Unit fellowship takes seriously the Pauline warnings about tolerating false teaching (Romans 16:17) and the confessional Lutheran insistence that doctrinal agreement, and not mere organizational proximity, is the basis of church fellowship. Unit fellowship is meant to be a principled stand against the kind of lowest-common-denominator ecumenism that dissolved doctrinal boundaries across mainline Protestantism in the twentieth century. The problem is that unit fellowship only works if the unit is actually uniform: increasingly, it is not. This was not always the case: the Thiensville Theses of 1948 maintained softer external boundaries precisely because both synods enforced rigorous internal ones.

The Pronoun Question and the Internal Fracture

The controversy over pronoun accommodation has exposed a rift within the WELS. This is not a minor disagreement: it involves hermeneutical questions about the nature of male and female, the distinction between adiaphora and confession, and the pastoral application of the eighth commandment. (Whether pronoun accommodation constitutes adiaphora under FC X is argued elsewhere; this article assumes it does not.)

Unit fellowship is supposed to prevent this ‘diversity’. If synod-level doctrinal disagreement is sufficient to break external fellowship, internal disagreement of comparable weight becomes an embarrassment. The WELS cannot claim that doctrinal uniformity is the precondition of external fellowship and maintain that its own internal diversity on the question of pronoun acceptance is merely “Christian freedom”. Either the standard applies symmetrically, or it reveals itself as a boundary-maintenance tool rather than a theological principle.

Fellowship, Inc.

The WELS and the LCMS are separate 501(c)(3) organizations. In practice, “unit fellowship” tracks those organizational boundaries with remarkable fidelity, not because the boundaries map onto held beliefs, but because they map onto legal incorporation. A WELS layman and an LCMS layman who share the Small Catechism, a common liturgical tradition, and agreement on every doctrinal controversy that originally divided their synods are nonetheless declared out of fellowship, not because of their beliefs, but because their churches are members of different tax-exempt entities that disagree on elements that are outside the basis of membership: the small catechism. The “unit” in unit fellowship turns out to be a legal, not doctrinal, one. The seamless garment is stitched along IRS Form 1023.

As a practical example, consider the WELS layperson whose only accessible WELS congregation has embraced contemporary worship and pronoun accommodation, but who lives within easy reach of a confessional, liturgical LCMS parish that holds every doctrine and practice he does. Unit fellowship tells him he must commune with the former and not the latter — not because of what anyone in either building actually believes. Unit fellowship, as applied, demands that the institutional relationship is the decisive one. But the confessional tradition has always insisted that doctrine, taught, confessed, and lived, constitutes the bond of fellowship, not organizational membership. When the boundary persists independent of the doctrine, unit fellowship is not a theological principle applied institutionally — it is an institutional boundary dressed in theological language.

Conclusion

This is not an argument for theological indifference. Doctrinal precision matters. The confessional tradition’s insistence that you cannot commune with those whose teaching you would not tolerate from your own pulpit reflects a genuine theological insight grounded in what the Lord’s Supper truly is - a κοινωνία.

But a principle applied rigorously at the synodical boundary and permissively within has already ceased to be a principle and is an inversion of the principle as applied in the context of the synodical conference. If the WELS is to maintain that unit fellowship is a theological necessity and not an institutional convenience, it must apply that logic with more rigor internally, and ask honestly whether the distance between a confessional WELS congregation and a confessional LCMS congregation is, in fact, greater than the distance between two WELS congregations that handle the pronoun and other questions differently. The confessional tradition has never promised that following the logic of Scripture and the Confessions would be comfortable. It has only promised that it would be honest.

The creation account establishes that sexual differentiation is a divine design. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The image of God is expressed in the creation of humanity as male and female. This is not a spectrum; not a social construct, but rather a creational reality spoken into being by God Himself. Genesis 2 elaborates on this foundational principle with the account of woman being formed from man’s side, establishing both a unity and distinction between the man and the woman. This is a fundamental Christian metanarrative: as I mentioned in a previous article, when the Pharisees questions Jesus about divorce, instead of appealing to the Law of Moses, Jesus appeals to the creation account.

This distinction between male and female, established in creation, finds its ultimate meaning in the relationship between Christ and His Church. Saint Paul calls this “a profound mystery” (Ephesians 5:32). Earlier in the chapter, Paul presents the relationship between husband and wife as participation in the cosmic reality of Christ’s love for His Church. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” The husband’s role is an image of Christ the Bridegroom; the wife’s role an image of the Church as Bride. The fundamental elements of human sexuality are at play: Christ is the active lover, the one who initiates, pursues, sacrifices, and cleanses. The Church is the beloved, the one who receives, responds, is saved and made beautiful by the Bridegroom.

The Song of Solomon stands at the center of this cosmic, nuptial theology. This erotic love poem, celebrating the mutual desire and delight between bride and bridegroom, has been recognized throughout Church history as the supreme expression of the love between Christ and His Church, between God and the soul. Solomon’s imagery is unabashedly physical and gendered. The bridegroom praises his beloved: “Behold, you are beautiful, my love; behold, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves” (1:15). The bride responds with her own praise of her beloved: “Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly delightful” (1:16). The masculine and feminine are distinct and essential. “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine” (1:2). This is the bride’s receptive desire, the longing to be united with the beloved who takes the initiative, leaping over mountains and bounding over hills (2:8) to seek His beloved. The bride waits, watches, and opens to him: “My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me” (5:4). The sexual imagery is not accidental or culturally conditioned, it is theological. The bride’s breasts are “like two fawns, twins of a gazelle” (4:5). The bridegroom’s “left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me” (2:6) reinforcing a posture of intimate submission. Male and female bodies, designed for union in a one-flesh relationship, are more than a metaphor, they are the sign God chose to image the reality that is Christ and the Church; the lesser light to point to the greater Light.

(The prophets in the Old Testament further bear witness to this image in a negative sense: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea use the image of a prostitute to identify Israel as a bride who has not been faithful to the bridegroom, and yet the bridegroom continues to call her back to a faithful relationship.)

The Church is not simply like a bride; she is the Bride. Christ is not simply like a bridegroom; He is the Bridegroom. This imagery reaches its consummation in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, where the telos of all history is revealed as a wedding. “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7). The new Jerusalem descends “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (21:2). The angel tells John, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (21:9).

