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. 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 a

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 was 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 seemed 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 Turnipseed 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 his 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, 738 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, okay, 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, maybe it gained, 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, in, in, in at least a decade or so it's happened before.

So it's not unique, but it hasn't happened in, in, in, 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, it's good for him to ask for patience and to say, you know, please let me do my job.

And, uh, I, I mean, I, I think that, you know, anybody who cares about these issues, um, your viewers and especially the, the, the

Lutherans out there pray for him, you know, pray for him to be discerning and wise and, uh, and to, to continue in this boldness,

I guess. 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, uh, even some of these, uh,

Pentecostal denominations that have problems with social justice, they, they don't tend to have leaders who are willing to then, um, listen to what laymen are writing them or lay pastors, or, uh, 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, um, in the Southern Baptist convention, since I 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, uh, strategies to shut down conversation or debate on topics that they don't feel, uh, are conducive to their agenda.

And, and this is such a contrast to that, to have the president of a denomination say, you know, we might've 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 Senate Lutherans keep this attitude because it's a good one.

And it means that there's at least some humility at the top. Uh, I, I want to show people what, cause this is serious though.

Um, I mean, we're positive about the fact that this is put, this is on pause, but.

I 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, um, guarantee that the objectionable material will be gone, you know?

Yeah. And so, and, 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, uh, if people can see this, I think they can.

This is the, uh, thread that people are talking about here. Um, and you know,

I don't know if there's more to this that David, uh, you can add, but, um, the accusation here is that, uh, the

L let's see, uh, 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, um, well, if you don't mind me jumping in for a second,

I, I, so, um, I, I would say this more generally, and, um,

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

Um, one is I think that some of these issues, uh, truly could just be, um, a lack of clarity, frankly, um, because, uh, 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, um, I think some places it's just a lack of clarity and there is no, uh, false theology, um, intended.

Um, uh, so I, I, I just want to say that, uh, upfront, 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 a hundred percent clear. The second category

I would say is, uh, 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, um, terminology and examples and, um, framework, uh, 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, it's kind of immaterial it's there and it, and it turns into a bunch of signaling, uh, for Marxist or woke, um, ideas.

And, and that's just bad, regardless of intention. Um, that's, that, that, that stuff's gotta go.

And then, um, you have the issue of authorship, which I don't know if you saw, I, uh, that wasn't talked as much online.

Um, in the Missouri Synod where we feel very strongly about who should teach authoritatively in the church.

Historically, we don't have females, uh, or women, uh, writing, uh, and teaching theology as you know, it's very, very clear in the scriptures.

We, we don't need to go all into that. Um, that has been, we've been getting a 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, in a document like this.

It's, it's very inappropriate. Uh, and it goes against our history and tradition. 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, um, reductionistic view that has gained and strengthened the

Missouri Synod. And this is a decades old problem. Um, the Missouri Synod used to be very clear about, um, you know, the

God given order of creation, uh, specifically between men and women in the home, in the church, even in, uh, you know, in the state or the civil government.

And, um, uh, there's been this reductionistic drift to just say, well, what's authoritative, uh, uh, 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, uh, the one who preaches and teaches.

And, uh, so folks have tried to kind of go around this and, uh, this is another sign of that.

So that's a deeper issue than kind of these, uh, hot button, uh, actual, uh, words or phrases or things that were, 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, um, another

Lutheran body, uh, that split off of the very liberal ELCA, which we talked a little bit about last time, um, some, some authors from what's called the

NALC. And now, now we get into Lutheran alphabet soup, which makes everyone glaze over and fall asleep.

But, um, the NALC to give them credit, they left the ELCA, but they still have female pastors.

They still don't believe in inerrancy, uh, full -throatedly. Um, uh, they, they, they,

I mean, there's just, I could go on and on and on, uh, that inviting those guys, uh, many of whom are, 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.

Um, and then of course, most egregiously was there is an ELCA pastor that was invited to, uh, to teach in this.

Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. It's just absurd. Uh, so those are kind of the different levels of,

I would say confusion, uh, that's caused by this. Um, but I know you want to get into, to the actual texts, but I just wanted to like lay that out there.

Yeah. It's very important. Denominational boundaries being, um, I guess on the, on the very, the borders of them being, uh, kind of undefined or at least open to outsiders and then, um, well, there's a time and place like, like what you just said, like on the borders, uh, you know,

I, 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, or fellowship talks with someone and you say,

Hey, uh, you know, let's, let's write some things so we can talk to each other. But everybody knows that this is more of an exploratory document.

This is not to be for, uh, 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, um, teaching.

In a, in a book, writing essays, uh, that's connected to the large catechism, one of our confessional documents, and, and that should be our own guys, and that's not to say, um, oh, we're so arrogant and proud that we can't learn from anyone else, but it's saying, no, we've, we've been blessed, uh, 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, um, you know, uh, uh, not no unity of doctrine.

Um, and yet, uh, they're going to teach, uh, the pastors and then that trickle down into the parishes.

It just does not make any logical sense. Sure. So yeah, the, the more concerning thing and one that I've seen in other denominations is the whole, uh, let's, uh, 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. And, uh, Danny Aiken at Southeastern seminary called this kinder, gentle, gentler complementarianism.

And that's what he said. He believed in that, uh, 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, um, you, you see this.

I remember when JD Greer was president of the Southern Baptist convention, it was like women were on the staff and all these various categories, uh, 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. Um, you, you could write even curriculum, you know, that kind of thing was happening, at least in the, 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, uh, 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, they're in different parts of, uh, the country to some, for the most part, but, um, modernity affects all of them, uh, all these denominations and the slackening or the loosening of standards, uh, of created order, the categories that God has given us and the assumption that, that things are just arbitrary, um, seems to have invaded everywhere.

And, and yeah, I totally agree. And I like how you said that attitude of, well, well, why can't

I, or what can I do? That that's the wrong question. You know, I mean, we, 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, uh, 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, uh, you know, careful about purity and what

God has designed for marriage. And I, I mean, that's the wrong question. How far can I go to the fire, uh, before I can get burned?

Wrong question. The question is how can you be safe and careful? Right. Right. So, yeah, let's, let's go through some more of this.

Um, and I'm going to see if I can share the screen here and show everyone what we're looking at. So, uh, that was one of the issues.

I don't know if we want to, can we go through all of these? Maybe not. Um, let's go through a few more though. So the next one, he says, this sounds very serious.

We have an, um, 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, uh, with, but so is straight sex before marriage.

So the, the, uh, equivocation of these, um, uh, of the, the natural order that God has set up with these perversions of that, um, read the language real quick.

Uh, so some of us are burdened with homosexual lust and he goes through this vice list, um, they are to, uh, 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 as well.

So it's blaming the Missouri Synod for, or Lutherans, I guess, for turning a blind eye to these other sins, which may be, there's a point to be made here, but it, it strikes to me, it hits me as they're, uh, 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, uh, 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, for 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? Uh, I, I, I honestly have the exact same take and I'm, I'm pulling up my version, uh, not version, but I, I'm, I'm pulling up what, what, uh, what was said in this, the, the fuller, the fuller context, because I honestly think that, that where this paragraph goes wrong, um, is actually, uh, right where, uh, you, uh, where it cut off in the screenshot that you have, um, where, so it says we shudder in disgust, um, when it suits us, well,

I, I just want to read the rest of it. We shudder in disgust when it suits us for getting that we to follow our hearts, that organ, which produces every evil thought and sexual immorality with the, with the seeming implication.

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

I, I think that the author does have a point if, if that's what's trying to be said, but, but man,

I, I totally agree with you. It seems like, Hey, just because you have a sin, you shouldn't, uh, you shouldn't be disgusted by these things.

And isn't that how, uh, 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.

