IT WAS BAD, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE:

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY

by Dennis D. Nelson

That is how I would sum up the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  It was bad, but it could have been worse.  (2028 will probably be worse.)  For the most part, the voting members did not force the issues beyond what was being recommended, as had been feared, and on one important matter even showed some restraint.  I live in the Phoenix area, so I was able to attend most of the assembly in person as a visitor.  Being there in person you can get the “feel of the room” and also observe the makeup of the group.

1. INITIAL OBSERVATION

The first thing I noticed was how many young people and people of color there were.  I do not have the actual statistics, but a couple people at the microphone said that there were 137 people – or 17% of the voting members – who were under the age of thirty at the time of election.  The ELCA has certainly succeeded in creating the assembly makeup that they have wanted, even if some of the votes did not go as far as they would have desired.

2. ABUSE OF POWER

There is over-the-top euphoria over the election of the new presiding bishop.  Lutheran CORE experienced the worst kind of bullying and abuse of power behavior from him, as we described in our Summer 2023 and October 2023 Letters from the Director.  For several years Lutheran CORE had held a Spanish language and bi-lingual ministry Encuentro at an ELCA church in northwest Chicago.  The event was organized and led by an ELCA pastor who was also doing supply preaching at the congregation with the full knowledge of the previous synodical bishop.  After Yehiel Curry was elected bishop of the Metro Chicago Synod he threatened that pastor with removal from the ELCA clergy roster (even though he was rostered in another synod) if he did not immediately cease providing pulpit supply.  Bishop Curry then brought in an entourage to take over and close the congregation (citing S.13.24 in the model constitution for synods).  In shutting down the congregation he showed no respect, regard, consideration, or appreciation for the current congregational leaders and the decades of faithful ministry that had taken place at that location (including the decades of faithful ministry by the father of the current congregational leaders).  He evicted the sons of the former pastor from the parsonage with thirty days’ notice, even though these brothers were maintaining the property and providing leadership for the congregation.  After evicting the current leaders and forcing out the confessional supply preacher, he brought in two pastors from Peru, who introduced shaman-blessed, ayahuasca-induced seances.  I read an article written by one of these Peruvian pastors.  Her argument was that since the Conquistadores were so culturally insensitive when they conquered the Indigenous people, it is appropriate to honor and include Indigenous culture with shamans and ayahuasca (a hallucinogenic plant from the Amazon basin).  I cannot imagine the Old Testaments prophets saying that since Joshua and company were so culturally insensitive about the way they came in and conquered the land of Canaan, it would be appropriate to have an altar to Baal in the Temple in Jerusalem.

I sent the article that I had written about Bishop Curry’s style and behavior to Bishop Eaton, Imran Siddiqui (vice president of the ELCA), and the person who was chairperson of the conference of bishops at the time.  I never heard from any of them.  ELCA leaders do not want to hear anything other than the official and preferred narrative.  They will completely ignore a very valid and serious complaint about bullying and abuse of power on the part of a synodical bishop.   

 The ELCA values speaking truth to power.  I was speaking truth about the abuse of power by the person who will soon hold the most powerful position in the ELCA.  At the assembly we also heard about the ELCA’s Truth and Healing Movement as well as the truth-seeking and truth-telling initiatives revolving around Indian boarding schools.  But here we see top ELCA leaders ignoring the truth about the behavior of a fellow leader. 

3. OBSESSED WITH DEIA

We have shared how the Lutheran Congregational Support Network has responded to ELCA synodical bishops who say, “Don’t worry; what you fear will never happen; the ELCA will always respect the integrity of congregations; the Lutheran Congregational Support Network is spreading lies and misinformation.”  The words and behavior of one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church totally invalidated that argument.   

On a positive note, the “Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations” that are listed in the DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) audit which the ELCA Church Council had done of its governing documents (DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf  ) are not yet mandatory, but it was obvious that certain powerful people and forces will not stop until they are.  The wording of Memorial B14 – “Consideration of Recommendation 1 of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church” – was not as strong as the wording of Recommendation 1 as it came from the Commission.  You can find the Commission’s original wording in my article regarding Recommendations 1 and 7 in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter.   But still the Memorial, which was approved 646-144, called for the church “to acknowledge the importance of accountability in addressing racism within all structures of the ELCA, to affirm the work of the Strategy Toward Authentic Diversity Advisory Team . . . and to direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes.”

Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, first celebrated the fact that within the two synods where she works LGBTQ sensitivity and cultural competency training are mandatory.  Then she said that most recommendations of the DEIA audit are not possible with the ELCA’s current polity, so we need to preserve the possibility of a re-constituting convention.  Vice president Imran Siddiqui in his response to the report of the Commission said that “DEIA work has to be a part of everything we do.”  Later in the assembly one of the nominees for presiding bishop said that DEI means “of God” so DEIA must be of God.  When the top three nominees for presiding bishop were asked to respond to certain questions, one of the questions they were given was how they would implement DEIA.  And the Church Council has already cemented DEIA language and values into the governing documents of the ELCA through Continuing Resolutions which they have passed and which do not require approval by the Churchwide Assembly.  But I was most alarmed later on during the gathering when Carla Christopher, co-chair of the Commission, exploded at the microphone because of the resistance to the constitutional amendment recommended by the Commission which would fast-track the approval process for amendments that come from the floor.  Here is a recording of her stating emphatically, “We are giving the Council less than three years to make substantive changes to dismantle racism or we are going to need to rewrite the entire constitution at a special meeting.”   Here is a recording.   The process is already well underway to eventually make DEIA mandatory for congregations.  Powerful people in powerful positions will not stop until it has happened.

During her report Bishop Eaton spoke of the need to keep the ministry of Word and Sacrament central within the life of the church.  My heart was warmed as I heard her say that the proclamation of the Gospel through the Word and the administration of the sacraments are “the only thing given only to the church,” adding that she was concerned that “the church is not always clear on that.”  After stating that “our communities are filled with justice-loving and compassionate atheists,” she asked, “What makes us different?”  All of which sounds very good, and I have read her saying these things before, but they do not reflect ELCA reality.  For the ELCA DEIA is the new gospel – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead DEIA is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  It took a motion from the floor – which was approved 678-120 – to add a question for the final two nominees for presiding bishop regarding their faith in Jesus and to share a Scripture passage or story which shapes and sustains them.  

4. A GLIMMER OF HOPE

I experienced a glimmer of hope when an amendment was presented, discussed, and even by a very narrow margin approved that removed language from the proposed amendment to Churchwide Constitution 22.11.b.  As we discussed in our April 2025 Letter from the Director this amendment, if approved, would have provided a fast-track approval process for constitutional amendments that come from the floor.  The amendment to the amendment was to remove language that added the phrase “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.”  I was encouraged to hear even some synodical bishops speak in favor of the amendment to the amendment because of the amount of suspicion and distrust already present within their synods regarding the ELCA.  This was the discussion when, as I previously mentioned, one of the co-chairs of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church exploded at the microphone, claiming that those who were in favor of the amendment to the amendment were silencing and disregarding marginalized people.  (Her comments made me wonder what kind of amendments she wanted and planned to have come from the floor.) 

But my glimmer of hope faded when later during the assembly a voting member proposed new language, which would provide for a provisional ratification of an amendment from the floor by a vote of the church council within twelve months and then a later ratification of the amendment by the next Churchwide Assembly.  After much discussion about whether the new language was appropriate and how it would be executed, the assembly voted 517-247 to refer the motion to the Office of the Secretary for further study.  This action raises the question of how newly elected Secretary Lucille “CeCee” Mills will interpret the constitution.  The ELCA’s summary of Day Five quotes Secretary-elect Mills as describing the church’s constitution as “something that magnifies all of the things that we understand ourselves to be as Lutherans in the ELCA. . . . Making something a document that is living beyond the people who are writing it in the moment is really important.”  Over the next few years we will find out what a “living” interpretation of the constitution means.   