Every letter in the LGBTQ+ acronym finds a different way to make nonsense of the Bridegroom-Bride imagery threaded through the Bible. Can a bride be simultaneously “he/him” and yet receptive to their savior? Can a bridegroom be “she/her” and pursue the bride? If we accommodate these perversions in identification, how do we preach Ephesians 5? How do we read the Song of Solomon? How do we celebrate the marriage feast of the Lamb without offense? The answer, inevitably, is that we cannot. In the process of capitulation on pronouns or redefining marriage the image of Christ and the Church is destroyed. Marriage between one man and one woman is the symbol; the union of Christ and Church is the reality. If we lose the intelligibility of the symbol, we obscure the reality. Participation in preferred pronouns, even with the best of intentions, necessarily participates in a theological claim.

A theology of glory seeks to climb up to God through human achievement, wisdom, and power. A theology of the cross receives God’s revelation in hiddenness, weakness, and suffering. Self-determined identity is a theology of glory par excellence, asserting human will over truth. You cannot claim to be a theologian of the cross and accommodate a preferred pronoun.

When you accommodate a preferred pronoun, your conscience knows that you are lying. The body of the person you are accommodating testifies against you. Every time you speak that lie, you prick your conscience, which becomes seared and calloused over time. You are training your conscience to lie for whatever “greater good” you are working towards - rationalize it however you want - but it probably comes down to comfortable relationships or your paycheck. This rationalization is even worse when it comes cloaked it in pious terms, like sharing the Gospel at a more convenient time. And, dear Christian, you know this. You know you are capitulating. Surely you feel the discomfort. The worst of it is you are not only searing your conscience, but you are further damaging the conscience of your neighbor. You aren’t just accommodating someone’s feelings; you are participating in their deconstruction of the faith.

So confess with the Church of all ages: male and female, He created them. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is His Bride. We await with eager anticipation the day when the Bride is perfected and the Bridegroom ushers her in to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Until that day, the Church prays, “Come, Lord Jesus.”

However, in the last few months things seem to have accelerated bigly.

On October 19, Paul Wendland, Seminary-President-Emeritus, was interviewed by seminarian Charlie Ungemach on the Gird Up! podcast. In this interview the Reverend-Doctor Wendland was asked about the use of preferred pronouns, and his advice was that pronouns are not a hill to die on; quickly followed by the comment that we can’t avoid the taint of living in the kingdom of God’s left-hand, where you look for the lesser of two evils more often than not.

On November 25, Rev. Greg Lyon was interviewed on the Life Challenges Podcast where he left the question of pronoun hospitality and attending gay weddings open, “not at the expense of truth but because of truth” because “Biblical integrity is not just law, biblical integrity is also gospel.”

Predating all of these things - but having only stumbled on it after - is a ‘pronouns’ page on the madeknown.net website which makes the claim that using a preferred pronoun is not necessarily a sin. Two steps back: the madeknown.net website is a product of the WELS committee on Gender, Sexuality and Identity which reports to the COP. The membership of this committee is not listed publicly anywhere for ‘OPSEC reasons’, but having listened to a few interviews it is clear that Wendland is a part of it along with (according to sources) Bill and Ben from the Honest Conversations videos. You can find Ben’s name in the source code for the website, anyways.

And of course, there’s Mike Novotny who claims that both gay weddings and pronoun choice fall in the realm of Christian freedom, and that you shouldn’t talk to LGBTQ+ friends about their lifestyle choices until they profess Christianity (Mike Novotny, Taboo, pg 81)

These are concerning developments. The WELS has a statement on human sexuality, authored by Rev Wendland prior to 2020, which states:

“We cannot accept that changing one’s birth sex through hormone therapies or surgeries is right or even possible. While we reject the false ideology of transgender theory as contrary to natural law and Scripture, we retain every sympathy for individuals whose sinful natures are adversely influenced by the powerful voices of their peers and their culture. We pledge to express our love to them in every way possible that remains consistent with our biblical confession.”

Since calling a “he” a “she” would be inconsistent with out Biblical confession, the statement would seemingly preclude the use of preferred pronouns. When Jesus was asked about divorce in Mark 10, He did not appeal to the Law of Moses, but to creation: male and female, He created them. Jesus defines marriage as a physical first-article reality that we know is also a spiritual reality (’but I speak of Christ and the Church’). If God calls a thing a thing, I as His servant can only say what my master says (’a disciple is not about his teacher, nor a servant above his master’). So, if God calls “him” a “him”, I have no authority to say otherwise. That would be the catechism definition of sin (’missing the mark’) it would be a failure to confess (ὁμολογέω, ‘same-say’). This is true without questioning the motive or reasoning of the person who would accommodate a pronoun - it’s sin, full stop.

In Galatians chapter 6, Paul tells the Galatians that the circumcision party are looking to accommodate the Jewish cultural norm of circumcision to avoid the cross of Christ. While none of us can read hearts, there is certainly a temptation to accommodate pronouns when interacting with the LGBTQ+, in part due to a desire to avoid that confrontation. We may clothe it in a pious desire to build a relationship. We speak highly of the theology of the cross, rightly so - but how many of us suffer for the Gospel? How often do we euphemize sin like Wendland’s comment earlier in the same podcast, that “we all have stuff”? How often don’t we say “well, all sin is the same, all sin damns” when we know full well there are other dimensions to sin, like how it impacts our neighbor and how it impacts our very soul. Paul makes it clear that certain sins are the product of God handing people over to a depraved mind. We fail to be His witnesses (μάρτυς, “martyr”) because we fear martyrdom. The martyrs of the early church lost their lives, we merely have to deal with social ostracization or perhaps loss of income.

Finally, when the rich young ruler came to Jesus, Jesus loved him and he told him the one thing that he could not accept to hear. Being told that he had to give up his wealth in order to follow Jesus struck at the root of his sin - you might even say it struck at his identity. But Jesus loved him, and He brought every facet of himself to the situation. In the same way when we encounter the LGBTQ+, we love them, and we tell them the one thing that they cannot bear to hear. We tell them in love that their lifestyle of sin is not right. It violates God’s law. By doing so we love them in the Biblical sense so that their hearts might be opened to the sweetness of the Gospel to heal and restore.

The biblical witness is clear, and throughout the ages God raises us great Christian men who proclaim the clear Biblical witness to their time and place. What might Wauwatosa theologian August Pieper think about accommodating preferred pronouns?

