A Lutheran House of Studies
Dennis Bielfeldt, Ph. D.
WordAlone earnestly desires to establish a new confessional Lutheran theological house of studies. But some ask, “Why? Why does Lutheranism need another place trying to train pastors confessionally? What is so wrong with what we have? While things aren’t perfect, perhaps, they aren’t that bad either. Why does WordAlone think it can establish an institution more confessional than what has already been planted in ELCA, LCMS or WELS soil? Why does it believe that the effort and expense will bear good fruit?”
These are important questions, of course, and it seems that the so-called “Director of the WordAlone Lutheran theological house of studies” (my official title these days) should have ready answers to them. When the WordAlone Convention in May adopted a plan for implementation of the house of studies, it voted on a report in which I spoke of several challenges facing seminary education within the ELCA. At that time, I saw six major issues:
I still believe that these identify the major difficulties facing theological education within the ELCA, and I recommend that FOCL readers examine the Report and form their own opinions as to its accuracy. (See the Report at the WordAlone website at http://www.wordalone.org/docs/wa-bielfeldt-2006.shtml.) This report, I believe, gives the rationale for why another Lutheran institution is necessary for the training of future pastors and teachers.
If this list is accurate, however, and is successfully answers questions of why we need a confessional House of Studies now within the ELCA context, it does not address the further question of the general theological contour of that house of studies. Given that the house of studies is “confessional,” what does “being confessional” mean for its curriculum and teaching? Even more profoundly, what does “being confessional” mean within Lutheranism generally in our time?
The easy answer to the question of what “being confessional” means is this: For an educational institution to be confessional is for it to privilege the historic confessions of its tradition such that they become foundational (and normative) for the piety, teaching and research of the institution.
Unfortunately, this definition is inadequate. Because our postmodern times allow (and often encourage) multiple readings of texts, two or more institutions grounded on the same confessional texts might have quite different theological trajectories. All the ELCA seminaries can make a claim to privilege Scripture and the Lutheran confessional writings, yet it is obvious that some have departed more significantly from traditional Lutheran theological affirmations than have others. Many celebrate this departure from the tradition as a departure entailed by the radicality of God’s love for us in Christ. (This is clearly true with regard to the sexuality/homsexuality debate raging within the ELCA.)
So how can this situation be fixed? Indeed, how might one fix the interpretations of the Confessions so that they might not drift? What kind of interpretation of Scripture can block interpretations attempting to say that Scripture itself says nothing about the sinfulness of homosexuality? What kind of interpretation of the Confessions and the confessional tradition can block interpretations saying that the Reformers “earnestly desired” to retain Bishops in historical succession with Rome, and thus that Lutherans are mandated by their own confessions to seek visible, ecclesial unity with Rome?
In the absence of a present normative consensus as to what the texts of the Confessions mean, it becomes important to make clear from the beginning that it is not the text itself that grounds a tradition, but rather a particular interpretation of the text. A particular reading of the text, established in part by its situational context, functions normatively and determines, at least partially, the character of any educational institution regarding that text as foundational.
My motivation in offering the WordAlone “fundamentals” is to try to determine if there is sufficient theological clarity in the WordAlone movement to establish normatively a range of interpretations of the Lutheran confessional documents. Given that Lutherans holding to Scriptures and Confessions believe many different things about what Scriptures and Confessions mean and presuppose, is there sufficient clarity within WordAlone to be able to determine for these documents a range of appropriate meanings? What “take” on Scripture and Confessions has seemed to be operating in the WordAlone movement since its inception, a “take” that might be worked up into a list of central theological affirmations or assumptions?
My own attempt at articulating these affirmations of WordAlone appear on the WordAlone website (http://www.wordalone.org/docs/wa-fundamentals.shtml), but I include them also below. I believe that these assertions function as the differentia which give WordAlone its identity as a species within Lutheranism.
Theological statements have truth-conditions
1. God is real, that is, God exists out and beyond human awareness, perception, conception and language
2. God is causally related to the universe
3. All temporal structures, institutions and conceptual frameworks are historically-conditioned
4. Nothing finite is infinite
5. The true church is not visible, but remains hidden
6. The Holy Spirit works monergistically, not synergistically, upon sinners effecting saving faith
While all seven statements are important, the first four are especially significant in our theological context and thus I have developed them quite extensively in a longer article that I hope to have published soon. I have space here only to touch upon the first four.