5. MORE THAN MERELY “EDITORIAL CHANGES”

There were many who feared that the 2025 assembly would not be satisfied with the two-step approach that was given to the Human Sexuality Social Statement Reconsiderations Task Force.  The concern was that the 2025 assembly might force a vote on the whole issue of bound conscience.  That kind of premature action did not happen.  The vote on bound conscience, which is the provision which gives a place of dignity and respect also to traditional views and those who hold them, is scheduled to take place in 2028.  As we described in an article in the January 2025 issue of our newsletter, the task force was claiming that they were merely recommending “editorial changes.”  “Substantive changes” – such as what to do about bound conscience – will not be considered until 2028.   But I would not call the 2025 changes, which amount to no less than a full embrace of every form of gender identity and every sexual orientation – merely “editorial changes.”

The assembly stayed within the boundaries of the first step in the process except for one motion that came from the floor.  That motion was to remove the phrase “between a man and a woman” from the language “The Christian tradition has historically defined marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, as reflected in the language of Genesis.”  The rationale for the amendment was that the current wording is harmful to LGBTQ people and does not correspond to their lived experience.  The claim was that merely reminding people that marriage between one man and one woman has been the historic teaching of the church was traumatic and upsetting.  The maker of the motion argued that rather than waiting three more years when bound conscience will be considered, something could be done now to make the social statement less harmful.  The amendment to the amendment was adopted 552-211, and the revised social statement was approved 742-46.  We saw three things happening here.  First, the re-writing of history to eliminate what some people find hurtful or harmful.  Second, the defining of truth as something that conforms to some people’s liking and lived experience.  And third, a preview of what is to come in the 2028 reconsideration of bound conscience. 

A member of the task force who was one of those who made the presentation spoke of the desire that there be “a place for each of us in this church.”  He also said, “We understand that we may not have your trust, but we hope moving forward we can earn it.”  Depending upon what happens to bound conscience in 2028, we will know whether the ELCA can be trusted.       

The assembly approved (748-15) “The Common Statement on the Filioque,” an agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The term “filioque” has to do with the phrase in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”  This agreement does not call for the removal of the “filioque.”  Instead it created a common understanding between Lutheran and Orthodox church bodies, allowing both versions to be recited. 

Much has been written and said about this decision’s showing that the ELCA cares more about church unity than doctrine.  But what I would like to focus on is Bishop Eaton’s comment that if Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox Christians can overcome a thousand-year division over this much greater issue, then we certainly should be able to overcome division over much lesser issues today.  Either Bishop Eaton is trying to minimize it or she does not understand what the full impact will be if the ELCA makes DEIA mandatory for congregations and/or eliminates the provision for bound conscience.

6. UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS

There was a very interesting amendment to bylaw 5.01.E19 that was approved by a vote of 530-236 to increase the percentage goal of youth and young adult voting membership of the Churchwide Assembly, Church Council, and churchwide boards and committees from 10% to 20%.  I have already mentioned the large number of youth and young adults who were voting members of the 2025 assembly.  This representation was to be on top of constitutional amendment 12.41.11.e, which states that in addition to their regular number of voting members for the Churchwide Assembly, synods may elect one additional voting member who is a member of a historically underrepresented group and one additional voting member who is a person of color and/or a person whose primary language is other than English.  Though the amendment was being recommended by the Church Council, the assembly voted 492-279 to refer it back to the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee of the Church Council.

As I mentioned in my article in the May 2025 issue of our newsletter, a Continuing Resolution passed by the Church Council defines historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, persons whose primary language is other than English, persons of diverse gender identities, persons of diverse sexual orientations, persons experiencing poverty, persons of lower income, persons living with disabilities, and persons who are not natural-born United States citizens.  If the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee ends up recommending and a future Churchwide Assembly ends up approving this amendment, a large number of the positions in churchwide assemblies, the church council, and churchwide boards and committees will be given to youth, young adults, and members of historically underrepresented groups.  Since a large percentage of the members of the majority of ELCA congregations are old white people, who will then be the underrepresented group? 

