Response to Bishop Rinehart’s Post

Response to

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church: Myths and Facts

Nov 23, 2024

By Bishop Michael Rinehart

Note from the Director:  I was absolutely amazed to read the response from an ELCA synodical bishop to what he calls myths and untruths that are circulating regarding the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  I am equally amazed over how totally non-communicative the ELCA is about that work.  Here is my response to Bishop Rinehart’s comments.  My responses are in all bold and are preceded by my name, NELSON.   

NELSON: The website for the Lutheran Congregations Support Network did not go public until Tuesday, November 26.  Will his responses become even stronger if and when he becomes aware of that website?

To be honest, I hesitated to write this. I hate giving any airtime to fake news, but the misinformation I’ve seen touted about the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) is so bizarre, it requires addressing. People have asked me, “Where can I go to find the truth?” This article will hopefully answer that question.

At the last Churchwide Assembly in Columbus Ohio, a memorial was brought by several synods to take a look at the structure of the ELCA. Our current operating system was built in 1988 when the ELCA was formed. It was a bit of a hybrid of the polities of the LCA, the ALC, and the AELC, with a smidgeon of 1980’s corporate culture thrown in to boot. Many, including me, feel our structures were built for a former reality, one that no longer exists. Personally, I feel it was built to maintain what existed, rather than adapt to the mission context. Others suggested we should examine our governing documents for any systemic racism that might be built in. I voted for the motion, and the CRLC was created.

NELSON:  The sentence “Others suggested we should examine our governing documents for any systemic racism that might be built in” minimizes the prominence given to dismantling racism in the motion to form the CRLC.  First, “being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism” is the only specific instruction given to the CRLC.  Second, the phrase “dismantle racism” is not ideologically neutral and without context.  Rather it reveals a whole Marxist way of viewing reality.  Third, Bishop Rinehart’s comment does not acknowledge the fact that 7 out of 35 – or a full 20% of the membership of the CRLC – is made up of DEIA officers and/or leaders at their place of employment and/or influence. 

Committees do excellent work, but they rarely bring about the kind of institutional reform I think we need. Once they started the listening process, they got an earful of ideas. Their work then became how to just decide what to do and make it manageable. The language of the motion was their guide. The CRLC shall:

…reconsider the statements of purpose for each of the expressions of this church, the principles of its organizational structure, and all matters pertaining thereunto, being particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism, and will present its findings and recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly in preparation for a possible reconstituting convention to be called under the rules for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.” [CA22.01.06]

So the motion was to review the purposes of the three expressions of the church: congregations, synods and the Churchwide Organization, looking closely at its organizational principles and being attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism. The group will prepare a report for the 2025 assembly.

Suggestions completely unrelated to the original motion were put forward. Then afterward, rumors about the nefarious things the CRLC was doing began to float around the Internet.
If you’d like to know what’s going on, here’s a summary of topics and conversations, as well as a schedule of meetings.

Imagine my surprise when I saw detractors of the ELCA reporting that the CRLC was planning to take over the ELCA, take possession of all church properties, grounds, and finances, remove bound conscience, demand a double supermajority (??) for disaffiliation or even make disaffiliation illegal, and more.

NELSON: No ELCA leader who knows and understands people should be surprised that people will become very concerned and fearful of what may be coming when there is so little communication regarding the work of the CRLC and what the ELCA Church Council will be doing with the recommendations from the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.   

Most people are smart enough to easily recognize this as propaganda from outside the ELCA designed to stir up suspicion, fear, and anger. I don’t like to respond to rumors, but I’ve also found, in the absence of credible information, people can take advantage of the ill-informed.

So I took this opportunity to make contact with some folks who are on the CRLC and get the low down. I learned that the CRLC doesn’t have authority to change polity.

Myth: The CRLC is going to remove Bound conscience.
Fact: The CRLC has not discussed bound conscience at all. It’s outside of their scope. There are conversations about updating the outdated language of our human sexuality statement, which was adopted before the marriage equality act passed. Congregations and clergy cannot be forced to marry or to not marry anyone.

NELSON: That is true that discussing bound conscience is outside the scope of the CRLC.  There is another task force that has the responsibility to review the 2009 human sexuality social statement and reconsider the provision for bound conscience.  So far there has been no report from that task force, even though the 2025 Churchwide Assembly is less than eight months away. 

Myth: Instead of a 2/3 vote, the ELCA is going to require a double supermajority (whatever that is) to disaffiliate.
Fact: No it isn’t. Discussing or amending the process of disaffiliation is not a part of the CRLC’s work at all. There are no conversations about this on the CRLC or anywhere in the ELCA that I’ve heard.