The first assertion makes the semantic claim that what makes a theological statement true is some extra-subjective reality that is relatable to the subject. This statement clearly denies that theological language could merely refer to the self, or to the attitudes, values and orientations of a community. In addition, it claims that theological statements must be more than simple rules by which a community organizes its religious life together. Theological statements function as rules, I believe, only if the community believes them true, only if it thinks these statements state what is, in fact, the case.
The second and third assertions are ontological. They claim that there is some reality to God that is not merely reducible to human experience. Over and against the dominant theological tradition of the last 200 years, the third claim is that God is causally connected to the universe, that there are at least some physical events that would not have obtained had God not causally-influenced them to do so. These two assertions are important because they bring God out of the “causal isolation” presupposed in the development of much Lutheran theology since the time of Kant in 1781. For Kant, God could not be a substance causally-related to the universe, but was instead an “ideal of pure reason.”
Finally, assertion four has epistemological consequences. All objects of knowledge, and all acts or knowing, are denizens of time and are thereby limited by other events within time. Thus, there can be no knowledge of any such objects that are not affected by history. Every act of knowing is historically-conditioned. We have no immediate knowledge of things as they are in themselves, no “bird’s eye view” from which to gaze out on things and know them absolutely. This is so for all acts of knowing, even when it is the divine that is known. This affirmation clearly admits that God is hidden, but does not thereby make a diminished ontological claim about God simply because we cannot know God as He is apart from Christ.
So how is it that the proposed house of studies might successfully establish a normative standpoint on the Confessions such that they become the foundational documents which they must be if they are to govern the subsequent educational trajectory of the institution? How does the WordAlone House of Studies guarantee that it will not become just another expression of a liberal Protestant ethos in North America?
The simple answer is this: If the WordAlone Network can agree on some rather key theological issues, it can establish its house of studies upon on the ground of this consensus. Without some normative theological underpinning, a WordAlone house of studies will drift and shift according to the prevailing theological winds of the day. Let us examine how establishing a normative theological center might affect the house of studies.
Lutherans within and outside the WordAlone Network will likely agree that God confronts us in Law and Gospel, and that the address of the Gospel has salvific significance for its auditors. Lutherans within and outside WordAlone will emphasize the performative nature of first-order statements - - statements referring to the primary objects of theology - - bespeaking God’s grace in and despite human sinfulness. But clearly a majority of folks within the ELCA see no tension between this emphasis and the practice of a mandated historic episcopate. Thus, there is a disconnect between a lively Law/Gospel application of Scripture and “issues of church organization” like the acceptance of the historic episcopate. The problem is a very deep one, and it goes to the very heart of some rather profound theological issues.
I believe that a presupposition of much ELCA thinking is that second-order theological language - - statements dealing with the relationship of theological objects and the first-order sentences bespeaking them - - does not literally have truth-conditions (that is, that its statements are not literally true or false). While all can agree on the abundance of God’s grace in the linguistic encounter in sermon and text, many will assume that further statements about God are unwarranted and even misleading. For instance, why would one ever want to say that ‘God exists apart from human awareness, perception, conception and language’ or that ‘God is causally-related to the universe’? Why would one need to say these things, if the reality of God’s grace is communicated through first-order language? For many liberal Protestants, the problems begin when one begins to speak about God. If this is true, why would one want to affirm statements about God?
The response to this is two-fold: 1) We need second-order language about God to state what it is we actually believe, and to ground what it is we shall teach about God; and 2) What it is we actually believe about God does influence the hearer’s appropriation of the words of Law and Gospel.
In regard to the second response, we must point out that the logic of being forgiven entails that there is one to forgive. In like manner, the logic of living under divine wrath requires that there is a God who is righteously angry. While one might have an experience of being forgiven without there being God, or might have an experience of being under divine wrath without God, one simply cannot be forgiven by God or truly live under divine wrath unless there is a God. Moreover, the contour of the experience of wrath and forgiveness is related to whether or not there is One whose wrath is kindled, and who nonetheless graciously and mercifully forgives. What human beings believe about God dialectically links to how God confronts us in Law and Gospel. For instance, if John doesn’t believe God has a personal agency, then the experience of grace John has hearing the Gospel will surely be different than what he would have had were he to have held that God was a personal God.
