The ELCA Sexism Study

This weekend, my bishop invited those of us on our synod's leadership Facebook page to consider studying the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's proposed social statement Faith, Sexism, Justice.  I confess that in the past, I haven't given these statements much time, energy, or effort.  They tend to be rather bland, written in such a broad fashion that produces as little controversy as possible, and passed despite any particular criticism which may or may not surface.

But this one was a bit different for me.

Recently, I was introduced to the "Factual Feminist": Christina Hoff Sommers.  After watching more than a few of her YouTube videos and reading two of her books: Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, I felt myself overwhelmed and astounded at discovering the root of much of the ideology driving those in power in my denomination.  I also discovered much factual information that I had never been exposed to in all my years of study.  To say I was disappointed in the current state of affairs in my denomination would be an understatement--the release of the Faith, Sexism, Justice draft only added to that disappointment.

I took time to read through the entire document, and I would encourage readers to do the same.  Module one lays out some of the governing assumptions in this draft including the idea of systemic sexism.  To quote:

It can be difficult to talk about, let alone grasp that there is a system or set of powerful invisible “forces” that connect to or set in motion individual incidents. It can be quite a challenge to accept that individual incidents involve multiple causes of: a) personal responsibility and b) social and religious beliefs and c) policy, laws, rules or common practices. Yet, if you step back, it becomes clear that something more than individual choices is needed to explain what’s going on in our society.

And further:

This is what the task force has come to realize; that is, the members believe there are systemic connections in U.S. culture that harm women in many ways. It is only when these many connections are recognized that one can explain the whole story adequately. Some of the concepts used in this study to describe these forces or systems include SEXISM, PATRIARCHY, and sexual and gender harassment. (Throughout this study, terms identified in capitalized bold will be found in the glossary.)  It is important to stress that everyone, men and women, participates in and is affected by these and can contribute to them.

So, what examples of sexism, patriarchy, and gender harassment are used throughout the study?  Personal illustrations include: feeling singled out because of unfairness in enforcing dress codes at school; comments about giving birth and assumed gender roles; being questioned about one's sexuality; a congregation's vote to call a pastor being undermined by those questioning her ability to hold the pastoral office and be a mother.  Other examples of sexism include: gender stereotypes; objectification of women's bodies, particularly in the media; the majority of eating disorders affecting women; politicizing reproductive rights; the wage gap; expectations of care giving; gender-based violence including sexual harassment, rape, and assault.

Add everything up, and you have a patriarchy which seeks to oppress women:

A patriarchal SOCIAL SYSTEM is dominated largely by the voice and authority of men. A patriarchal social system is centered on males; the world is portrayed with men as the main actors in life and reflects their ideas and values. Patriarchy is supported through means of power and control, such as sexual discrimination and gender inequality.

Now, it might be entertaining to address each of these issues one by one, but others have already done this.  What I want to call into question is the worldview of those who have perpetuated this one-sided Sexism study on the larger church.  For I believe their worldview is absolutely warped beyond imagination and does not reflect the reality of the current U.S. society.

I am of the opinion that any study or statement should describe reality as it is. Any study or statement of sexism should be a balanced ordeal reflecting the reality of the world in which it addresses. This study's one sided reflection of reality is very troubling especially since it leaves out some important evidence regarding men.  How well do men fare under this so-called patriarchal system intended to keep them in power and control?

Undisputed facts:

95% of those in prison are men.
90% of work related deaths are men.
75% of suicides are men.
60%-70% of homeless are men.
Only 40% of bachelor degrees go to men.
Only 40% of masters degrees go to men.
48% of doctorate degrees go to men.
Young girls do far better in school than young boys.
Women live five years longer than men.
Women pay less for auto insurance.
Women pay less for life insurance. (Balanced by the fact they pay more for health insurance.)

Women are better educated, less likely to be injured or killed on a job, less likely to kill themselves, less likely to end up in jail, and live longer than men. (Hardly a pinnacle of male dominance in this "patriarchy.") Women have gender studies and all manner of organizations specifically geared to their issues (with hardly any for men). Media coverage for women's health issues soars with even the NFL devoting a month to breast cancer awareness--there is nothing comparable to men's health issues.  Luckily, we have plenty of commercials for ED, though.  (Okay, perhaps that was a bit over the top...)