“[T]here is no excuse for those who think it unnecessary to tell unbelievers about their sins right to their face and to condemn their ways with the written law, since the gospel alone is God’s power for salvation, and so it is enough to make these tidings known to the world. This opinion is not based on Scripture, but on their own wisdom. It is born of their fear of men and of the curse of the cross... Wanting to be silent about sin and win the impenitent only with the sweetness of the gospel amounts to denying God’s zeal and holiness and suppressing his threats. It amounts to hypocrisy, practicing spiritual quackery. It means leading the poor people to fleshly security instead of to faith and casting pearls before the swine. Under all circumstances the impenitent need the law, and only next, afterwards, the gospel.” (August Pieper, Wauwatosa Theology, Vol 2, pg 60)

One of the greatest hymns to come out of the Reformation, Paul Speratus’ Salvation Unto Us Has Come, reminds us of the proper use of law and gospel

And finally, an evangelical admonition from Charles Porterfield Krauth:

“When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgements on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it and to make them skillful in combating it.” (Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, (the CRT I gladly affirm) pg 195-6)

May the Lord grant us opportunities to be His faithful witnesses.

Grandpa Bender, as I knew him, was a WELS pastor prior to his retirement when I was a teenager. But prior to that - and long before I was twinkle in my father’s eye - he was an LCMS pastor. He started out life as a Navy draftsman who dated my grandmother on her condition that he came to church with her. He was confirmed in my grandma’s LCMS congregation, married her and sometime after my mother was born, he went to seminary and became a pastor.

It is by chance a few years ago my mother mentioned him writing to “some Christian newspaper” with his frustrations prior to colloquializing with the WELS. I bought a subscription to Christian News and dug through the back-catalog and sure enough, Grandpa had 12 entries that I could find. I’ve shared these with family and now I share them with you.

We start with Congregational Homework, written in 1972 (prior to Seminex):

Grandpa’s subsequent writings revolved around the fallout of Seminex and the liberal caucus Evangelical Lutherans in Mission (ELIM). July, 1974:

October 1974:

“Have a blessed Reformation, that is, to those of you who still believe in the principles of the Reformation” - I’ve had some complain about the ‘snark’ in some of my writings, I guess I know where I got it from.

Kant and Hegel? Grandpa was fighting the woke! November 1974:

A rebuke of Pastors who choose to pretend “everything is awesome” when it comes to Synod. December, 1974:

The Smell of Compromise, February 1975:

Showing love by speaking the Truth, March 1975:

The Missouri Synod has no right to bind the consciences of conservative congregations by trying to play in the ‘middle of the road’. May 1975:

A final plea, May 1975:

“Such an attitude, pretending that differences in doctrine are no longer important, is a heresy, and is nonsense. The moment that we became Lutherans we rejected such an idea. Our Lutheran Confessions rule out such an idea. Our allegiance to the Holy Word of God rules out such an idea. I must, for my own sake, and for the sake of my congregation, identify my position. To be Lutheran is not to float here and there as far as doctrine is concerned. To be a Lutheran means that you stand up and say this is what I believe, and the reason I believe it is because the Holy Word of God said it. The Lutheran Church has always had a confessional background, a confessional heritage. Shall we cast aside this heritage so that we can have peace and unity even though there are doctrinal differences? Shall we pretend a false unity by overlooking doctrinal differences?”

(as an aside - how does this apply in the WELS when we have a doctrinal statement saying that we cannot affirm a transgender in their sin, but we have pastors saying it’s a matter of Christian freedom?)

A final update on April 5, 1976:

“One thing I hate about my character as a teacher is that accountability makes me better than I otherwise would be. Whichever lesson is the best one I taught last year, I’m convinced that if you could go back in time with a folding chair and sat in the back of my classroom with a yellow legal pad and I knew you were going to be giving me feedback; I would have taught that lesson more effectively.

Today we dismissed a memorial asking for written accountability of the specifics of how MLC is fighting the perpetual influx of critical theories and postmodernism in our flagship institution.

Earlier in the day at Convention, we discussed how our Confessional Lutheran methodology requires that we carefully examine doctrines with a series of thesis and antithesis. We carefully examine how what we believe and specifically what we don’t believe and how these can be defended by Scripture.

When considering fellowship with new church bodies in Africa and Eastern Europe, we watch doctrine lived out in practice and search for congruity. We recognize that words are important, and concepts have meaning.

Perhaps a way to frame the issue more concisely regarding the education side of ministry is that we are far less cautious about what we consume or promote to our teachers. One of the greatest challenges with modern educational ministry is that nearly all the materials have been authored by secular humanists who are not simply creating educational content with dispassionate altruism; they have an agenda that addresses the spiritual. Pearson, Harcourt, McDougal-Littell, Corwin, and ASCD are all major players in producing content that promotes the ethos of postmodern moral relativism.

As teachers and curriculum directors on the educational side of ministry examine options of which curricula to purchase and adopt, the menu comes almost exclusively from the secular left. We train our teachers to guard their doctrines carefully on the theological side of things, but when choosing curricula in practice we look for that which we can ‘sanctify’ and use. The fact that many of these curricula are specifically designed to promote an oppressor vs oppressed worldview or an ethos that promotes moral relativism / the notion that truth comes from the self means that an exceptional amount of training in discernment is needed.

We are better when we are held accountable; today was a mistake.”

Joshua Nelson is a high school chemistry teacher at Wisconsin Lutheran High School and served as a delegate to the WELS Synod Convention.