Uh, all sin, you know, you, you break one point of the law, you break it all. But, um, but to me, um, what the author should have said was, was not, uh, we shudder in disgust when it, when it suits us, but rather, uh, we shudder in disgust and we should about homosexuality and pedophilia and transgenderism dot, dot, dot, and we should also shudder in disgust at adultery and fornication and all these other things, because I think you're absolutely right.

It is, it is softening, um, our, uh, our, uh, 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, 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, it's, 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 will 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 presumption is that we were all soft or complicit in this.

Okay. Stop. And now take the spec out. You're calling all these other perversion specs.

So, um, yeah, it, it kind of reorients though. The, the person who says,

I want to put a stop to this grooming or this, uh, this perversion that's impacting our kids' lives.

Uh, 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. Um, so yeah, the effect is horrible.

It is. Yeah. There's I, maybe my cynical side thinks that the person who wrote this probably that, that is what they intend, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe it's not, but it's either extreme ignorance or, um, some malicious.

And, um, I do not know the author, but, um, uh, this is, this is, uh, one of the female written essays.

And so, um, I don't know if this comes from a quote unquote, uh, overly bleeding heart, so to speak, or, or I, I don't know,

I don't know the lady. Um, but not only are the words, uh, not well put and regardless of intent,

I believe undoubtedly will have an effect of softening our understanding and rightful, uh, horror at these things.

Um, but she shouldn't have been writing this in the first place, plain and simple at all. So, yeah, no, that's a, that is a big problem.

Uh, why don't we go to the next issue here on the list? Um, Ryan turnip seed, uh, says the conservative confessional

Lutherans are saying that Genesis is entirely separate from any scientific theories. And he quotes, uh, it says like the creeds,

Genesis has no interest in scientific theories. So what do you make of this? Is this a soft peddling of the

Darwinism somehow? No, it's not. Um, frankly, it, it really isn't a hit and a miss.

Uh, I'm, I'm pulling it up. Uh, so just bear with me for a second. I'm sorry. Well, you're pulling up.

I'll just read the question. 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.

Um, right. Um, so Ryan Turnipseed is saying this is, uh, an attack on Genesis.

Like it's not literal or something. Yeah. Um, uh, the, so the, the author, um,

I I'm not super close with him, but I, he's a friend of a friend. Um, he affirms, uh, six day creation.

He's not an evolutionist. Okay. And in the rest of the essay, I think he does clean this up, but I'm not going to lie and, you know,

I'd say to his face, I think that the sentence particularly, um, uh, like the creeds,

Genesis has no interest in scientific theories. That's just a bad way to, to phrase it.

Um, you know, 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, uh, certain, uh, certain false theories or beliefs about, about Genesis, like old earth or, uh, evolution, all of those kinds of things here.

I would categorize this of just a lack of clarity. Um, I, I really do think this one was, uh, unintentional.

However, at the same time, it, it, this is why you need really careful editing.

And, 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, uh, have, have interest in a sense about whether certain theories are true or false, uh, because, you know,

Moses by inspiration records certain details that naturally exclude certain things. Um, I honestly,

I'm going to chalk this one up for a lack of clarity. I think in the rest of the, in the essay, he makes it clear that he is saying, uh, he's not denying that Genesis is historical.

I, I know he's not pushing any type of Darwinism and, uh, and what his point is, even though, you know, he uses some poor words,

I would say is that, uh, 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, who are these people? Do they really exist? Let's just think about creation science and not about the, uh, 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, right. A document like this, uh, the burden of proof lies on those who wrote it for clarity sake, not the person, uh, who's reading it and seeing red flags or yellow flags.

The next one to me is this is a bigger deal. Um, 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. This is what in the world, what in the world, you know, any other sin, you know,

Christians, uh, well, we'll pick something that's a hot button now. Christians with racial animosity and hatred again, you know, 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, it, it is, and this is one of those, uh, spots where I, as I said before, intentional or not, the author is taking on the framework of, of, uh, of the world, you know, uh,

I mean, you're identifying someone that their, that their true identity, even though now that they are a

Christian is their sin, you know, um, I mean, that's not how the Bible speaks.