These facts are hardly representative of a patriarchy.  They are hardly representative of oppression of women.  In fact, if these numbers represented women, there would be alarm bells ringing all over the place!!!  But there are not.  Not even close, and the question of, "Why?" must be asked.

I am sure that there are many factors, but I will focus on just one: the ideology introduced by Marxism of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic.  This worldview permeates much of the leadership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and it has a blinding effect.  It virtuizes the "oppressed" and demonizes the "oppressor."  It leads to confirmation bias and a willingness to seek out any example to confirm one's position including warping the facts on studies and using dubious methodology to enhance one's position.  Truth is thrust aside so that the worldview is not damaged.

Take for instance sexual assault.  Please watch the following two videos:

and:

Sexual assault on campus is a reality, but it is not a culture.  The statistics used to bolster this assertion are false, but you would never know that if you didn't take the time to actually dig into the studies as Dr. Sommers has.  It is a willful distortion of reality.

The reality of our world is that there indeed is sexism, but sexism isn't a one way street.  The facts provided above show unequivocally that men face some truly oppressive issues in the current system--as do women. 

There is a rich irony that Faith, Sexism, Justice quotes Martin Luther's famous statement about a theology of the cross versus a theology of glory, "A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is."  While the study in no way calls the evils perpetuated against women good, it does not call reality what it actually is.  It falsely asserts that there is a patriarchy and then omits evidence which shatters that claim.

If the ELCA wishes to do a study on sexism that includes the realities faced by men and women in this society, then I will gladly jump in with both feet with my congregation; however, if the ELCA wishes to perpetuate myth, then I will say to it as I said to my bishop, "Until the ELCA decides to describe reality better and gets away from wonky statistics, I won't be using this study any time soon in my congregation."

(I highly doubt that any criticism I give to this study will have any impact what-so-ever.  Whenever you challenge such things, as I did, you receive quite the backlash as facts are not engaged, and you are simply labeled misogynist, ignorant, or privileged.  No matter.  The truth is the truth.  The facts are the facts.  My denomination continues its rapid decline, and one can argue it is deserved as it carries a particular agenda which is not rooted and grounded in the Gospel--a Gospel which says yes, we live in a world where all are fallen; all are oppressed; all are oppressors; all face sexism, racism, hatred, and the like.  And the answer is the cross: Jesus who died for sinners in whom we find our identity.  Through Him WE GIVE UP our gender, our sexuality, our ethnicity and become clothed with Him.  This is not what the pundits within the ELCA preach.  Instead they proclaim: hold onto your identity; hold onto your sexuality; hold onto your gender; hold onto your ethnicity because this makes you authentic.  God loves you just the way you are.  In reality, God loves you in spite of who you are.  This was the radical nature of the Gospel.)

Is Christianity Prejudiced?

Being a part of a mostly liberal denomination--The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I get exposed to quite a few interesting thoughts and ideas.

Recently, I was asked to edit a comment I made on Facebook because it came across as "mansplaining."  My first thought was, "What the hell is that?"  Turns out, it is a made up word by those who are combating the "patriarchy" who see certain comments as patronizing--especially if they are coming from a male.  Behind such wordplay is the assumption that we indeed live in a patriarchy where men dominate women; men are the oppressors of women; and where men have engineered a system to keep women oppressed even in their use of language. 

Such thinking is not unique to the third-wave feminist movement.  There are also such undertones in the sphere of race and identity in our culture.  The term "white-privilege" is bantered about quite a bit these days assuming that society is geared to privilege people with less melanin in their skin.  The very fabric of our society: how it is constructed; how it functions; its very foundational thoughts--are imbued to favor whites.  Therefore, as some have concluded, all white people are racist.

I firmly believe that if you think that all people of a certain gender, skin color, or sexuality are racist, sexist or what have you, then you are actually guilty of major prejudice.  Not bothering to get to know people on an individual basis, you have categorically made a "preconceived judgement or opinion."  You have not judged a person by the content of his or her character; rather, you have made your claim based upon that person's gender or skin color.  Such behavior is misguided at the least.  Evil at its worst. 

Such thoughts got me to thinking about the assumptions that govern Christianity.  Does Christianity make prejudicial statements about people?  Does Christianity assume things about others before getting to know those others?

Without a doubt.

