinism.

And what his point is, even though he uses some poor words, I would say, is that we've got to go deeper than just talking about creation science. I would say, though, this is a problem, perhaps, of attitude.

I don't know anyone who only just stops there. I mean, who are these people? Do they really exist? Let's just think about creation science and not about the other things that Genesis has to say. It's almost like a straw man.

So, but I'm going to, I would chalk this up to a lack of clarity, frankly.

Yeah.

And it is important if you're going to, like you said, write a document like this, the burden of proof lies on those who wrote it for clarity's sake, not the person who's reading it and seeing red flags or yellow flags.

Gender Dysphoria, Psychological Frameworks, and the Power of Sanctification

The next one to me is, this is a bigger deal. I'm just going to quote, it says, gender dysphoria is a form of suffering. It primarily concerns one's sense of self, not one's deeds. It is only one reason people might see themselves as transgender.

Christians with gender dysphoria generally continue to experience it no matter how much they grow in faith and love toward God. Oh, my goodness.

Yeah, yeah. This is.

Well, what in the world? What in the world? You know, any other sin?

You know, Christians, well, we'll pick something that's a hot button now. Christians with racial animosity and hatred against other races, they generally continue to experience it no matter how much they grow.

Like, we wouldn't say this about so many other things.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, it is. And this is one of those spots where, as I said before, intentional or not, the author is taking on the framework of the world. You know, I mean, you're identifying someone that their true identity, even though now that they are a Christian, is their sin.

You know, I mean, that's not how the Bible speaks. I mean, the Bible and also it's a denial of the power of God's word and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. I mean, it's just.

Yeah, I mean, you said it. Well, would we say this about other sins? It is totally taking on the frame of the world, specifically, you know, psychological understanding of these of these things. And I mean, we don't need to go down a rabbit hole, but I mean, the cycle is psychologization of the church is just a disaster.

And so I yeah, this statement is totally taking on the frame of the world. And even if I'm sure the author would say these things are wrong, that's where you start seeing the wedge. You start seeing the wedge between and I'm not saying this author would say this, but you see the wedge and the softening and the pseudo acceptance of, well, this is this is their feelings or this is their identities.

We can't condemn that. You know, an orientation isn't sinful. It's the actions. I mean, that's when you start getting a wedge and you start seeing the softening towards these towards these sins.

You know, that's a problem. I've seen in the broader evangelical world a lot that they take on this psychological reading, I guess, of the human condition and then impose that upon theology. And it's happening all over the place.

In fact, in very conservative circles, this idea that same sex attraction isn't really.

Sin.

That's just this orientation. It's like you wouldn't. I hate the fact that they this is an exception that's made because there's so many other sins that we never say that about. Never. You know, you have this wife beating tendency.

You just I guess you just hate your wife.

That's just who you are.

You're we wouldn't say you're designed that way. Would we ever say that? I mean, that'd be a me too moment. One of the other things in this and I don't want to wax along just because there's so many so many tweets about this from turnip seed, but social justice is used in multiple essays in this particular document in a positive way.

There's references to economic and social privilege in an article by John Arthur Nunes and that this is basically puts it in the same category as theft. But, you know, the social justice. Here's like one line.

I'll just give you a representative line. This is from a name. I don't know if I can pronounce this name. Itchy Masaki. The center of numerical growth of Christians has shifted from the northern to the southern hemisphere, particularly Africa, European and North American churches.

Senses senselessly impose social justice agendas upon these younger churches to maintain their supremacy. And there's multiple essays with this kind of thing.

Well, if I could if I could respond to that one, please. So Professor Masaki was was a professor I had at the Fort Wayne Seminary. What I think he is trying to say is that I believe he is going after the liberal Lutheran and other liberal church bodies that are trying to force traditional bodies in Africa, Asia and other places.

They're trying to ram the homosexual agenda down their throats and they're using money to back themselves.

He's actually making a good point here.

Yeah, like social. I mean, I don't have it in front of me, but I did not read his essay. Yeah, well, I mean, but he said social justice agendas. Is that correct?

Yes. European and North American churches senselessly impose social justice agendas.

Yeah, yeah, he's talking. Yeah, he's he's because so the Missouri Synod has been approached by literally dozens of Lutheran church bodies all around the world, not just from the third world, but also other places and, you know, East Eastern Europe and places like that and Western Europe now who they want help because they used to be part of the Lutheran World Federation.

And now that they've gone really pro pro homo, to put it bluntly, a lot of these younger and poorer financially speaking churches in the third world, they the LWF and liberal Lutherans will use money and the withholding of money to force them to adopt pro gay or other, you know, items on the social justice agenda.