Joy Pullman was interviewed by Issues, Etc. on September 4, 2024. During this interview, at the 6:30 minute mark, Todd Wilken asks Joy “How will [the PELSB standards] impact Christian colleges and universities”

Well, Christian colleges teach Minnesota teachers, they are you know participating with state licensure requirements, and using them, you know, as guides for their curriculum for their students, and in fact I have something that I didn’t manage to include in the article, I did this interview after the article we’re talking about came out, but this is especially information that would be important to your audience, as you know obviously it’s LCMS-heavy listenership here. So I actually talked with Fred Hinz who is a public advocate pastor up in Minnesota who works on legislative issues on behalf of the LCMS. And he said that there was a meeting of three Lutheran college presidents and the chair of their education departments there in Minnesota last year when these regulations went into place, also with the North Minnesota and South Minnesota district presidents, and they were meeting to decide how they would respond as Christian colleges to these regulations, and you know it was very - he said there was a clear divide between the district presidents and the university presidents, versus the education department chairmen of these universities, in which the District Presidents, the university presidents, said clearly as Christians we cannot publicly affirm transgenderism that is repudiating the Bible and our Christian faith, but the education department chairmen lobbied for the universities to basically pretend as if nothing was happening, and basically would hope that the state would not enforce these regulations on our teacher licensing programs, and that is a key reason that these universities have not availed themselves of the free legal defense that the Upper Midwest Law Center - among other Christian legal organizations - would make available to them, to challenge these obviously unconstitutional, anti-Christian rules, and bring a lawsuit that could relieve the entire state of these obviously anti-constitutional, anti-first amendment rules.

Allen Quist provides additional color at his Substack. He also provided his commentary on Joy Pullman’s article. Knowing that Allen - former state legislator and retired professor from Bethany Lutheran College - is a man who knows things, I asked him if he could identify whether Bethany Lutheran College or Martin Luther College were one of those three universities involved in the discussion Pullman referenced.

Indeed.

Links and Errata

• Fissures of Men, a better statement on Critical Theory

• Dr. Kari Muente’s presentation in which she claims to be a constructivist.

• Dr. Nichole LaGrow’s presentation as referenced in the video.

• Rev. Dr. Christian Preus’ presentation “The Only Way to Keep a Lutheran College Lutheran” which discusses accreditation and EVOLVE 2025.

• The adult beverage is Bulleit Bourbon, my preferred libation.

• I intended to quote Dr. Gregory Schulz at the end of the comment on hegemonic discourse: “This is basic Psalm 2 stuff”.

Transcript

Good evening. This is the other Dr. Phil, and I'm coming to you to talk about two memorials submitted to the WELS and convention. So, a memorial is a way for a person or entity within the Synod to appeal to the Synod and Convention to perform an action. A memorial has two parts: it has a section of “whereases,” where claims are made, and it has a section called “resolved,” where actions are requested.

Now, in order to submit a memorial, it has to be done before May, I believe, but in order to get published in the Book of Reports and Memorials, it has to be submitted by the second week of January. So, this memorial was submitted in time to be published, and so we're going to walk through two of them, and I'm going to provide my comments.

The first memorial has the subject: encouragement for education in the history, tenets, and threat of critical theory and the Lutheran response.

The first claim is that critical social theories in their many forms—queer theory, race theory, intersectionality, DEI, critical pedagogy or social emotional learning, Marxism, and third-wave feminism, postcolonialism, etc.—have thoroughly permeated our culture, exposing parishioners to a worldview that threatens to supplant the Christian worldview.

The second claim is that critical theory, for the purpose of this memorial, describes the multi-headed hydra of ever-evolving critical social theories whose central tenets include the social binary, hegemony, lived experience, social justice, and—before we move on to the next claim—let's define hegemony. Hegemony, or hegemonic structures as it'll be referred to later, refer to the economic, political, and social frameworks that enable a dominant group to maintain power and influence over subordinate groups. So, structural oppression is a good shorthand for that. Right, so critical theory would want to destroy anything that would be determined to be hegemonic because there is no absolute truth.

Moving on to claim three: Critical theory rejects the biblical creation account and undermines the biblical understanding of the anthropology of man. It denies that male and female God created them. It denies the institution of marriage and family. It divides God's people on the basis of sexuality, socioeconomic status, genealogy, and other criteria, while rejecting God's redemptive work by grace through faith on the account of Christ. And critical theory thoroughly rejects all authoritative texts, particularly God's Word and the Lutheran Confessions, in its activist effort to dismantle hegemonic structures and social binary.

Let's pause here. That hegemonic structure is very important here, and this is one area where I think the pastoral brief has a miss. So, if we go to the pastoral brief, page 35, toward the conclusion, we talk about—you know—first, how Babel and confusing the language is says something profound about the power of words. Totally, humans seek to understand words and overcome the challenges we face. True. Where they make a mistake is this paragraph here: “For all the confusion in our contemporary world, it is an open marketplace of ideas. And this is to our advantage. There is no open marketplace of ideas, my friends.” Yes, Western civilization wants to tell you that we have an open marketplace of ideas and that ideas compete, and then our capitalist mindset comes in and says that the best idea will bear the most fruit. But this is not the biblical worldview. The biblical worldview is Christianity is a hegemonic discourse. Christ's death on the cross is the story that all stories try to live up to. Right, it is what is called the true myth—not that it's false, but it is the true myth that all other myths derive from. Right, so Christianity is a hegemonic structure that the woke have their barbs pointed at. So, this is something very important to keep in mind, and it's a frame of mind that really will help you understand critical theory and why it is aimed squarely at Christ and his church.

Anyways, I apologize for the discursus there. We move on to the next section. Critical theory nomenclature utilizes terminology and expressions in its hollow and deceptive philosophy, to which it has attached new meaning. It uses our words, but not our definitions, thereby confusing and deceiving many, even among critical theory adherents. Their nomenclature evolves and is often debated. Very true. Different groups in the critical theory world will argue with each other over the definition of terms and the directions of oppression. Just as Satan's modus operandi has always been to encapsulate the lies in an element of truth, even misusing God's word against God himself—that would be Jesus’ temptation in the desert—insidiously leading many to accept heresy and false doctrine, so also critical theory often asks valid questions that rightly identify many of our world's sins, but presents a solution—not Christ's redemptive work, but instead a lethal worldview that offers an exclusive earthly utopia in place of the hope of heaven and ultimately deceives unsuspecting and well-intentioned Christians who want to be on the right side of today's issues.

This is absolutely correct. Critical theory is not meant to be something that only blue haired butch lesbians employ, or, you know, Kendi or any of their ilk. It's something that's meant to be a mind worm and invade all of our minds and make us think differently about the world.

And so, claim seven and eight are related. In 2023, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Convention adopted Resolution 02-03: Pastoral Brief on Critical Theories in the Light of Scripture, commissioning a pastoral brief on critical theory and social justice, which was released and entitled “A Pastoral Brief on Critical Theory, especially Critical Race Theory,” in response to that resolution. So, this was a memorial that I wrote in 2023. It was substantially revised at the convention and then accepted, and that's something I would be happy to talk about further in the future.