As another example of this, take the words of Scripture ‘fear not!’ In a particular situation, these words spoken can be words of Gospel and grace. They certainly were so for people like Luther who understood the gift of God’s grace and forgiveness over and against a backdrop of divine wrath. Luther and the reformers actually thought that God existed outside of them, and that this God could (and did) adopt particular attitudes about them. Luther thought that God in his hiddenness was so awe-full, that he counseled others to keep their eyes riveted on the Christ. The Words of Gospel promise are so sweet because the human condition before the inscrutable will of the hidden God is so dire.
For Luther, the necessary condition for being a hidden God with inscrutable will that terrifies man and woman outside of Christ is that God is a real being having causal relations within the universe. God is no mere idea of reason, no abstract thought about the unity or mystery of all things. God is a living reality that is a threat to sinners - - and all of us are sinners. It seems, that even though God is hidden, some reflection upon, or encounter with, God’s being is necessary if one is going to understand the situation as Luther did. It should come as no shock that the confessional documents read in quite a different way to those who believe that God has independent existence outside the self. At that point, all thinking about the gift of language stops and we are thrust back into the primal experience of awaiting a word of Gospel from God - - not because it is a word, but because it comes from God.
Much more could be said about these things, but the point is clear. If WordAlone can arrive at some consensus of theological opinion, then there is a foundation upon which to ground a Scripturally-engaged, and confessionally-grounded Lutheran theological house of studies. If WordAlone is unable to define clearly what it is to be both Scripturally-engaged and confessionally-grounded, then its house of studies shall likely not prosper, and the critics who claim it ill-advised and wasteful to have attempted its establishment will themselves perhaps be vindicated. As with most human endeavors, it is extremely important to start correctly.
The following message From Major Erik Feig, Chaplain, currently serving in Iraq, who wrote an article for FOCL Point in the winter of 2003, provides an interesting international perspective.
It’s a tough fight here in the desert. The enemy is all around and waving death and destruction in our face every day. Yet our soldiers continue to fight with a strength and courage that can only be from God – and I’m humbled by their actions daily. Although the bombs explode here, the war is really for the hearts and minds of the American people. The enemy here knows that every bomb they use against our soldiers has it’s biggest and true effect back in America, when the media splashes it from sea to shining sea, turning the sentiment of the American public against the effort here. The enemy cannot defeat the American Army in a fight, but can defeat America simply by attrition. Keep the faith, my brother and sister in Christ. We’re doing the right thing here. I hate war, and I pray that we never have to fight; but when evil raises its head, and the innocent are oppressed and killed, it’s time to respond. Now is that time. You can be proud of the men and women serving here.
A PASTORAL LETTER OF DISCLOSURE
August 8, 2006
Dear Rostered Colleagues of the Southeastern Synod,
After a lengthy process of prayerful discernment, today I filed charges against The Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling, presently serving as pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church, Atlanta, GA. Pastor Schmeling has admitted to me that he is in violation of ELCA "Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline..." for ordained ministers. Specifically, Pastor Schmeling disclosed to me that he is in a sexual relationship with an adult male. He has declined my requests for his resignations from his call to St. John’s Lutheran Church and the ELCA clergy roster.
When a synod bishop files charges against a pastor, the action begins the church’s formal process which leads to a hearing by a Discipline Hearing Committee (DHC). The DHC receives evidence, listens to witnesses and eventually determines what actions should be taken. For example, if a DHC finds that a pastor is not in compliance with ELCA "Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline...," the committee has the authority to remove a pastor from the ELCA roster for ordained ministers. For more detailed information, see Chapter 20 of the ELCA Constitution (http://www.elca.org/secretary/constitutions/index.html).
An ELCA bishop does not have the authority to unilaterally remove any ELCA pastor from the ELCA roster. For this reason, it is necessary to submit this matter to the ELCA disciplinary process. This is an internal church proceeding and does not involve the civil courts.
With the filing of charges, I do not intend to make any further comments about the case until the DHC renders its verdict and course of action. Please remember in intercessory prayer Pastor Bradley Schmeling, his loved ones, St. John’s Lutheran Church, and those of us who will be involved in the discipline hearing process.
Sincerely in Christ,
Ronald B. Warren, Bishop
Editorial comment for reflection: It is indeed good that a bishop reflects on the responsibility of upholding the current governing documents of the ELCA. In seeking to stand together for the sake of the church, the problem is introduced that while Bishop Warren in the Southeast Synod is arguably following through with Vision and Expectations, in Southern California West, there is a currently serving pastor who, in front of Churchwide Assembly, declared that he was in a committed same-sex relationship and there has been, again arguably, nothing publically done to remedy this equal violation of Vision and Expectations.