I mean, the, the Bible and, and also it's, 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, of, of the world specifically, uh, uh, you know, psychological understanding of these, of these things.

And I mean, uh, we don't need to go down a rabbit hole, but I mean, the cycle is that psychologization of the church is just a disaster.

And so I, I, yeah, the, the, this, this statement is, is totally taking on the frame of the world.

And even if, uh, I, I'm sure the author would say these things are wrong. That's where you start seeing the wedge.

Um, you start seeing the wedge between, uh, uh, and I'm not saying this author would, would say this, but you see the wedge, um, and the softening and, uh, the pseudo acceptance of, well, this is, this is their feelings or this is their identities.

We can't condemn that. Um, 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, uh, towards these sins.

You know, um, that's a problem I've seen in the broader evangelical world a lot that they take on this, uh, psychological reading,

I guess, of the human condition and then impose that upon theology. And it's, it's happening all over the place.

Uh, 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? That, I mean, that'd be a me too moment. Um, one of the other things in this, and I don't want to wax along just because there's so many, so many, uh, tweets about this from turnip seed, but social justice is used in multiple essays in this particular document in a positive way.

Um, there's references to economic and social privilege in an article by John Arthur noon's and that, you know, this is basically puts it in the same category as theft.

Um, but you know, the social justice, uh, here's like one line. I'll just give you a representative line.

This is from a, uh, Naomi. I don't know if I can pronounce it. Uh, Naomi, 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 sentence senselessly impose social justice agendas upon these younger churches to maintain their supremacy.

And there's multiple essays with this kind of thing. Um, if, if I could, if I could respond to that one, so, uh, uh,

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.

So he's actually making a good point here. Um, yeah, like social justice. I mean, I don't have it in front of me, but I did not read his essay yet.

Well, I mean, but he said social justice agendas. Is that correct? Yes. European and North American churches senselessly impose social justice agendas upon them.

Yeah. He's he's because, so the Missouri Synod has been approached by literally dozens of, uh,

Lutheran church bodies all around the world. Um, not just from the third world, but also, um, other places and, you know,

East, uh, Eastern Europe and places like that and Western Europe now, um, who, uh, they want help because they used to be part of the

Lutheran world federation. And now that they've gone, uh, really pro pro homo, to put it bluntly, um, uh, a lot of these younger and, uh, poorer financially speaking churches in the third world.

Uh, they, they, they, the, the LWF and liberal Lutherans will use money, uh, and the withholding of money to force them to adopt, uh, pro gay or other, uh, you know, items on the social justice agenda.

So I, here, I think, uh, I think, uh, you got to read it the other way. So, so this is actually a good point against social justice.

So, so here's the weird thing though, there's another essay and I'm looking at this one, um, by, uh,

Leo Paul Poldo, a Sanchez, Leo Poldo Sanchez. Yep. And it says social justice deals with the promotion of justice in society.

It best fits in a discussion of active righteousness, which to me, I'm just, uh,

I'm confused by this because it's like, if so, if in this other essay, social justice is a negative, as you say, uh, that's

North American and European churches are senselessly imposing upon these other regions.

Then it winds up in another essay being a positive. So there's, um, so, so which is it, right?

Is the question, I guess. Uh, and then of course, you know, those who, uh, impose or possess economic and societal privilege are somehow in danger of breaking

God's law against theft. Um, so yeah, it's confusing,

I guess, to say that maybe that maybe that's the better term to use here then not that it's all pro social justice, but there's, there's mixed signals.

Yeah, absolutely. And, and this is, this is a big, big problem. Um, and, uh,

I, I think that while, while, uh, while the Masaki read is, is, is more in a negative way.

I do think that it is undeniable that, that there are so many terms that are,

I would say uncritically used. Um, even if we want to be super generous and say, we don't know what the intentions were, the effect is not just confusion, but signaling for the left.

And, uh, so terms like social justice, like you said, in the Sanchez article or essay is used in a positive light.