In light of that, given the continued prevalence of critical theory in our culture, there is a need to further educate pastors, teachers, leadership, and laity of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod on the history, character, tenets, and threats of critical theory in a way that prepares our people to appropriately respond when manifestations of critical theory become apparent in the church or people's vocations. So, I think he's being wise as serpents and innocent as doves when he says “when manifestations happen,” because things have already manifested within our Synod and we'll—we'll talk more about that in a bit.

So then, be it resolved that the WELS Conference of Presidents prepare a comprehensive educational essay or monograph on critical theory, widely published, for the benefit of the WELS pastors, teachers, leadership, and laity. And be it further resolved that this essay or monograph on critical theory includes sections on the history and lineage of critical theory, characteristics, central tenets, and the differences in nomenclature used by the adherents of critical theory versus the biblical and confessional Lutheran definitions. I would argue this document already exists. It is written by a WELS pastor. The title is “Fissures of Men” and the author is WELS Pastor Andy Mueller.

C, that in order to enable pastors, teachers, Synod leadership, and laity to be prepared to defend the faith and offer reasons for the hope that they have in Christ, that the essay on critical theory educate about critical theory's hollow and deceptive worldview and the anti-biblical solutions to what ails our world, contrasting that with God's solutions through Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. Well done, Brian.

And then the second memorial here is financial support for Synod schools, which—totally—we should be supporting our Synod schools financially, especially if we have a surplus.

And then the third memorial is also written by Mr. Brian Heinitz. It is ensuring our worker training college—that is, MLC—is protected from the influence of critical theory worldview.

So, critical theory permeates our culture, particularly academia, with a complex, fluid, evolving, multi-faceted worldview. And he quotes, again, all of these items he quoted in the prior document—which, again, critical pedagogy is basically social emotional learning. Social emotional learning is an implementation of critical pedagogy. All of which, at their core, shape a dogma that rejects and seeks to dismantle authority, objective truth, and God's word.

And, two, critical theory views authoritative texts, particularly the Bible, as oppressive and objectionable. Its anthropology is counter to scripture. It defies God's created order for man, woman, and marriage, and exchanges the truth for lies.

So, basically, we're mirroring the first memorial to set up the second. And I should note here that when he says authoritative texts, you can think “hegemonic.” Authoritative texts want to set their dominion over other texts. So, they are hegemonic in the critical theory worldview.

Number three: Critical theory offers a utopian worldview that appeals to many when it asks valid questions, sets laudable goals, and rightly identifies the world's sins. But its solutions insidiously lead to heresy, reject Christ's redemptive work, offer an elusive utopia in place of the sure hope of heaven, and ultimately deceive unsuspecting and well-intentioned Christians who want to be on the right side of today’s important questions. Again, mirroring the first memorial.

Attempts to apply critical theory through diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other efforts result in neither diversity—particularly in thought—equity, nor inclusion, but in division and disunity with the ideas that critical theory adherents falsely call knowledge but are contrary to God's word. When applied to the institutions of the church, they drive a wedge between believers, planting ideas that undermine sound doctrine.

And this is wicked smart: Israel adopted worldviews antithetical to the faith by adulterating their worship with the practices of the people around them, thinking that they could safely mingle the heathen worldview with God's order. Similarly, it is a fool's errand to try and implement the perceived good parts of the critical theory worldview and reject the bad. Because in critical theory, the concepts of intersectionality leave no room for accepting some of the tenets while rejecting others. The proponents of critical theory and DEI activists, by nature, will not tolerate the compromised position and reject any aspect of their worldview while permitting the gospel to stand.

This is absolutely awesome: wise as serpents, innocent as doves, wicked smart. You pick your definition. But here's the key part—he's talking about Israel adulterating their worship. Now, you might think, gee, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It makes a ton of sense. Right, in the Wisconsin Synod, we call our teachers and professors “ministers of the Word,” right? They are extended a divine call. Our doctrine of church and ministry says that wherever the Word is present and two or three are gathered, there is the church. So, when a professor is leading a class and is ostensibly using the gospel, that teacher is essentially engaged in the work of the church with members of the church. And so, if we incorporate the Gospel and we incorporate critical theory, we're now employing syncretism. So, again, I think this is really smart and well put.

Number six, entryism: Oxford Reference Dictionary defines entryism as the term given to the tactic pursued by extremist parties of gaining power through covertly entering more moderate, electorally successful parties. Now, that's a political definition, but Antonio Gramsci, who originated the term—or at least expanded on it profoundly—talks about the “long march through the institutions.” So, you'd have institutions where you’d have people infiltrate at the lowest of levels and spend 20, 30 years in the organization, rise to positions of power, and then all of a sudden they use their power to advance their agenda. In this case, entryism would be incorporating the principles and beliefs of critical theory and we'd essentially be their foot soldiers; so the teachers would be doing the dirty work of the critical theorists. We don't necessarily need to hire critical theorists; we don't need to employ a DEI or HR if we're implementing those things on our own.

And I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself. I apologize; I should have read the paragraph first. Again, it originates with Antonio Gramsci. It seeks to affect change by waging a hidden war of position within the institutions, intentionally infiltrating institutions—particularly academia—in an attempt to replace the traditional principles and beliefs of those aligned with the critical cause.

So, what he's going to go on to say here is that this will be done through accreditation. So, if we have accreditors telling us to implement certain things, whether it's DEI, social justice, elements of critical theory, etc., we would implement those and it would essentially be us being the foot soldiers of the accreditors to “wokefy” our institution, so to speak.

Point seven: Within the university system of another church body—and this is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, which also accredits MLC—entryism and subversion are cited as causal to the adoption of critical theory principles and the implementation of DEI programs, leading to division, discord, and claims of doctrinal deviation. So, he's referring here to a presentation by Rev. Dr. Christian Preus. He is the chair of the board of regents at Luther Classical College. Dr. Preus, in that presentation, was pointing out the issue in the Concordia’s that accreditation was causing and explaining why Luther Classical College would not seek accreditation—because these accreditors…

Point eight: The Higher Learning Commission has implemented Evolve 2025, a program that seeks to adopt DEI concepts internally and then impose them on colleges through accreditation standards, stating on its website that equity frameworks should permeate not only all levels of institutions, but also their accreditors. Additionally, the Higher Learning Commission’s goal number one is to ensure the concepts of equity, diversity, access, and inclusion are demonstrated in its mission and other foundational statements. So, again, working backwards, you've got the Higher Learning Commission with these goals, which it’s going to implement on this body. And if this body accepts it, that’s a form of entryism.