A Report From some ELCA Lutheran Campuses
The following report comes from a dialogue on one of the many Reforming minded ELCA Lutherans who are discussing contemporary issues in the church.
It has been reported that two students at St. Olaf College are very unhappy with what is happening at the official St. Olaf Sunday Worship. According to them, the sermons are largely diatribes of liberal theology and liberal causes. The students have shared that they are not being fed spiritually.
They have further related that there are a growing number of students who are unhappy and who are not being fed. A proposal was made to them to start an alternative, "A Confessing Church of St. Olaf."
In a parallel development, there is a movement afoot at St. Olaf. The college, liberals, professors, and clergy are being challenged through a series of letters written by someone named ‘V’. I have been privy to some of these letters and they are very powerful and they are becoming the talk of the campus. Through his writing, ‘V’ is challenging the oppression of the liberals over everyone else. The sermons that promote social and liberal causes and not the Word of God.
For those students who wish to worship in a more contemporary setting and with a more traditional theological emphasis, they tend to gather at an off-campus. In reaction to the ministry at Pacific Lutheran University, this has happened. Likewise, students from who attend Western Washington University in Bellingham have discovered that the Presbyterian sponsored ‘THE INN’ is definitely more-in line with the traditional understanding of God's Word than the more radical leanings of the official campus ministry.
In Lexington, fear surrounds players in flap over gay teachings
Schools chief threatened; boy's safety a concern
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff | July 5, 2006
LEXINGTON -- Angry callers threatened to beat up the school superintendent. A school principal, bombarded by nasty e-mails, left town. Even David Parker , the father who stirred the controversy when he asked that his son be removed from class if homosexuality was covered, now is worried about his son's safety at school.
The anxiety and suspicion that has gripped this progressive town over the past year shows the consequences for a community when a national political issue hits home. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the only state to legalize gay marriage, in a nation with a president who wants to ban same-sex unions.
In Lexington, a debate over whether to mention gay marriage in schools divided parents, and a playground fight escalated the tension. Parker's 7-year-old son was punched on May 17 by another first-grader at Estabrook Elementary School as other children watched. A conservative group issued a press release almost a month later , saying students attacked the boy because of his father's protests over storybooks depicting gay relationships. School officials said students squabbled over where students would sit at lunch.
``It's made life miserable for everybody," said Jill French , whose child is a classmate of Parker's son. ``This has all been blown way out of proportion."
Paul Ash , 56, the new superintendent of schools, said news of the playground fight posted on blogs intensified the attacks. The conservative group's press release accused school officials and other adults of inciting students to fight, and claimed the spat was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the legalization of gay marriage. Then, a blogger posted Ash's phone numbers and e-mail address.
At 4 a.m. on June 18, a man from Japan called Ash's home and angrily asked why the school was beating up children. The phone rang until Ash took it off the hook. By the next day, his e-mail box was clogged with nearly 400 messages, and his work voicemail filled with vitriolic messages.
Ash, who has gone on Fox News and NPR to state the school system's case, said he is outraged about the threats, largely from people outside of Lexington. “My family is really upset," he said. “If their intention is to intimidate or get people riled up, it worked."
Ash said Parker has been “a gentleman." But he worried that MassResistance , the Waltham-based group that issued the press release about the playground fight, is using Parker to further its cause.
Sitting on his living room couch, Parker denied that he is being used by anyone. But in retrospect, he acknowledged there was no evidence that an adult had directly incited students to
bully his son. He is worried that adults who criticize his views against homosexuality might have led some children to not want to play with his son or to pick on him.
“Are parents and administrators telling little children to get [my son] on the playground because of his father's beliefs? No, I doubt it," Parker said, but added: “You have children being exposed to the notion that this guy, or this family, is wrong and maybe is a bad guy. That can influence their actions."
He said his son overheard another child say Principal Joni Jay was leaving because of Parker's protest. Jay said the controversy contributed to her resignation after seven years at Estabrook, but she also liked that her new school in Sudbury was closer to her home and offered more vacations. She said she was upset when someone took a picture of her in a meeting and splashed it on the Internet.
“That kind of thing makes people feel anxious," she said. “Is somebody going to be taking a picture of me or recording me?"
Like Ash, she received more than 300 e-mails after the playground scuffle became public. Her replacement was named last week. Also shaken by recent events, Parker said he has considered pulling his son out of school. His son, though, loves Estabrook.