Notice how it's not really defined very well either later on in a different essay, um, by, uh, a guy by the last name of Latimer, um, uh, you know, like, uh,

I think it's about hating your neighbor. He uses the term racism, never defines it. Um, uh, and, and, and that's what we have to understand.

And that's what we have to understand about the context and, or, you know, reading the signs of the time.

And that is, is that these words are not created or used in a vacuum. They have a meaning.

And if you don't define it, uh, very clearly of what you mean and what you don't mean, then people will naturally and rightly believe that you're using it the way that it's used in the public square.

So you use social justice and you're not super, super careful about, Hey, I don't mean it like those

Marxists, but I want to use the term because I want to baptize it or whatever. I think that that's a fool's errand anyway, but for the sake of argument, if you're going to use it, you gotta be real careful with it.

So yeah, social justice, racism, gentrification gets talked about. I mean, all these things that match up boom for boom, you know, step for step with lots of leftist causes and talking points and they're uncritically used.

And like you said before, you know, um, is this, is this purposely subversive or is this, uh, unintentional?

Well, either way, in my opinion, it's bad news. It's, it's confusing and it's going to cause problems.

And the fact is that this woke stuff warms its way in. One of the things too, along the social justice lines

I was looking at here in the thread is one of the essays, I don't know who wrote this one, um, talks of it's a, well,

I'll just read it. I write these words from the rectory of a Lutheran church of St. John, the evangelist in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a neighborhood experiencing gentrification.

And I, by the way, I live like two hours from New York city. So I know exactly what he's talking about. While there is an overall improvement for many as the rents and cost of living rise, there is selective intensification of impoverishment for some.

The world does not consider the wrong and will not notice that the neighbor is placed at a disadvantage. And so, um,

Ryan turnip seed is taking, and I think the impression I get from this thread is there's, there's major issues in it, like, uh, you know, the issues we talked about in regards to transgenderism and homosexuality.

I mean, there's another part that says the Christian with sexual dysphoria or the homosexual Christian is one of us, a redeemed Christian, and also a sinner.

There there's things there's language like this. And then there's also things like this gentrification.

It, I think the question that I have when I look at something like that is, well, why this, this is a very important document.

Why is it in there? It's not, it's not as if this is wrong to be concerned about people who are.

Uh, displaced, which by the way, for those who don't know, I live in New York. The, the, the social programs here in this state are just,

I mean, people, um, there's a, there's a town Roscoe, New York. It's in the middle of the Catskill mountains, rural area, fly fishing capital of the world, by the way.

That's what they, that's their claim to fame. Uh, and it's become now a drug town because the, uh, it's become a place where HUD housing went in and there's a number of towns

I can tell you about like this, and now it's, it's people who are on the dole who are just living there.

And so now they have problems with drugs and with crime and that's all over the state. It's a liberal state and the policies are, are very progressive.

So people who are homeless or people who are, uh, who want to take advantage of these programs, there's plenty of places to go and take advantage of these programs.

Um, and, and I'm not saying that in a, in a way that I'm not trying to say don't have compassion. I'm just saying that contextualize this when people scream about gentrification, because a lot of leftists do just know that it's, it's not as if though people are now just kicked to the curb, they're out on the street and, um,

I mean, it, it, it could be sad to some extent if the, the rising cost of living, you can't quite pay for living in the place where you used to live, but it's, it's not the, the villain that some of these people are making it out and there are positive effects of this and I'm going on at my own tangent here because I'm frustrated with people in New York and kind of what's happening here, but, um, you know,

I guess the question I have is why some of these little things end up making it to the essay, because if you, if you study the social justice stuff, you will know that gentrification is one of their big, uh, examples where it, where racism is and where repression lies, it's in gentrification and it's like, no, it's not, that's not what gentrification is as who's the guilty party, you know, the person who bought up the property and made it look nice.

Oh my goodness. They're so racist. So, well, there is another example in that same essay, which further, um, you know, uh, adds to what, what you're saying is where I don't have it in front of me, but, um, this is the

Nunez article and he complains about, uh, how, or I shouldn't say complaints, he says, he says, you know, um, basically in -group favoritism is,

I mean, he doesn't use that term, but that's what he's getting at will sometimes exclude minorities from, uh, you know, a leg up in business or new immigrants who come to America.