Point nine: Martin Luther College coordinates with the State of Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, otherwise known as PELSB, for teacher licensure. And PELSB establishes the standards of effective practice, publishing resources that promote material related to the tenets of critical theory.

Therefore, be it resolved: we give thanks to God for the blessings of Martin Luther College, whose mission is to faithfully train men and women in the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions, in order to meet the needs of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and provide workers for the world's ripe harvest fields. Yes.

Be it further resolved that we pray that the Lord of the Church will protect Martin Luther College and its administrators, faculty, and students from the assaults of Satan that would, through entryism and subversion, supplant the Word of God with a worldview antithetical to Christianity. Yes.

And be it further resolved that we thank the Lord for the steps that the leadership of Martin Luther College has taken to ensure that neither the standards of PELSB, standards of effective practices of the State of Minnesota PELSB, nor the new accreditation standards of the Higher Learning Commission, including Evolve 2025, can provide a gateway for critical theory principles to supplant Christ.

Here's where I need to take a pause again. I think he may be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, or he's unaware of what has been going on at MLC. If he is the former, then he's not making a strong justifiable claim, but making a weak claim that tips the hand to just the right people. Critical Theory is being taught and used at MLC. Period. This cannot be argued. I will provide three examples.

The first is social and emotional learning. Social and emotional learning classes are taught at MLC. It's incorporated in their educational standards for grade schools and high schools.

Second, Dr. Nicole LaGrow explicitly stated in an online presentation that critical race theory is a useful tool for education. In that same presentation, she introduces herself with her pronouns and discusses other elements of critical theory that a Christian should not accept:

"My name is Nicole LaGrow. You can call me Nicole if you come off of mute and share out your ideas. I'd be happy to have that happen throughout the session. We'll have some time remotely to do that. Well, my preferred pronouns are she/her.

The training for diversity, equity, inclusion that is available for instructors [at Martin Luther College] is a year-long program offered through our cultural engagement center. And so faculty engage with staff as well as administrators in that in a year-long cohort. It's capped at eight—oh, I'm sorry, I'm just thinking through how many people are typically allowed in that program. It's capped at up to 12 students or up to 12 participants each year. This year there's about eight in the program. And so the participation is voluntary, not required. And so there is not really an institutional guidance or institutional requirement that faculty would engage in that. But I will say that administrators are very supportive of it and have engaged with it themselves and often encourage individuals to engage in it if they can. Images and representation has become a challenge because there are no learners in our program yet to include their authentic voices in our resources. And we have to acknowledge that some course content does privilege a white, midwestern, conservative Christian lived experience. It's part of our identity, it's part of our heritage as an institution and as a religious body. And so we are working quite adamantly in addressing some of those privileged experiences or those privileged perspectives. But it's not something that comes naturally for all people within or all of our faculty and staff within our institution to think about the impact or the repercussions of what they might say or something that might be problematic or discomfortable or perceived as a microaggression by someone who may not even have crossed that person's mind as being that, because they really don't have that lens to think about it. And it sounds like I'm making excuses or justifications for these individuals—I'm not—but it is something that's a learning experience for them to think about how what they're saying might be perceived by somebody who maybe doesn't have the same lived experience they do."

Now, after a number of us complained about this or tried to make people aware about this, I have been assured that it was sufficiently dealt with. But whether or not it's been dealt with, the presence of critical theories at MLC remains.

The third one is Dr. Carrie Muente, in a presentation on curriculum, identifies herself as a constructivist, which is something that our critical race theory document rightly identifies as contrary to a biblical anthropology:

"So as you look at those philosophies and you start unpacking them as a paradigm, you're going to see that the nature of reality and what we know as knowledge and the methods that are used to actually teach that knowledge and then the product that's being produced is going to change depending on that lens. So as a constructivist, I look at the idea that there are multiple realities that are out there, that students have multiple experiences. Not every experience is the same. All lived experiences are valid."

So there you have three examples of critical race theory and social justice appearing at MLC. And there are more; those are just three very easy ones where you can send someone a YouTube link or a link to a curriculum and say “Here you go.”

Point D: MLC be directed by the standing convention to continue to monitor the teacher license program and the standards of effective practice applied by the State of Minnesota PELSB to identify and reject any standards and processes which might impose aspects of critical theory on the college. This is another one where you need to take a pause, and I won't go into detail here, but if you're interested, Joy Pullman wrote an article. Allen Quist has confirmed the article and MLC's participation in PELSB discussions and how administrators at MLC have said, “We could understand various terms like inclusion and identity in Christianese and basically sanctify them and meet the PELSB standards.” They are playing the critical theory game on the critical theorists by trying to say ‘we'll take your word and we'll define it differently’. This will not end well. On top of it, there have been multiple law firms in the state of Minnesota willing to offer pro bono legal support for a challenge to the state over the PELSB standards. And neither MLC nor Bethany Lutheran College have availed themselves to this. One should ask why.

Point E: MLC be directed by the Synod and Convention to continue to monitor the accreditation standards applied to MLC by the Higher Learning Commission, particularly Evolve 2025. Identify and reject any standards which might impose aspects of critical theory that provide a foothold for a worldview that conflicts with God's Word and the Lutheran Confessions, threatening to shipwreck our worker training college.

And be it finally resolved that MLC is directed to prepare a report for the WELS President and the Conference of Presidents to include in the 2026 report to the 12 districts of past and continuing efforts to keep our worker training college firmly rooted in Christ.

So again, if we look through the resolves: we give thanks, we pray, we thank, be directed to monitor—so there's no real outcome from that. And then here, to continue to monitor—there's no real outcome for that. The outcome here is that MLC be directed to prepare a report to the WELS President and the Conference of Presidents, right? So this is the product that he's asking for here.

Now, if I may handicap these two memorials: Let's go back to the first one. Okay, so this one dealt with generating additional documentation to augment the pastoral brief and make it available to laymen, etc. So as I mentioned earlier, these memorials—if they are to be published in the Book of Reports—are due the second week of January. And so, the WELS has known about this memorial since roughly the second week of January at least. And since then, the Conference of Presidents writes their report to the Synod and convention via their floor committee, Floor Committee 2.

