Reconqui-whatnow?

So I just learned about this ultraconservative movement called Operation Reconquista. I refuse to link to them here and give them any Google love but you can look them up on your own. The theology on their site is shallow, unlettered and so inartfully expressed that I first thought it was satire or perhaps it was the work of some angry evangelical 13-year-olds.

Their expressly stated purpose is to infiltrate the seven sisters of mainline Protestantism and restore what they believe is the true faith. Yet by the second paragraph of their own homepage, they reveal their true aim that this is a political movement to replace liberalism with conservatism. I mean, what could be more like Christ-like than to attend a denomination you completely disagree with in hopes of polluting it with your broken ideology?

The contradictions don’t stop on the homepage. I read their document called the “95 Theses to the ELCA,” sporting a gauche title that would’ve seemed clever to my 13-year-old mind at one point as well. I actually found a handful of these 95 lines ideas I could agree with, although I think I may be interpreting them differently than this group does. I mean, I am a Trinitarian after all, and I do think adultery is wrong (more on this later believe it or not). But the contradictions in the document would be outright hilarious if they weren’t also nefarious.

Their first line states, “The Lutheran Church must affirm its commitment to the authority of scripture as the errant and infallible word of God, guiding all aspects of faith and practice.” Sola Scriptura with a very fundamentalist bent, that I don’t believe makes sense in Lutheran tradition. Setting aside the fact that the Bible is obviously fallible and quite errant and contradicts itself, already by line 3 they imply that the church body and tradition hold authority saying, “when the church seeks to innovate its teachings, it must be cautious, ensuring that any changes and adaptations are firmly rooted in scripture and the historical teachings of the church.” I swear I’m not making this up. Then in line 7, they contradict Sola Scriptura by saying that the Book of Concord should have priority in matters of faith and theology and even be used for readings in the church. How is this not satire?

If they hold this belief about the Book of Concord, then why not simply ask Lutheran churches to stick to the Book of Concord instead of composing 95 theses for the ELCA? The answer is that the Book of Concord doesn’t address the political hot-button issues that this group wants to promote such as bigotry toward LGBTQ+ individuals, taking away a woman’s right to medical care, and drawing ideological boundaries around their own own definitions of family values, tradition, doctrine, and politics.

Beyond the basics of trinitarian theology, baptism and some commonly followed Protestant practices, there is almost nothing else in these 95 lines that I agree with. In fact, I may use this document to hand out to people to demonstrate what I don’t believe. At least it will be a good source of blog material for the coming year.

At best, outside of the occasional and perhaps accidental mainstream orthodoxy, even the agreeable phrases are written with such stilted and ambiguous language that they lean hard into marginalization and identity politics. If we can know each other by our love, this is clearly not an authentic Christian movement. At worst many of the lines are ham-fisted attempts to hold onto old-fashioned ideas. Maybe I’m wrong and this wasn’t written by angry 13-year-olds, but a bunch of grumpy 90-year-olds sitting on various committees. For example, there are lines in there about cherishing traditional hymnody, so I guess drum sets are out of the question. How such a line is considered an important theological thesis is beyond me. If you have the courage to visit their documents, please continue to the final pages where you will find they ran out of ideas to fill the 95 “theses” they needed for their framing narrative and the document devolves into random rants stretched out over multiple lines. Several lines are even outright repetitions of previous lines. Also, at the risk of snobbery, I am perhaps more offended by their misuse of grammar and punctuation than the bad theology itself. These are not the best and brightest in the body of Christ.

I need to share line 79 in its entirety: “The ELCA blames this lack of diversity on racism in the church and stiff-necked lay people.” I assure you I did not edit or truncate this line. Is there any theology in this ad hominem? Perhaps they should rename Operation Reconquista to operation non sequitur. I also love the somewhat archaic use of “stiff-necked,” which is rich coming from a bunch of Protestants whose entire reason for being was breaking with tradition and authority. What was line 79 referencing? Line 78 which states, “The ELCA ‘has’ (sic) a large commitment to and celebration of diversity, yet it is the whitest Christian denomination.” OK, explain the purpose of this “thesis,” to me. What is actually happening is they are taking some fragile white male rhetoric and spreading it out over several lines. One disgusting idea, several “theses.” This is followed by line 80, “The ELCA claims it wants diversity but adopts views of Christianity that are mostly held by white people and rejected by people of color.” I honestly cannot imagine what this line is trying to say. If white people follow a theology it must be racist? ELCA theology is incompatible is liberation theology?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there and they continue to betray their own willful ignorance of their white male entitlement. These are the kinds of people who use words like, “colorblind,” to ignore the real impact of systematic racial oppression, or “equality,” as a way to protect their own unearned privileges and advantages.

Line 81 states, “the ELCA has a great commitment to ending discrimination against women, but in that fight, it has completely forgotten men.” Reading that, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. This is a movement dedicated more to white patriarchy than it is to Christ, and they make this clear in many of their statements. If you are worried about the forgotten males in our society, male pastors in the ELCA still outnumber women by a large margin, and women tend to serve smaller congregations with less financial stability. The emotional fragility of a man who feels forgotten in these circumstances rivals Elon Musk.

One of my favorite lines states, “in marriage, pastors are expected to have sexual relations with their spouse, and only their spouse.” Certainly, adultery is always wrong, but why only call out pastors on this issue? What is going on behind closed doors at Operation Reconquista? Also, I like the idea that the pastor is actually required to have sexual relations with their spouse, I’m assuming, regardless of illness, separation or asexual proclivity and what not. Maybe the authors of this document have a financial stake in Viagra sales or web conferencing solutions for deployed military members. The many sexual hangups of conservatives have become self-parody.

There are varying flavors of this document for other denominations outside of the ELCA such as the Presbyterians or United Church of Christ. For all the reasons above, it is impossible to take any of them seriously. We should, however, take their actions seriously. I write about these partially to enjoy a bit of Schadenfreude, but also as a warning. These whack jobs are recruiting other whack jobs to infiltrate mainline denominations and influence their church governance. Be careful who you put on committees. It is perfectly fine to disagree all over the place with your church, that is why we are Protestants. But there are plenty of churches to choose from that might align more with your conservative ideals if that is more important to you than love and progress. This movement is diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.