And, you know, uh, it's just kind of amusing, frankly, uh, that, that he brings that up because if, if my parishioners read that, they'd say, well, why are their federal and state programs that, that benefit immigrants over and above, uh, native

Wisconsinites? I mean, it's just, uh, you know, I mean, what world do you live in? Or even if you want to say,

Hey, some of the leftist talking points have a kernel of truth in them. And we do need to talk about it as Christians.

Fine. But why are all the examples, why are most of the concerns, uh, leftist talking points and you're using their bud buzzwords and you're using their terminology and you're using their examples uncritically and not talking about, um, uh, like what you said about the effects of, uh, you know, folks coming in for public housing and messing up a town, you know, what, why, why are you, why are you dancing to the tune of the wokesters to put it bluntly?

Yeah, no, I think that you're, you captured my frustration in a very simple sentence because I do see the effects of that around me.

And when, because I think what, uh, what I'm seeing is when people are pushed out of these areas, if you want to even call it pushing, when, when they can no longer afford to live in these areas or they find that it's to their advantage to live somewhere else, that's cheaper, they will go into these small towns.

And what about those people who live there sometimes their whole life, you know, and, and, and the lives of their grandparents and their old, the old homestead is there in this small upstate

New York town. And now it's overrun with drug problems, with crime. Uh, it's, it's just, we're only allowed to look at one example of suffering and not take into account the full range of, of what's happening.

Um, so yeah, that does get under my skin and that's why I went off, but, um, you know,

I, I just, we've already gone almost an hour here, so I just want to put a cap on it if we can, what can

Lutherans do? I mean, obviously there's some positive movement from the president here, but what would you want them to do even now as they're hearing this and they're concerned that this kind of thinking is making inroads in their denomination potentially, should they write letters?

What should they do? Yeah. I mean, I said before they should pray for the present and everyone who's going to be looking at this document.

And, you know, I'd reemphasize that, but also I would encourage people to, uh, if they were able to get a version, uh,

I mean the electronic version before it was, I mean, now you can't get it anymore. It's off the websites.

Uh, you can't buy it. So, yeah. So if you, if you, um, if you do have it, or if you can get your hands on it through a friend, um, uh, you know, to read it and to, to send in your thoughts about it, uh, to, to the office of the president or your district president.

Um, or if, uh, you know, if you're layman, uh, run it by your pastor, maybe, maybe you can help you, uh, write it.

Um, and do send that in because the more concern that is shown, the more that will,

I think, inspire the president and whoever else is reviewing it to actually look at this in a very serious, uh, careful and wise way.

But the bigger point I think, uh, frankly is, is a mindset point to use that buzzword.

Um, the, the mindset that the world would have you, um, take on when it comes to these terms is, well, why are you so uptight?

Why are you so judgy? Why are you so concerned? You should be more trusting. I mean, this is a bad mindset and it afflicts, uh, all

North American churches, as you know, probably better than I do, because you watch this stuff more and you've been involved more, but the mindset of, of feeling ashamed or feeling, uh, timid about, about actually saying, no,

I am, I am going to be concerned. Like we're ashamed to be concerned about protecting what we've been given by God.

That's ridiculous. And we need to get over that. Uh, we, we, we need to really, uh, push back and say, no,

I, I have every reason. And I would be a fool. I'd be an idiot. Um, I'd be a sucker for Satan.

If I don't actually acknowledge what's right in front of my face, these words, this terminology, this framework,

I'm not breaking the commandment to say that this is bad news. I don't know what is in these people's hearts.

I don't know all their intentions, but you know what? Whether they, uh, are wittingly doing it or unwittingly these terms and these examples and all this stuff, it fits right in line with what the woke, uh, movement is all about, you know, saying basically all the problems in the world are from white

Christian patriarchy. So why would you dance to their tune? Um, why would you uncritically or maybe even intentionally use their talking points without distancing yourself from that stuff?