And if we look through this report, on the second page, there's a section on doctrinal statements and pastoral briefs. The first one talks about matters of discipline within districts. The second one talks about how they did generate the critical theory brief. The third one talks about the men and women roles—how God be praised: instead of making it a doctrinal statement, it is merely a pastoral brief with, has no binding, because that statement was not great.

But paragraph four here is the key one: Reactions to both pastoral briefs have been positive, with few questions or concerns being raised. In regards to the brief dealing with critical theories, some have suggested the document be amended to include greater detail in certain areas and to change specific wording in certain places. I would be one of the people that have provided that feedback. The brief was intended to be a summary of critical theory to equip called workers and lay members with an understanding of its background and nature to help them respond in a biblical way. Since it was never intended to be comprehensive, this is their out to omit aspects in history and the essence of critical theory. The Conference of Presidents has determined not to add or revise the document, which would be a never-ending process—perhaps unless a head finds contained factual or doctrinal errors. It definitely contains factual errors, and at least a half dozen people I know have pointed out various factual errors in the document. I don't know how many of them have communicated with the COP, but there are factual errors in the document. Rather, the COP will encourage those interested to do additional research on their own.

And this is the shiv in the back to the first memorial. In my opinion, I believe they're saying here, “Hey, look at our report. We said we're not going to do any additional work, so we're rejecting the first memorial.” That's my opinion. I certainly hope that's not the case, but I think that's the way it goes.

And then for the second memorial, again, if we come back here to the resolved section, the only real output from this is that MLC be directed to prepare a report to the WELS Presidents and the Conference of Presidents. Right, that's the only actionable, observable goal of this. And so, I think this one could sneak by, but it's not necessarily that he will get the outcome he desires—of them fighting PELSB, of them not adopting the Evolve standards. I don't mean to present a grim view here, but I think we have a very good chance of bending over and defining things on our own terms and saying that we are good Lutherans in good standing.

Again, I don't mean to be—how shall we say—Debbie Downer, but just having gone through the experience with the original memorial, there's a lot of people I think that would pose a challenge to getting either of these memorials passed and executed in the intent of the author.

So, again, I thank Brian Heinitz immensely for his work here. Oh, the other thing I should mention—and this was the downfall of my memorial—is one of the feedback I got was I didn't quote scripture often enough. Right, so he quotes Matthew, Genesis, Colossians. So he actually quotes a little bit more than I do, but his memorial is also longer. And part of me wonders if that will be used against him too, because I was told I did not use enough scripture. Let's just be frank: if you have a document that's just laced with scripture forward and backward, there are many people that will simply assume it's good, right, because you spent all your time in scripture. Whereas not everything that is Christian and Lutheran can be proof-texted with a simple passage, right? You know, we have the mind of Christ, Paul said. And so we need to be able to develop these ideas and point back to the Bible and the Lutheran confessions. But in a simple one-page memorial, you can't necessarily fully flesh out some of these things that are more nuanced and involve the full breadth and depth of scripture and the Christian worldview and the mind of Christ.

Anyways, I've been rambling for almost 28 minutes now. I hope this was useful to some people. And if you have any questions, comments, concerns, if I misspoke, I am happy to take your feedback. God love you, and God bless.

mea culpa! I struck through part of the fifth claim which said that footnote 80 cannot be found in How to Be an Antiracist. Indeed, it is not in the book, but can be found in a revised annotated 2023 printing. In my defense, I would have thought that two PhD’s would have provided more authoritative citations…

I should lead off by saying there are some very good things in the pastoral brief. The middle paragraph on page 5 is excellent. There is a clear pastoral desire to bring light to those walking in darkness. Good bones. But I do think there are some details which should be revisited to ensure we are really saying what needs to be said.

First, I was quite surprised by the use of "Judeo-Christian religion" on pages 2 and 5. Modern Judaism has nothing to do with historic Christianity, and if you are referring to pre-Incarnation Christians - well, just call them that! Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. all looked forward to the coming of Christ. They were Christians. Lutherans, even.

Second, I don't see a concise definition of critical theory presented, and I don't see critical theory linked to its Marxist roots. A host of characters are listed in footnote 5 without further comment or assessment. Identifying the family tree would allow the COP to address the root, and the rest would follow.

Third, I'm concerned that this document glossed over the current state of critical race theory in our synod. Let me hone in on Lutheran education for a moment. There were two comments made on Lutheran education. First on page 2:

"While we can critique human philosophies such as critical race theory in detail, as we will in this brief, the most effective response will be the practice of Lutheran education in our homes, congregations, and schools."

Then, on page 31:

"We have always been strong at the formation of a Lutheran Christian identity, through Lutheran elementary schools, preparatory schools, area Lutheran high schools, a college of ministry, a seminary, Sunday schools, confirmation classes, Lutheran Pioneers, youth retreats, public worship participation, and the like."

These are fine sounding statements, but they fail to address critical race theory in our synodical education system. I'm just a layman in Alabama but even from 900 miles away I can see critical theory making inroads at MLC: In the fall 2020 edition of InFocus Magazine [1], Dr. Tingting Schwartz was noted for presenting "Getting Educated on Anti-Racism and Breaking the Silence" which described the dialectic of racism/antiracism, Asian support for Black Lives Matter, and covert and overt white supremacy. Presentations and theses from Kelli Green [2] and Katie Gut [3] support Social and Emotional Learning in the Lutheran classroom. Dr. Kari Muente presents philosophies of education and states that she is a constructivist [4]. Most recently the fall 2024 edition of InFocus Magazine [5] shared Dr. LaGrow's presentation on equity which was a tour de force of critical race theory in the classroom [6]! I'm certain none of this is news to the COP but right, wrong or indifferent, these ideas descending from the school of critical theory are in active play and could have been addressed or at least acknowledged as work that needs to be done. Instead of playing around with the “pop culture” thinkers Kendi and Crenshaw (both easily dispatched in a few sentences), perhaps critiquing an educational heavyweight like Gloria Ladson-Billings (“Towards a Critical Race Theory of Education [7]” and “But That's Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy! [8]”) would have been a valuable contribution to confessional Lutheranism.

