The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”
- Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
- Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration of the “church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”
The task force that has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1. They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.” After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2. This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.
The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31. The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.
- A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
- A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
- A conversation guide for groups
- A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits
The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage. Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.
The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February. You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at reconsiderations@elca.org, but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.
I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force. I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns. When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process. Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed. Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust.
Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force. Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.
I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process. There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1. I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.
Comment # 1
The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length. The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length. True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length. But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex? How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages? It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.
Comment # 2
I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.” Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”
To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.” The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.” The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships. The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”). On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.” A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.” That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning. True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15). It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16). But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.” Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009. Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.
Thank you for these insights
You are very welcome. Thank you for your encouraging words. Blessings.
bless and thank you Lutheran Core for what you do! keep on keeping on!
Thank you for your encouraging words. May the Lord also bless you.
Are they limiting marriage to just two individuals or is more than two a new family unit?
Good question. It certainly would be a likely next step – once gender diverse couples are approved – to approve polyamory – intimate relationships where there are more than two partners. I remember seeing a video where one of the ELCA synodical bishops gave verbal support to a relationship of three people. One thing for sure, it will not stop with whatever comes out of this reconsiderations process.
Your repeated phrase of ” it will not stop” is so discouraging for the future of a church body that was at one time looked upon as a place to find Lutheranism within the doors of most of its sanctuaries. I fear for the unknowing participants of this synod and pray for all who participate in their folly!
Thank you for your prayers and concern for those who do not know what is going on. Please pray that they become aware.
I’ve worked through the proposed revisions and submitted comments. Anyone can do this, through January 31. Note that the final page collects demographic information; you can skip this entire page if you prefer to.
Some strange things happen in this revision. For context (and in response to Dennis’ comment #2), it’s important to know that “gender” is now defined by the ELCA as: “identities, roles, behaviors, and attributes that cultures, societies, and individuals shape, most often linked to femininity and masculinity. The most common gender identities are woman/girl and man/boy, but other identities exist.” If you recall some years back, “gender” was a genteel way to express the idea of “biological sex” and ensure that nobody thought you were talking about intercourse. Now, it exclusively refers to a psychological and social identity.
What is surprising about the rewrite is that the wording of the four statements of bound conscience have not been substantially changed. For example:
Original: “…some are convinced that same-
gender sexual behavior is sinful…”
Draft edit: …some are convinced that sexual
behavior between individuals of the same
gender is sinful…”
Given the change in the ELCA definition of “gender,” the statements that addressed lesbian and gay couples have vanished, in favor of a muddled statements about “individuals of the same gender.” What does that even mean? The ELCA teaches that it may or may not be sinful for two people “whose identities, roles, behaviors, and attributes that cultures, societies, and individuals shape” to engage in sexual behavior? Perhaps even more noteworthy, marriage and family in the ELCA no longer have any physical, bodily reality – especially not a procreative reality. It’s all about identity, roles, behaviors and attributes. Childbearing and child-rearing are explicitly diminished in lines 7-9 and 111-114.
There’s also this, in lines 17-22:
“Ongoing interpretations of the Scriptures and the Confessions regarding
sex, gender, and sexuality have introduced a complexity of considerations
about which there is not universal agreement. At the time of this writing,
within U.S. society and within the ELCA, many, but not all, have come to
accept marriage as a covenant between two consenting adults that should
be protected by law regardless of sex, gender, or sexuality.”
Did you catch the condescending framing? “At the time of this writing… many, but not all, have come to accept…” But they’ll come around eventually, because it’s the right side of history? Ugh.
One more.
Lines 238-242
Original: “In contemporary society, the term
‘family’ includes a variety of forms, more akin
to the older term of ‘household,’ exclusively
employed by Luther to include immediate
family members, relatives, and others.”
Draft edit: In contemporary society, the term
“family” denotes a variety of forms, such as
married couples, partners, children, extended
relatives, and others who may be part of one’s
chosen family. This contemporary
understanding is more akin to the older term of
“household,” employed by Luther to include
immediate family members, relatives, and
others.
“married couples, partners…” Are we endorsing marriage here, or not?
And last but not least, the laughable insertion of “predominant” in this sentence: “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman.” Pray tell, which branch of the Christian tradition has historically thought of marriage in a different way?
Sources –
Revised statement with changed sections highlighted: https://elcamediaresources.blob.core.windows.net/cdn/wp-content/uploads/Human-Sexuality-Social-Statement-Draft-Edits.pdf
Before and after comparison table: https://elcamediaresources.blob.core.windows.net/cdn/wp-content/uploads/Human-Sexuality-Reconsiderations-Explanations-of-Draft-Edits.pdf
Thank you for these good, very insightful thoughts and thank you for responding during the public comments period to the task force. Blessings.