If you, if you want to baptize some of the concerns, okay, fine. Uh, if you want to say,

Hey, we should be concerned about, uh, the poor, uh, but I'm not a leftist. I mean, maybe you should do that more often and we got to have a better mindset because the

Missouri Synod is, as you know, got into huge trouble a couple of generations ago and we, we basically lost our denomination and then we retook it, um, to a large extent anyway, in the battle for the

Bible. And, um, and I think that while it might not be at that level at this point,

I think it's just as critical for us to keep our denomination and play in footsie with the world and play in footsie with, uh, these terms, uh, that's exactly what happened back in the sixties.

Uh, and, and everyone would scold people who raised the alarm and we just have to not care about, uh, you know, the, the woke scolds, um, at all.

We just can't care because what our heritage is, is too precious. That's a good point.

You just made about not caring because that's the main thing I've seen keeping people back.

They don't want to be called racist, sexist, homophobic. Yeah. Just let it roll off your back.

Just do, you know, celebrate when it happens that they call Jesus names too. And if they're calling you that name because you look like him and you're supporting his ethics, then, um, praise

God. So I love that point you just made. Well, uh, thank you so much for explaining this to us because, um, it's outside of my wheelhouse a bit and to, um,

I mean, obviously I've seen this in other denominations, but, um, the impression I get, I know I mentioned this to you before,

I'll just say this briefly. We started recording is that the Lutherans, Missouri Senate Lutherans have, um, a very intellectual class at the top, more so than Southern Baptists, I think.

And they, um, there, there seems to be all denominations perhaps have this, but in the

Missouri Senate, as I've, uh, followed the issue with Concordia as well, there seems to be a huge difference, like huge between the managerial elites.

If you want to call them that at the top. And then those who are the rank and file pew sitters who just believe the

Bible, um, there's, I don't know why I get that sense, but I just do that that's a wider gap and.

You know, the, the president, I, you know, I do pray that his motivations are in the right place and that's what I assume, but there, there may also be,

I'm just saying a fear there of, we're going to have a rebellion on our hands. We have, you know, if we, if we make the laymen and these denominations, uh, you know, swallow this, these essays, then they are going to see through it and they're not going to accept it.

And we could have splintering and, um, you know, that's a good problem to have though, by the way, that's great that in the

Missouri Senate, you have such solid people that are willing to write letters, but keep doing it, keep doing it.

Well, and I think that what you say, um, I think that there is some, some distance between, um, uh, the, the, the folks, uh, at the top and the folks, uh, out in the parish,

I guess I would, I would, so I'm not disagreeing. I guess I would just point out one other thing is that since the

Senate is a very tight, uh, knit group of people, um, while I do,

I will admit I, what, what you say, I, I think maybe it's, uh, it's a, it's a slight overstatement, but it does resonate with me because I know that myself and others who are my friends have, have been frustrated about words and terms and things being used.

And, and we say, you know what that does for us in the parish, come on guys. And yet at the same time, because the

Senate is very tight letters and, and, and things like that really matter because there's, there's so many familial connections, old friendships, people who went to school together.

And so doing those little things, uh, really, really matters because there's all these close personal connections, um, all the way up to the top.

I mean, um, President Harrison is, is a guy who, when he goes to a conference, he, he goes out and has a beer and cigar with the guys, you know what

I mean? It, it is, it's still a very familial church in that way. And so it does matter to do that.

There is a divide. And, and I do think that there is some ivory tower, uh, naivete, uh, out there, but, but my goodness,

I mean, how wonderful it is. This is a silver lining. I've been telling people I see in all this, how wonderful is it that, uh, in the

Missouri Synod, we've been, we've been discussing and fighting over doctrine for the last week and a half.

