Woke in the WELS: An Honest Conversation about Sexuality. Seriously guys I thought I was done with this thing...

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

for the love of God, make it stop!

Seriously, you guys, I thought I was done with this thing. But apparently feedback has made its way to synod because there is now revised verbiage on the landing page and an edited leader's guide. In addition, there is a brief summary of the COP statement on sexuality. 

The videos are unedited as of this writing; so, any massaging of the landing page and leaders' guide is just to try and assuage the reader. The substance of this Bible study has not changed. Every criticism levied at the five videos remains in play.

Revised Landing Page

Let's take a closer look at the five "Approach" bullets.

An Honest Conversation is a glimpse into a conversation that is not happening, but should be happening with our youth. It’s not meant to be the final word, nor the only word, but to prompt further dialogue on this matter.

These conversations are happening, they just aren't happening within the context of the church within our Synod, and this appears to be some buffer against the critique that this Bible study has very little Bible.

An Honest Conversation is just that—conversations. The “live” videos capture a moment in time so as to be natural and unscripted. Each of the panelists have their own way of talking and saying things. Keep that in mind when you hear something that makes you ask, “What do I think about that, and how would I have said it?” The goal is a candid—not canned—conversation. Maybe you would have said it differently. So talk about it! Conversations tend to be different, right? Don’t be afraid if the conversation gets “messy.”

But it's not natural and unscripted. Video 5 in particular you can hear Bill off-camera prodding the conversation at one point. The way questions are prompted (which was not shown to us) will necessarily lead the response on a particular path. This is basic application of the Socratic method - ask probing questions to lead a student to the desired conclusion. I would have assumed the masters of Lutheran Leadership at synod would understand this! A discussion without context is not natural or unscripted, it's just selectively edited to the desired level of "messy."

An Honest Conversation affirms Scriptural truth with an emphasis on speaking the truth in love. WELS has a statement on human sexuality based on scriptural truths. A summary of it is included as part of Honest Conversations resources.

If they were serious on affirming Scriptural truth within the context of this Bible study, they would have edited the videos, because a number of unscriptural claims were made, including:

• The leader guides' recommendation to apologize for apologetics
• Ben's claiming to be both a member of the LGBTQ community and a Christian in Video 1
• Ben's claim that empathy "necessitates us putting ourselves in [homosexual] shoes" in Video 1
• Ben's "acceptance is implicit forgiveness" in Video 2
• Bill's misapplication of John 4 in Video 3
• Teen-in-yellow's assertion that rebuking sin when someone is 'coming out' is not loving in Video 4
• Bill's placing worldly wisdom above the wisdom of the Scriptures in Video 5.

Spiritual truth was not only not 'affirmed', but it was also ignored, and at times called 'unloving.'

An Honest Conversation encourages conversations in an empathetic, evangelical, and engaging way so as not to lose the listener before truth’s full content has had a chance to be heard. The goal is to develop loving, listening ears that care for others around them. Listening is a means to an end with a goal to establish a relationship of love and trust.

Relationships are idolized over simple witnessing, and this Bible study never got to "the truth's full content"; but more on this later.

An Honest Conversation has the ultimate goal that we might rightly speak law and gospel when we understand our neighbor from the heart. Every questionable premise does not need immediate correction. Please be patient and look for the right opportunity to share law and gospel in an evangelical way.

Neither law nor gospel was rightly ordered as demonstrated in multiple videos. And the approach of not correcting questionable premises is at odds with Ephesians 5:11-14:

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."

These bullets are meant to precondition the reader. When the reader gets to points in the video that may raise questions, they can resort to the psychologically easy answer of "well, the introduction provided this reason and that reason, so I guess I'm wrong" - instead of taking the more difficult, critical look on the basis of Scripture. 

The deck chairs may have been shuffled, but you're still on the Titanic.

Revised Leaders' Guide

I have cached the original leader's guide here.

The revised leaders' guide kicks off with a revised first paragraph and an additional page worth of a new introduction, covering similar ground as the updated landing page:

The major changes occurred in the "Do's and Don'ts" section. First, they are no longer "Do's and Don'ts", just helpful tips. They removed the language policing and replaced with a softer "pay attention to terminology" bullet, and the pedestalization bullet wholesale. 

While these are changes in the direction of goodness, they don't fix the problem. And we're still apologizing for apologetics.

COP statement summary

There is a new document which provides a summary of the Conference of Presidents (COP) statement on human sexuality, which we discussed during (pri)DEMON(th). It's a solid document, but the summary does not do it justice.

The first two paragraphs discuss male and female and the fall into sin. All good stuff. The remaining paragraphs speak specifically to Christians: we rejoice in our Creator's design, we recognize our identity as Christians is in Christ, we delight in our sanctification, we struggle against sin and we don't condone or affirm "any action that is out of step with our beliefs." All well and good.

The second page has eight bullet points that I've attempted to map to the COP statement.

Bullet 1 maps to First Article 4.

Bullet 2 maps to First Article 5.

Bullet 3 maps to First Article 8.

Bullet 4 maps to Second Article 5; but we need to take a quick aside to discuss: Bullet 4 reads: "In our painful struggles, we are encouraged by our identity as God’s created, redeemed, and sanctified humanity." This statement is craftily worded. One might assume this applies to all humanity, but it only applies to the Christian. The COP document cites the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Paragraph 39:

"And here pious Christian hearts justly ought to consider the unspeakable goodness of God, that God does not immediately cast from Himself into hell-fire this corrupt, perverted, sinful mass, but forms and makes from it the present human nature, which is lamentably corrupted by sin, in order that He may cleanse it from all sin, sanctify and save it by His dear Son."

This encouragement can only apply to the Christian. Recall the explanation to the Third Article in the Small Catechism:

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith"

If anything, this bullet should act as an argument against the relationship-building pretext of this Bible study. Until the LGBTQ+ person is in Christ, there is no comfort we can give them. To think that our friendship should be put ahead of the peace that surpasses all understanding is ludicrous. 

Bullet 5 maps to Third Article 1

Bullet 6 maps to Third Article 5

Bullet 7 maps to Third Article 2

Bullet 8 maps (roughly) to Conclusion

If you review the COP document, you will notice that all of the application sections were skipped.

Consider First Article 13 as an argument against the leaders' guide apologizing for apologetics, Bill's "[Their] story is worth listening to, even if their story is not in line with God's will and word at that moment" in Video 3, and our friend's comments in Video 4 stating what makes for a loving response.

Consider First Article 15, which binds our love to Biblical confession, as it relates to our friend in Video 4 and Bill's comments in Video 5.

Consider Second Article 7 as an argument against Bill's "[Their] story is worth listening to, even if their story is not in line with God's will and word at that moment" in Video 3.

Consider Third Article 6 as an argument against Ben's identifying as a member of the LGBTQ community in Video 1, and as a compelling argument against the idol of relationship-building. The only hope we can offer any member of the LGBTQ+ community is the peace that only Christ can give, and that peace can only be delivered by someone convicted of their sin. 

....