Christianity claims "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  All are infected with the disease of original sin.  (Original sin being an inherent selfishness and desire to be our own god of the universe into which all are born; all struggle with; and all have difficulty overcoming.) 

If I adhere to the historical understanding of the Christian faith, then I definitely pre-judge people in this manner.  Am I misguided at the least?  Evil at worst?

I might be, if I looked at the world through the lens of dichotomy: us/them; oppressor/oppressed; right/wrong.  For if I am a follower of Jesus who is "washed in the blood of the Lamb" and you are not, then I am better off than you are.  I know that I am saved.  I know that I am righteous unlike those who are still wallowing in their sins and condemned to everlasting punishment.

But historical Christianity does not allow me to look at the world this way.  Historical Christianity does not allow me to think of myself as better off than anyone.  For I too am guilty of original sin.  I too am guilty of an inherent selfishness.  I too am guilty of wishing to be god of my own universe.  I cannot set myself against anyone because I am just like the other.

Much of the rhetoric in liberal churches who buy into the oppressor/oppressed lens--translated into male/female; white/black; white/brown; white/insert whatever color you choose; straight/GLBTQ; ad infinatum--draw sharp distinctions between genders, races, and those with differing sexual orientation.  There is a definite dividing line for those who look at the world in this fashion.  One could literally accuse these folks of black/white thinking and be absolutely correct--even though most on this side of the fence claim to see the world in shades of gray.  Actually, they only see shades of gray when it is to their benefit--as do most people, including myself.

Historical Christianity has removed the dividing line.  All have sinned.  All are saved only and solely by grace.  That's the other part generally missing from the rhetoric these days.

Left up to human devices, there is never a leveling of the playing field.  There can only be societal upheaval which seeks to deconstruct systems and institutions and reconstruct them in a more equitable fashion.  Historically speaking, this is never going to happen.  Every single governmental and institutional structure has been shown to be wanting.  Every single governmental and institutional structure has shown to have major flaws.  None have been up to the task of creating a world of equality and egalitarianism.  None.  This is simply a historical fact whether you like it or not.  And all the legal wrangling we try will never get us there.  You cannot legislate a perfect society.  Even God tried that--at least if you take Scripture seriously.  It didn't work because we humans always find the loop holes.  We humans always interpret the law to our advantage.  What is needed is not more law, but complete changes of heart.

That is not accomplished by ourselves--or else we could claim to have an advantage over others.  "I changed myself.  You can too.  You must too.  You'd better too."  Historical Christianity claims that such change comes from God and His action through the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim any sort of superiority.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim to have an advantage over anyone else.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I am incapable of demonizing another; seeing the other as less than human; or condemning the other based upon their actions or physical traits.  Jesus died for the other and saved the other just as He died for and saved me.

In much of liberal Christian thought "salvation" comes by recognizing my privilege and seeking to be in solidarity with those who are oppressed by such privilege.  "Salvation" comes by seeking to become like the other or in solidarity with the other.  In historical Christian thought, salvation comes through Jesus and then seeking to be like Him--dying to myself, my wants, and  my desires and living to the glory of God.  This means loving others including those who treat me wrongly.

Hence, I become prejudiced.  I see people as sinners.  I see them in need of the love of God through Jesus Christ.  But I do not condemn them or hate them because I am also prejudiced in seeing them as children of God and beloved by God. 

This is the prejudice of Christianity, and perhaps it is the prejudice we need more than ever in our society.

Identity Crisis

I believe the culture we live in likes ambiguity.

I believe the culture we live in does not like certainty on one level--even though it craves it on another.

In some ways, I think the culture we live in swings back and forth between the extremes.

It wants something certain to hold onto, but when it finds someone or something that believes it is certain, it will try to rip it to shreds (See Robinson, Phil.)

I understand why there is motivation to keep ambiguity.  History is replete with examples of people and groups who believe they have the absolute truth, and they use that certainty to do great harm to others.  Without certainty, at least as the hypothesis goes, folks won't harm others.  Of course, one must then ask the question: should one be absolutely certain that having ambiguity is a good thing?  (See the trap?)

Setting this aside for just a moment, let's talk about identity.  How does one "know thyself?"  How does one know one's own identity?  Can anyone be certain about one's identity?