Parker, 43, a scientist, said he is a regular father, not an activist. He, his wife, and their two children moved into a modest Lexington home from New Jersey about two years ago because he was transferred for work. He sparked a standoff with school officials in April 2005 when he refused to leave the school in a protest over a storybook the school had sent home months before with his son, then in kindergarten. One of the books mentioned same-sex parents. Parker was arrested on a trespassing charge and temporarily banned from school grounds .
In April, Parker and another family filed a federal lawsuit against the school system over the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. The other family this school year had protested that a teacher read “King & King," a fairy tale about gay marriage, to second-graders.
Parker has become a celebrity to opponents of gay marriage. He has appeared on talk radio and TV, and given speeches, mostly to conservative groups. He and his wife, Tonia, started a nonprofit, United Parents of America, to support parents' rights. He has accepted donations to
pay “huge" legal fees, though he won't say how much.
Brian Camenker , president of MassResistance, said Parker has “unquestionably helped the cause," but is not a pawn. “There's no possible way I could persuade somebody to spend the night in jail. I'm not sure I would do it," said Camenker, of Newton, who championed a law that allows parents to keep their children out of sex education classes.
Interview with Archbishop of Canterbury
Gays must change, says archbishop
Jonathan Wynne-Jones
(Filed: 27/08/2006)
The archbishop of Canterbury has told homosexuals that they need to change their behavior if they are to be welcomed into the church, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Rowan Williams has distanced himself from his one-time liberal support of gay relationships and stressed that the tradition and teaching of the Church has in no way been altered by the Anglican Communion's consecration of its first openly homosexual bishop.
The declaration by the archbishop - rebutting the idea that homosexuals should be included in the church unconditionally - marks a significant development in the church's crisis over homosexuals. According to liberal and homosexual campaigners, it confirmed their
fears that the archbishop has become increasingly conservative - and sparked accusations that he has performed an "astonishing" U-turn over the homosexual issue.
Liberals who had previously hailed his appointment said they are dismayed that he appears to have turned his back on an agenda that he previously championed.
However, the archbishop's comments have received strong support from traditionalists. The Rev Rod Thomas, a spokesman for the evangelical pressure group Reform, said: "There is no doubt that he is distancing himself from the views that he has previously expressed. He's right
to want to see people converted. The fact that he's saying this is a hugely welcome development."
The revelations came in a newspaper interview last week in which the archbishop denied that it was time for the church to accept homosexual relationships, suggesting that it should be welcoming rather than inclusive. "I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in and we ask no questions'. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions," he told a Dutch journalist.
"Ethics is not a matter of a set of abstract rules, it is a matter of living the mind of Christ. That applies to sexual ethics."
At the same time he tried to distance himself from a controversial essay he wrote 20 years ago, in which he defended same-sex love. "That was when I was a professor, to stimulate debate," he claimed. "It did not generate much support and a lot of criticism - quite
fairly on a number of points."
The archbishop said that he was determined to preserve the unity of the church from being destroyed by the warring factions in the gay crisis. He said he has backed a resolution which says that homosexual practice is incompatible with the Bible.
The Rev Giles Goddard, the chairman of Inclusive Church, a liberal group, said the archbishop's comments revealed an "astonishing" change in his position. He added: "The implication is that there is no justification in scripture for the welcome of lesbian and gay
people. It appears that he has moved into the conservative camp."
Chris Bryant, a homosexual Labor MP, said that many people would feel betrayed by the archbishop's comments. "The Church of England wouldn't survive without gay clergy in inner cities.
"People will feel this is a huge betrayal. Rowan has refashioned the Church of England into a narrow-minded, conservative sect."
Liberals, meanwhile challenged the archbishop's attempt to downplay his involvement in the homosexual movement, claiming that he had in fact played a significant role in spearheading moves to make the Anglican Church more tolerant.
In 1989, while professor of divinity at Oxford University, he founded the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality - a group that set out to combat bigotry towards homosexuals, this newspaper has learned. At the time it was launched, he said: "The pressure that some church figures put upon people of differing sexual identities is a greater disgrace than anything else seen in the church."
A Lambeth Palace spokesman said of the archbishop's latest comments: "They do not represent a departure from the Christian understanding of sexual relationships."
TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
Excerpts from an article that is in its full on www.FOCLNEWS.org
Pastor Paul Messner
The promise of the 1978 "Lutheran Book of Worship" (LBW) was "one book" for all the Lutherans in the country. In the pattern of the history of American Lutheran hymnals (The Common Service, The Common Service Book, The Lutheran Hymnal, The Service Book and Hymnal, and certainly LBW), common worship begat, to a greater or lesser degree, a unifying and consolidating process among Lutherans in this country. Although only officially accepted by the denominations which formed the ELCA in 1987, many LC-MS congregations also bought the LBW. At its height of usage, something like 75% of all the Lutherans in the country may have been using LBW as their primary worship resource. Mobile Lutherans, moving around the USA and Canada, readily found the Green Book and could feel more or less "at home" immediately.
The ELW has been hyped as a book by the church and for the church. It is neither. I have yet to get any but vague numbers ("thousands") in terms of how many people actually came to “Renewing Worship” (RW - ELW preparatory books) workshops across the church. My Synod (Upstate NY) could not tell me how many came to events up here. Attempts in many Synods before last summer's Churchwide Assembly to delay the book by 2-4 years were opposed by the power brokers and overwhelmingly defeated at the Orlando CWA (in my Synod the Bishop tried twice to defeat a delaying resolution on voice and standing votes. When a head count was finally taken the outcome was narrowly to ask for delay!). But the CWA gave a blank check to Headquarters anyway, to complete ELW, with no provision for any further review by the people of the church - whom we always hear so much about when "they" want money from us (sorry, that's my cynical side). The LBW took about 13 years (1965-78) of field testing and feedback before it came out. ELW has barely had 5 years (2001-06). The question is, why the rush? The obvious answer: the financially troubled Augsburg Fortress Publishing House was no longer selling very many LBWs or even With One Voices (WOV) and needed a new book for sales purposes. I am not aware of ANY great outcry by a significant number of ELCA folk demanding a "new worship resource" now - but here it comes.
I expected the changes in the Nicene Creed (I've been socialized to them at recent Synod assemblies) - Jesus now becomes "fully human" not "man". BUT I was not prepared for the changes in the Apostles' Creed. Jesus is no longer "His only Son" but "God's only Son". And the common text, "He descended into hell" is now the footnote in favor of "He descended to the dead" in the body of the creed. Personally I don't care about the latter, and theologically, we could have a good discussion about which one should have been used, but, of course, we weren't permitted that. Oh, and Jesus was no longer "conceived by the POWER of the Holy Spirit". "Power" has been excised - too militaristic for the "peace-loving" ELCA elites? This is definitely "under the radar screen" hijacking of liturgical language, and I think once people have the book in the pew and see this for the first time they will NOT be happy campers.
So - we really DO have Ten (count them, 10!) "Settings" of Holy Communion - double that of LBW and WOV combined - again, so much for liturgy as a unifying factor. Why 10? Why "diversity, of course! So what do we have to do to accommodate 10 settings? Well, remember improved paper production - more pages in the same amount of space. That's one explanation. But some other things have to give too. No Athanasian Creed - saves 2 pages. I guess we ELCA Lutherans no longer need all 3 Great Ecumenical Creeds (as cited in the Book of Concord, for example), in our primary worship resource. Those of us who like to use it once a year on Holy Trinity Sunday can copy it...but if it's not in the book, well..."out of sight, out of mind...". It's in LSB, of course.
Let's cut to the quick - or (a better metaphor) - let's take a sword/ax to the military! Hymns that are "too militaristic" are out (my phrase, but I understand that was a big factor - geez, I never realized we Lutherans were a pacifist denomination. Maybe Luther's tract ""Whether Soldiers, too, May Be Saved" needs re-writing).
Why is ELW apparently selling so well up front? Why would anyone who cares at all about the worship of God buy ELW sight-unseen? Well, newness/novelty sells; and scripture also tells us that people with "itching ears" will eagerly follow (and be tossed about by) every wind of doctrine. It's also true that in spite of the ELCA's fervent attempts to seek (and cause) controversy, at the expense of mistrust and division (and a loss of some 500,000 members in barely 20 years!), people in the church still WANT to trust. ELW's birth-process has been designed to engender more distrust and I have to believe that many - once they have the book, and experience changes in language of creeds, liturgies and hymns; the too-many settings, etc., etc., will be frustrated, angry and disappointed. And we have yet to see what's been done to the Occasional Services Book liturgies and texts in THEIR final forms. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask what the agenda is here, that our leadership would not seriously consider a reasonable delay, IF trust-building was really an interest of Higgins Road (ELCA Headquarters). Apparently that’s too big an “if”.