Woke in the WELS: An Honest Conversation about Sexuality: Are we sexual antinomians, now?

 Whenever I think I'll eventually run out of content for this blog, the Lord drops another doozy in my lap. The Lord giveth. The Nihil Rule reporteth away. May the name of the Lord be blessed!

[ Leaders' Guide | Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5 ]

Note: it appears the leaders' guide was updated since this was published. The original leaders' guide has been cached here. A post regarding stealth updates will appear on Wednesday 9/4.

So a new Bible study just dropped on the WELS Congregational Services website entitled An Honest Conversation About Sexuality focusing on Faith & LGBTQ topics. Currently there is only the facilitator's guide and Episode 1. Let's do a deep dive into the facilitator's guide to see what the ground rules and assumptions are for this class.

We start with a motivation statement:

"With an estimated 30-40 percent of Generation Z identifying in some way as LGBTQ , this conversation is long overdue, especially among those who care about Jesus, his Word, and the precious souls he bled and died for – souls who are often confused about these issues, yet, at the same time are afraid to talk about and ask questions on these things among the family of believers." 

Fair enough. But we might also consider exploring the factors that cause so many from Generation Z to identify as sexual deviants - permissive parenting, cell phones, chemicals turning the frigging frogs gay, Enlightenment thinking... 

We move on to the goal:

"Your goal will be to create an opportunity where participants can bring everything into the light – all their doubts, objections, judgments, fears, etc. – and find they have a Savior in Jesus who welcomes it all and rescues every one of us in both grace and truth. " 

Note: nothing about God's law. Last I checked we still condemned the antinomians in the Formula of Concord. We need to recall that repentance consists of two parts: contrition and faith. We must be convicted by the law before the Gospel can do its sweet work.

On to how to promote this Bible study:

"Before launching into this study with your teens, you are encouraged to communicate to your pastor, parents, and any other leaders within your church about the reason for such a focus and the nature of this content." 

Kind of odd that this wouldn't be led by a Pastor, it sounds like this is targeted at youth leaders who would promote this to the congregation vs. being directed by the congregation to pursue the study? Somewhat misordered if you ask me.

"One of the best ways to get the word out about this study is to entertain the possibility that while teens are going through these conversations, adults can cover this material separately, with an emphasis that parents and adults should take a listening approach when talking to their teens about this subject."

Why do we need to separate the youth and the adults? The Bible never talks about breaking apart families to discuss the Bible differently to different audiences. When the women brought their children to Jesus, they didn't drop them off for a playdate. Grace does not destroy nature: families should study the Word together under the tutelage of a Pastor, or the father in the home.

"As you lead teens in the study, here are some helpful communication ground rules to create a safe place"

And now we start to see the woke, coddling aspects of this study. They provide two examples of engagement:

"Example One: Having watched the first segment from the opening discussion, Charissa, age 14, opens up about what’s on her mind regarding LGBTQIA+ issues. She simply says, “I have some friends at school who are lesbian. They think Christians are haters. I want them to know we’re not haters. We all sin and God loves all people. Besides, I’m not sure why two people just can’t love each other. What’s it matter, if they’re the same gender?"

"Option A response: Well the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and that anyone who lives that way cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9). I’d encourage you not to give in to believing your friends can live as they are. Maybe you could think about inviting them to church and let them know we are having a Bible study on this."

"Option B response: Thank you so much for sharing. Wow. Sounds really stressful. I’m glad they have you in their life so they can see that Christians truly care. Anyone else feel as Charissa does? Tell me more. Why do you think your friends feel Christians are hateful. Is there anything our church can do to show that we really do care and that Jesus cares? As to your question, that’s a really good question. Let’s jot that down and save it for later. For now, I am just thankful we can open up about how tough this topic can be." 

The manual identifies Option B as the preferred response and introduces the concept of a "parking lot" where questions can go to park for further discussion later, or in all likelihood become abandoned, ticketed and towed.

We get to the "do's and don'ts" which include language monitoring: 

"Say “gay,” not “homosexual” when referring to a gay person"

"Say “transgender” not “transexual” when referring to a transgender person."

 "Be sensitive to the topic of “preferred pronouns.”"

And we're back to the "preferred pronoun" nonsense Novotny promotes in a recent video. The word "truth" occurs ten times in the document, but we are supposed to be sensitive to this particular untruth. 

"Do say “I’m sorry” for potentially coming across unlovingly or being quick to answer as opposed to listening. (1 John 1:9-10)"

There's an emphasis in the document on listening over providing answers. As the facilitator of a Bible study, it's expected that the facilitator has answers for questions of the students. As Christians we expect the Bible to have answers to all kinds of questions not limited to the narrow definition of the Gospel. The conjunction with 1 John 1:9-10 is weird - having biblical answers and providing straight responses is not a sin for which we have to confess! 

"Beware oversimplification when referring to the truth of Scripture, which is written to win straying sheep. (examples: remember there’s much cultural confusion, social contagion complications)"

Is "sodomy is sin" an oversimplification? 

"Beware utilizing apologetics or a theological address on thoughts expressed to you, which are more often emotionally charged, and not based on reason or facts (reason/doctrine vs. emotion/relation)"

So we can only meet an emotionally charged question with an emotional response? What woman wrote this study? A response to an emotionally charged question should be met with a well-grounded response in theology or apologetics in order to de-escalate the emotions and ground the conversation in reality.

Do you catch the antinomian vibes? The lack of urgency in addressing sin? Forgetting that repentance consists of two parts, contrition and faith? That the hardened sinner needs the full threats of the law and the repentant sinner the sweet message of salvation? Valuing relationships over proclaiming God's Truth?

We'll tackle the video next week.