Personally, I hope one can.  Individually, we must have some certainty about who we are and what we believe.  I am Kevin Haug.  I was born in Texas.  I am a pastor.  I am a Christian.  I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all.   I believe it is through Jesus we have salvation.  I believe Jesus is the only way to salvation.

A few of these things are innocuous in and of themselves.  A few of them could get me in trouble depending upon which circles I travel in.  I am certain about all of them.  Do you see me going around bashing people who don't believe in Jesus?

No.

Why?

Because of another certainty: Jesus says, "Pray for your enemies.  Bless those who persecute you."  Jesus also asks His followers to imitate Him.  While I'm not quite as far along as Jesus is, Jesus died for His enemies saying, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

At the heart of my faith is someone who died for others who really didn't like Him, and if I am certain I am called to do likewise, then I can't, in good conscience, bash someone who doesn't believe as I do.  I am called to love and forgive them.  Certainty is not a bad thing.  The things you are certain about can be.

Why all this talk about certainty?

I believe people are attracted to people/institutions who have a very defined identity.  This means, they are certain about who they are, what they believe, and what they are supposed to do.  Of course, these identities differ from person to person and institution to institution.  There's really nothing wrong with that until people and/or institutions start damaging others over those differences.

People/Institutions begin having serious problems when identity is lacking.  Institutions are particularly vulnerable when they seek to accommodate all people and all beliefs.

I think this is part of the larger issue in the ELCA, the denomination of which I am a part.  If you read through our social statements; if you read through many of our decisions as a church; if you peruse the dialogue held by people; you will NOT get a sense of a shared identity.  You will NOT get a sense of this denomination knowing with any kind of certainty what we believe and profess.  Oh, you might get one or two things that we agree upon--I don't know of any ELCA pastor who doesn't adhere to the statement "Jesus is Lord."  I don't know of any pastor who minimizes the importance of the Sacraments.  I don't know of anyone who minimizes the concept of grace.   But the devil is often in the details.  Try to deduce what it means that Jesus is Lord.  Does that mean universal salvation for all--even those who reject God?  There will not be uniform answers.  As per the Sacraments--commune the unbaptized as Christian tradition?  Again, no uniformity.  The relationship between grace and works--do we have free will?  Again, lots of play here.

Even in some of the basics--we adhere to the three ecumenical creeds and to the Lutheran Confessions, but practically, we don't.  There are more than a few articles in the Confessions we don't follow.  Our practice does not meet our stated belief.  That's problematic.

Need any sort of proof that we in the ELCA don't have any sort of common understanding of at least one particular belief:

Heaven and Hell

I don’t know that the ELCA has an “official” theological position on heaven or hell other than the Lutheran church affirms the power of the resurrection for eternal life. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Ask-a-Pastor/2014/01/140113-Is-there-a-heaven-and-hell#sthash.3IR1XznK.dpuf

I don’t know that the ELCA has an “official” theological position on heaven or hell other than the Lutheran church affirms the power of the resurrection for eternal life. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Ask-a-Pastor/2014/01/140113-Is-there-a-heaven-and-hell#sthash.3IR1XznK.dpuf

I don’t know that the ELCA has an “official” theological position on heaven or hell other than the Lutheran church affirms the power of the resurrection for eternal life. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Ask-a-Pastor/2014/01/140113-Is-there-a-heaven-and-hell#sthash.3IR1XznK.dpuf

I don’t know that the ELCA has an “official” theological position on heaven or hell other than the Lutheran church affirms the power of the resurrection for eternal life. - See more at: http://www.elca.org/en/Living-Lutheran/Ask-a-Pastor/2014/01/140113-Is-there-a-heaven-and-hell#sthash.3IR1XznK.dpuf

I don't know that the ELCA has an "official" theological position on heaven and hell...

I think it's fair to say that the ELCA's "official" position is that heaven and hell exist.

So, what is the person who actually asked the question about whether heaven and hell exist to think? 

I know what I would think.  I would think, this denomination doesn't know what is believes and what it doesn't believe.  It doesn't know where it stands.

A far, far cry from the Reformer of whom the church takes its name.

It's a problem.  A big problem.

No common understanding translates into no common identity.  No common identity leaves those who are looking for answers as to what we believe quite confused and unsure about where we stand on anything.

And we wonder why the denomination is fading fast?