Fourth, critical race theory is a theology. A poor theology, but a theology nonetheless [9]. There is a story of creation (races). There is original sin (being a white, straight male). There is an analog to baptism (being woke). There is active obedience ('doing the work' of antiracism and allyship). Instead of Martin Luther, there is MLK. Instead of the canon of Scripture, there is the canon of the Woke (Kendi, Crenshaw, etc.). The one thing lacking is redemption - critical theory cannot offer redemption, you must always be criticizing. It is a works-based theological system, and we fail to recognize that to our peril.

Fifth, consider footnote 80. While this is attributed to Kendi's How to Be and Antiracist, page 12, my copy of the book shows this to be a blank page between "My Racist Introduction" and Chapter 1. I had a friend search their Kindle copy and that citation cannot be found [10] (perhaps it is a summary of Kendi's thought from footnote 79?) This being the case, I wonder if anyone from the COP has actually read "How to Be an Antiracist" cover to cover. Or even through the end of chapter 1. If you had, you would have read (page 9) that 'There is no neutrality in the racist struggle. The opposite of "racist" isn't "not racist." It is "anti-racist"'. He then goes on to describe the active work of antiracism. The Bible does not declare an active righteousness in antiracism, therefore in my Christian freedom I could perhaps choose to be antiracist, but not being one doesn't make me a racist. Kendi separates himself from MLK's public statements on colorblindness (page 10; see also 179, 208) which would seem to put him at odds with this pastoral brief, although he seems to be invoked twice in a positive manner. Then he describes the difference (page 15) between White Jesus ("who cleaned people up") or what he calls elsewhere "savior theology" of which he disapproves, and the Black Jesus ("a radical revolutionary") of “liberation theology”, of which he approves [11]. If you had taken these first two sections to heart, then when you read "to be fully human is to use our power to join with other human beings to challenge the forces that prevent the full flowering of humanity" you would have understood that power to be grounded in antiracism and the forces to be challenged to include the historic Christian faith.

Likewise, footnote 36 cites Kendi approvingly, supporting the statement “In the church, all are equal.”:

“Note that prominent antiracism scholar and advocate Ibram X. Kendi acknowledges that “St. Paul equalized the souls of the enslaved and enslaver” and that “this powerful combination gave the colonial founders a justification for ideas that would come to define America.””

I question whether anyone on the COP has actually read the book [12], as neither of these statements are presented as positive affirmations of equality in the Church. Here is page 20:

On previous and subsequent pages, the dripping word boxes are statements Kendi disapproves of. The three heads (John Cotton, Richard Mather and Henry Dunster) stating, “confirmation bias!!!!!” appear on the previous and subsequent pages. On the previous page (below) they are negatively assessing philosophers describing the equality of man (and deriding St. Augustine for being ‘black’):

Paul’s statement on slaves obeying masters satisfies their confirmation bias where the previous philosophers challenged their views. The combination of Aristotle endorsing human hierarchy and St Paul equalizing souls coram deo allows, in Kendi’s view, the colonial founders to subjugate black bodies, and, in Kendi’s view, this defines America. Two pages later Kendi states this explicitly: Aristotle and the Bible among other documents would “solidify the foundational doctrine of racist ideas in America.”

For further substantiation, read Part 1 of his book Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, from which the graphic novel is adapted. Early in chapter 1, Kendi describes the Apostle Paul as laying out a tripartite hierarchy of heavenly master, earthly master, and slave. 1 Cor 7:22 subjugates earthly masters to God, and Colossians 3:22 [13] subjugates slaves to earthly masters. Kendi notes a ‘crucial caveat’ in Galatians 3:28, namely the clause ‘all one in Christ Jesus’ which restricts ‘neither slave nor free’ to only apply to slaves’ souls (conversely, not to their bodies). In Kendi’s materialistic interpretation of Galatians 3:28, this passage allowed the Christian earthly master to baptize his slave and bring him up in the Christian faith (their soul being equal before God) while exploiting his body (their bodies being unequal) for physical labor. All while remaining an upstanding citizen and member of the Church. Allowing Kendi to interpret Kendi, I do not see how the COP can approvingly cite Kendi as positively supporting the statement “In the church, all are equal” in footnote 36. He clearly does not.

Finally, we need to recognize that there is no open marketplace of ideas. A marketplace connotes both an even playing field and validity to the participants in the marketplace. We are the hegemonic discourse that all those groups in footnote five have their barbs pointed at. As Dr. Gregory Schulz would say, "This is Psalm 2 stuff." We don't compete. Christ has already won; it is merely a matter of enlightening those lost in the dark marketplace of ideas.

Happy to discuss or clarify as needed,

Dr. Philip Hahn

Subscribe now

[1] https://mlc-wels.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2020/11/InFocusFall2020-WEB.pdf, pg. 34. Professor Schwartz’ presentation can be found here: mp.weixin.qq.com/s/QcrYzmsYrzFhVQZf5niuug

[2] Ibid, pg. 33

[3] https://mlc-wels.edu/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2020/08/Gut-Thesis-Approved.pdf

[4]

31m30s. Note that on page 34 of the CRT pastoral brief, constructivism is identified as contrary to Biblical epistemology.

[5] mlc-wels.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2024/10/InFocusFall24-WEB.pdf, pg. 33, which references the following YouTube video

[6] This is not an isolated incident. While at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she describes Critical Race Theory as a useful for impacting and engaging with equity in her classroom at a Predominantly White Institution (PWI), timestamp 15 minutes.

[7] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358471863_Toward_a_Critical_Race_Theory_of_Education

[8] https://www.econedlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LadsonBillings_Culturally-Relevant-Pedagogy.pdf

[9] Interestingly this is laid out most clearly by atheist commentators: James Lindsay (“The Theology of Marxism”), John McWhorter (“Woke Racism: How a New Religion has Betrayed Black America”) and Andrew Doyle (“The New Puritans”)

[10] Nor is it found in Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America.

[11] Kendi provides a concise 3-minute summary in this video:

[12] I also question why we are citing a graphic novel adaptation and not the original text: Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, 2016.

[13] Note, Kendi is sloppy here, citing “1 Corinthians” for the first passage which is quoted, and quoting the second passage without providing the citation to Colossians. The citation Galatians 3:28 is provided with only the snippet “all one in Christ Jesus”.

Subscribe now