I mean, that's awesome. That's good. That's a healthy thing. Yeah. And, and I think, so what

I was, what I'm noticing that's different than other denominations is, um, perhaps

I'm locating that disparity in the, in the intellectual or academic side of, of, so as you say, there's an accountability there where you can go out and share a beer and you, you have, uh, family connections and you're tight knit, which maybe that is the thing that's, uh, preventing

Missouri Synod Lutherans from going as far down the road as some of these other denominations.

There's a barrier there, but, um, where there is that disparity, it's, it's not in a, um, uh, okay, so I'll give you an example, like in the

Southern Baptist conventions is the most familiar with that one, if you look at their annual meetings, it's not necessarily those at the top aren't there because necessarily they're intellectual or they have academic acumen there.

It's, it's like the members of the resolutions committee, for example, they're handpicked there.

Um, some, some of them don't have academic credentials at all, but they're there because they're party players, if you know what

I mean, right? So there's, there's this disparity that exists between a ruling class, which is, which has serious corruption issues.

And then those in the pews, whereas in the Lutherans, it seems to me like it's, um, you, you correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's an academic thing more than anything else is people who have gone through and gotten educations and are rubbing shoulders now with other academics and maybe other

Lutheran denominations and secular world, et cetera. They start to form language and examples and ideas and, uh, that those in the pews never had the opportunity to form and don't want to form because they're not in that world.

Right. And that's where the divide comes in. Yeah, I, I, I think there's a lot of truth to that.

I mean, I, I, so I I'll, I'll admit, um, that, uh, uh, that you're up to sum up your, uh, observation,

I guess with one word is credentialism and we do have that problem in those areas. And, uh, yeah,

I should hire you just to summarize my paragraphs into one word or one sentence. Oh, no. I love when you go off on these tangents, because I mean,

I think, I think the different churches can learn so much, even though we differ on so many issues, um, of importance, but I mean, we all have the same, uh, enemy, um, and we all have it come at us with this woke stuff.

And so I always find it very enlightening when, when you talk about the Southern Baptist convention so that we can learn from those mistakes, uh, because, because I mean, it is, it's like the sixties and seventies where there's an assault on the inerrancy of the

Bible that didn't just happen in one denomination. It was across the board. Well, I mean, you mentioned modernism before, so,

I mean, we need to understand, uh, how, how, uh, these attacks come because they come in very similar ways, at least from what

I can see. Well, the good thing though, to land the plane on a good note here is that as soon as you get that insular, we are the elites, you must listen to us.

We don't care what you have to say. You're done. And the Lutherans don't have that. And that's the encouraging thing.

I've seen that in other places with the Lutherans, there is still an accountability and a willingness to listen.

Uh, even if, uh, you didn't, maybe the people that are critiquing this document don't have all the academic credentials or haven't served in all the places we've served in, they may have a point, they may be followers of Jesus.

They may, um, they, they, they may be someone worth listening to. And that to me is worth its weight in gold.

And so, uh, please pray as, um, uh, pastor Ramirez said for the

Lutheran Missouri Synod for the president and, uh, and, and get involved, I guess, however you can in that, in your denomination and, uh, write letters.

And so, um, any final thoughts from you, pastor Ramirez? No, that's a great final note.

Okay, cool. All right. Well, thank you. Um, God bless. And if people want to go check out your sermons, uh, and stuff, can they go to, was it

St. Paul? Uh, yeah, they're not, we don't have them online. Okay.

Wow. You guys are really traditional. Okay. Yeah. Uh, well, uh, well, maybe we'll talk about that after I stop recording.

I don't know why, but, um, so, I mean, is there anywhere you want me to send people or, um, uh, you know, um, in terms of, uh, where to go,

I mean, I, I would send, uh, so, uh, several of my friends are, are, are guys in the, the

Goddestine's podcast. Um, I don't know if you've heard of them. I think we spoke about them, but Goddestine's are excellent.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, if people want to keep updated, um, Goddestine's is primarily about worship and liturgy, but they, you know,

I mean, our life of worship should lead us to proper actions outside too, uh, in, in the world and in the church.

So, um, I'd go to Goddestine's if they want to see some updates on this and more commentary. Cool. All right.