Examining Motivations

Last week, I offered two posts which were highly critical of the theological methodology being used in the denomination of which I am a part: the ELCA.  No, I am not going back on those criticisms, but I am taking a moment to examine my motivations for writing as I did.

I am a student of Bowen Family Systems Theory.  This theory has some interesting things to say about criticism.

#1. Criticism is a form of pursuit.  Whenever a person is critical of you, that person actually desires to be in a relationship with you and feels like you are distancing yourself from him or her.

I won't dispute this point of BFST.  The more I have developed theologically, the more the ELCA has accepted certain forms of theology, the more I feel the ELCA is becoming more distant from me.  I'm not happy with this development since this denomination is my "parent."  It is the only church I have a memory of on the denominational level.

At this point, one might ask, "Why don't you just pack up and leave?  If you feel the church has left you, why not let it go and simply go on your own way.  Find a denomination where you feel comfortable."

Well, in all honesty, does one become a part of a congregation/denomination to be "comfortable"?  As a pastor, I have come to the point where I realize that sitting in the pew should be comforting and discomforting at one and the same time.  In fact, if I'm not uncomfortable, then there is little chance of theological/spiritual growth.  In order to better know one's identity and develop, one must engage others who are different.  So, comfort isn't the issue.

I am also one who has a high sense of commitment.  I am not one who walks away from relationships easily.  I try to give them every chance possible.  It would take massive infidelity on the part of another--a massive break of trust--for me to terminate any sort of relationship.

The ELCA isn't seeking to do anything which has pushed me to that limit at this time.  I hope it won't.  Are there some lines I won't cross.  Yep, but we aren't close to there now.

#2. Whenever you hear criticism from the least emotionally mature, you are doing something right.

This is an interesting tenet of BFST, and one that makes me ponder deeply.  Am I being critical because of pursuit?  Am I being critical because I am one of the least mature?  Am I being critical because I am taking a stand and preventing the choices of others from being invasive?

These are difficult questions because it is easy to say that I am the latter of the questions.  I want to define myself as someone who is emotionally and theologically mature who is taking a stand and refusing to accept the theological position of the ELCA.  But, I am well aware that nearly everyone would choose to see themselves as such.  No one likes to think that he or she is immature--emotionally or otherwise.

So, I am forced to ask myself whether or not I am immature.  Is it a possibility?  Sure.  I have to recognize this and walk carefully and humbly.

I am also forced to recognize the world in which we live.  There was a day and age when communication was limited and theological arguments were held in the academy and through journal publications and the publication of books.  But that day is long gone.  Because of the advent of the internet and the rise of relativism--anyone can be an amateur theologian.  Anyone can start up a blog--just as I did--and add their voice to the cacophony of voices.  There is so much sound being made, it is only the loudest who garner attention.  However, the loudest are not always the best theologians or the brightest.  The loudest sometimes simply yell just to hear their own voices.  The loudest oftentimes just shout to try and overwhelm the other voices which are out there and silence them through intimidation.

I hope I do not come across in such fashion.   I hope I am entering this fray being seen as having the intention I truly have: to call the church, particularly my own denomination toward reformation.  It is my belief the denomination has strayed too far from the orthodox faith and teaching.  Theologically, I believe she is on the wrong track, and I will do my best to plainly articulate why and hopefully to do so without malice.  That will be a huge challenge, but I am hoping to accomplish such a thing.

Whether or not my voice will be heard or make a difference remains to be seen, but at least my readers know my motivations.

One More Piece for Clarity's Sake

Yesterday, I spoke of how the theologies of Rudolf Bultmann, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan have heavily influenced the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  Seeing how the poor quality of their theology has influenced the teaching/preaching/social ministry of my denomination brought some clarity as to one of the reasons my denomination is struggling.  But there is another piece of the puzzle which has affected the larger denomination--Liberation Theology.

This particular brand of theology finds its roots in Latin America where social stratification is very pronounced.  You have rich and poor and little to nothing in between.  As people at the bottom of the social strata began reading scripture, they found comfort, solace, and perhaps even more important, empowerment in the Bible's teachings regarding God's preferential support for the poor and oppressed.