NELSON: I also am not aware of any movement to require a double supermajority to disaffiliate.  I also do not know what a double supermajority is.  Instead what the ELCA requires is two separate, supermajority votes with a certain amount of time in between.  It is a cheap shot to mock those who have mistakenly said “double supermajority.”  With the lack of information regarding the discussions and actions of the CRLC – and with another church body (the United Methodist Church) making it more difficult for congregations to leave – it is natural that people will fear that amending the process of disaffiliation will be a part of the report and recommendations from the CRLC. 

Myth: The ELCA is going to make it illegal to disaffiliate. If you don’t disaffiliate before 2025 you will not be able to.
Fact: This is completely false. This is obviously made up by someone who wants to encourage congregations to come over to their denomination.

NELSON: Again, because of the lack of information it is easy to understand that many people will be fearful that the changes recommended by the CRLC will make it impossible to disaffiliate – or impossible for a congregation to keep its property if it disaffiliates.  

Myth: In order to dismantle racism, colonialism, and patriarchy, the whole ELCA structure is going to be dismantled. The “new CRLC committee” is going to be in charge of the ELCA.
Fact: No it isn’t. The CRLC has no legislative authority. The CRLC has discussed issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion and how some aspects of the structures of the church have caused pain.

NELSON: True, the CRLC has no legislative authority.  It is the Churchwide Assembly that has legislative authority.  The “new CRLC committee” is not going to be in charge of the ELCA.  But they will be making recommendations to the ELCA Church Council, who will be making recommendations to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  And with all the talk about racism being systemic, the need to dismantle racism, the ELCA’s being the whitest denomination in the United States, and white people’s inability to not be racist, it is not too far down the road to say that the ELCA needs to be dismantled.   

Myth: Every ELCA church will need to go through a financial audit. One post claimed there would be fines if a church has not spent money on social justice committees “at the government level.”
Fact: Someone made this up. The fact is, every congregation does an annual internal audit, and it should for its own safety. Synods have an annual external audit.

NELSON: With all the “Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations” which are a part of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and with neither the CRLC nor the ELCA Church Council so far saying anything publicly about what will be done with that audit, it is natural for congregations to fear what they may be expected or even required to do and what will happen to them if they do not. 

Myth: The ELCA is going to take possession of all church properties.
Fact: Nope. There is no discussion about or desire to acquire church properties. (And since each ELCA congregation is a separate 501.c(3) it would be nearly impossible.) The idea that some entity (synod, churchwide, etc.) wants to steal your property or close your church is a bizarre, old trope.

NELSON: A synod’s taking over a congregation and its property and closing the congregation is not “a bizarre, old trope.”  Rather it is something synods are doing as they make use of S13.24 in the model constitution for synods. 

Myth: If your congregation does not give a certain amount to LGBTQIA causes or social justice committees “at the government level,” you will be reprimanded and ordered to pay a certain amount to the ELCA structure.
Fact: I truly don’t know where people get this stuff. This has no basis in reality.

NELSON: See comments above re the lack of communication from the CRLC and the ELCA Church Council regarding the work of the CRLC, the recommendations that will be coming from the CRLC, and what the ELCA Church Council will do with the recommendations from the DEIA audit.  Also Bishop Rinehart ignores the fact that people will understandably be concerned in light of the fact that 7 out of 35 – or a full 20% of the makeup of the CRLC – are LGBTQ.  And this does not take into account the additional number that are activists on LGBTQ issues.    

I get to wondering who is making up this stuff and why? (I have some suspicions.) Who stands to benefit? Consider this: Suppose you are part of a small splinter denomination that broke off for this or that reason. When you broke off, you imagined an avalanche of congregations would follow you, but it didn’t come to pass. Now you’re a small struggling denomination, with congregations that are not growing. You have no seminaries, no colleges, no camps, and are no longer part of the Lutheran World Federation. The only way you grow is by poaching congregations from other denominations by stirring up division. How do you do that? You make up stuff and play to their fear. “The bishop is going to close your congregation.” “The synod is going to steal your property.” “The denomination is going to take control of your finances.”

There are lots of other rumors floating around, but I hate to give them the light of day. If you have questions or concerns, give me a call. I’m happy to look into things and find out what’s what. I try to follow my parents’ advice: “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”

A Churchwide Assembly will be held again in the summer of 2025 as it is every three years. Any recommendations from the CRLC that require a constitutional amendment will be published in advance. Constitutional amendments can be proposed but not ratified until the following assembly.

At the end of the day, people will believe what they want, for whatever conscious or unconscious reasons they have. I am reminded of a Luther quote, which may be apocryphal:

You cannot keep birds from flying over your head,
but you can keep them from building nests in your hair.
– Martin Luther

NELSON: I would hope that all this will show ELCA leaders that they need to do a far, far better job at communicating what will be coming to and what will be voted on at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly because of the work of the CRLC and the DEIA audit.  The lack of communication and transparency has been astounding.