There is little doubt that Scripture shows a continuity from Old to New Testament of God's deep desire for the care of the poor, widowed, and orphaned.  Law after law, teaching after teaching, and exhortation after exhortation show this.  There are more than a few condemnations toward the rich and powerful, especially those who revel in their wealth and refuse to care for those who are less fortunate.

Poor peasants in Latin America found this to be vastly empowering and vastly hope filled.  God shared their plight!  God frowned upon those who would seek to keep them impoverished!  They had theological and moral backing for speaking out against the injustices committed against them! 

Of course, this theological movement made more than a few in the hierarchy of the Church uncomfortable.  What about the wealthier folks who frequented the pews and put money in the offering plate?  Should the church join the voices of the poor and oppressed to speak out against such injustice when it is likely to offend those worshiping and contributing?  What about the people in power who supported the Church as long as the Church talked about spiritual matters but left worldly matters in the hands of the government--even if the government was corrupt?  What was the Church to do?

Actually, the answer was a no-brainer.  The Church was and is called to speak out on behalf of the poor and oppressed.  There really is no argument on that.  In fact, I would push it even further--the Church is called not just to speak for the poor and oppressed, but the Church is called to help the poor and oppressed find their own voice and speak for themselves.  That's true empowerment.  Otherwise, the poor and oppressed become dependent upon the Church, and that's not the egalitarian nature intended by Christ.

So, what is the problem with liberation theology?  In the context above, nothing.  But when removed from the particular context it was formed, there is a big problem. 

Liberation theology teaches that one must look at the world through a particular lens: the lens of oppressor/oppressed.  God gives preferential care and concern to the oppressed--again, clearly articulated in Scripture.  Therefore, if one seeks to apply Liberation Theology to ANY given context, one seeks to be oppressed!  It becomes fashionable to be oppressed!  Well, this means there needs to be an oppressor, so we have to find one of those too.  Soon, Jesus is seen to be on my side, and everyone else is the one with the issues. 

Luke Timothy Johnson is instrumental once again in his critique found in The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels: 

The popularity of liberation theology in many liberal Protestant and Catholic seminaries has only widened the gap between the critically educated clergy and the people they were called to serve.  Such liberation has tended to base itself squarely on a "historical Jesus" that has been critically reconstructed from the Gospels after they have been subjected to the appropriate ideological criticism.  The distinction between "Jesus" and "Christianity" is ideologically exploited.  In the feminist reading, the "woman-defined Jesus" who preaches a version of female wisdom and displays all the appropriate gender-inclusive attitudes is supplanted by the patriarchal Paul, who, despite his nod to egalitarianism, suppresses women in his churches, and through his letters also suppresses women through the entire history of the church.  In the Latin American reading, the Jesus who proclaimed a Jubilee year for the poor and followed an itinerant lifestyle is supplanted by the bourgeois tendencies of Pauline Christianity, which softens the countercultural edge of the Jesus movement.  In the radical gay liberationist reading, the antiestablishment Jesus is declared "as queer as you or me" and the heroic enemy of heterosexist hegemony.  Once more, Paul's statements against homosexuality represent the enemy.  In each version, Jesus is pitted against the church, and the Gospels are pitted against the rest of the New Testament, but only when read against their plain sense to yield a portrait of Jesus that fits the ideological commitments of the readers.  (page 65)

Add one more way in which people form their own personal Jesus--this time based upon their own cultural ideology.

So, what do you get when you put together:

1. A theology which denies the miraculous and places science and reason above faith? (Bultmann)

+

2. A theology which makes Jesus into a liberal academic? (Borg)

+

3. A theology which makes Jesus a poor peasant criticizing the religious establishment and oppressive powers--whose body was not resurrected but eaten by dogs, and whose followers had a mental understanding of Jesus still living? (Crossan)

+

4. A theology which makes it fashionable to be oppressed and lift up any marginalized group (even if that marginalization is due to that group's embracing beliefs contrary to scripture)?

+

5. A theology which takes the concept of grace and then leans too far toward the anti-nomian position?

Well, my friends, you've got the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America--as well as several other mainline denominations.

Poor scholarship.  Poor practice.  Is it any wonder for the declining state of mainline Christianity?

I asked yesterday, and so I continue today...what is the remedy?  Believe me, I know too well the futility in stemming the tide of this theological monstrosity.  It's entrenched and isn't going anywhere.  So, what is one to do?  Where does one turn?

More to come...