The Churchwide Assembly extended much acknowledgement and consideration to Indigenous people.  There was the required opening land acknowledgement, an evening Powwow, a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, and much discussion and repentance over the ELCA’s complicity in the abuses caused by Indian Boarding Schools.  But there is one major way in which the ELCA rejects a basic value of Indigenous people – the respecting and valuing of the wisdom of tribal elders.

7. ENDLESS CONFESSION

I stayed Friday afternoon for the Service of Confession and Repentance for Sexism and Patriarchy.  It seemed strange that I was being called on to repent of Sexism and Patriarchy in the midst of the following realities.  The two top elected leadership positions in the ELCA at the time were being held by women.  The Conference of Bishops is pretty equally divided between men and women.  A majority of ELCA seminary presidents are women.  A majority of the members of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church are women.  A majority of leaders of Lutheran churches in other countries who greeted the assembly were women.  And I did not keep a running tally, but it seemed that the majority of people who went to one of the microphones to speak were women.

As I said before, DEIA is the new gospel of the ELCA – even though DEIA is not Gospel.  Instead it is a law that always demands more and will never be satisfied.  You can never grovel, repent, apologize, and change your ways enough.      

There was also a very interesting phrase in one of the petitions during the service.  God was addressed as “Holy midwife.”  Now I am not surprised that the designers of the service would want to include every possible feminine image for God, but “Holy midwife”?   Think about it.  A midwife does not procreate.  A midwife does not bring about new life.  A midwife merely helps deliver new life that has been created by others.  The image of God as “Holy midwife” diminishes God from being “the one through whom all things were made.”

8. THE RISKS OF BEING WOKE

And now I would like to conclude by sharing two things that say a lot about the risks of being Woke.

First, Tuesday was the day that everyone was to wear red in solidarity with Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  When the ELCA treasurer came to the podium to give her report, she was wearing red.  She said that it was not good for a treasurer to wear red, so she ducked behind the podium and came back up wearing green.  Everyone – or at least almost everyone – chuckled. 

As the last item of the day, one person went to the microphone and shared how triggered and offended she was by someone’s making light of such a serious and sacred thing as a Day of Remembrance for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls.  What a downer way to end the day.  But it did show that Woke will always find something to be triggered and offended about and by.

Second, on Friday afternoon someone made a substitute motion to amend the language of bylaw 7.31.02.a.8, striking the proposed phrase and replacing it with words including “giving special honor to members of historically underrepresented groups.”  Several people of color went to the microphone to say that they are looking for justice and equality, not special honor.  When the maker of the motion was asked where the language of “special honor” came from, she replied from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.  Bishop Eaton asked her, “Have you read that passage?”  That question alone should have been cause for alarm.  The substitute motion was defeated (703-52).

A few minutes later a voting member went to the microphone and shared how livid and offended she was because of what 1 Corinthians 12: 24 actually says.  “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member.”  The maker of the substitute motion was calling members of historically underrepresented groups inferior members.  The voting member said to the maker of the motion, “You have hurt me in a way you will not believe.”     

Two lessons for all who want to be Woke –

1. Be always ready to always be triggered and offended.
2. Be very careful in your quotation and interpretation of Scripture.

I said at the beginning that the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly was bad, but it could have been worse.  Will the 2028 Churchwide Assembly be worse?  It could be.  It will be worse if bound conscience is eliminated and constitutional amendments are approved so that DEIA becomes mandatory for congregations.  Will that happen?  There are powerful, preferred, and well-positioned people who are determined it will happen and will not stop until it happens.  We will continue to monitor.

Trusting in Jesus the Lord of the Church,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRIES

TOOLS FOR WORSHIP PLANNING – PART ONE

by Cathy Ammlung

Many thanks to NALC pastor Cathy Ammlung for this first in a series of videos intended to provide congregations – especially those with temporary and/or longer-term pastoral vacancies – with some tools for worship planning.  A link to Cathy’s video can be found HERE.  A link to our You Tube channel, which contains sixty reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf. 

 In this video, Cathy talks about why worship planning is important.  She describes the “flow” of the liturgy, how that actually helps create faithful worshippers, and how it creates a “reality check” for what you may be planning.  She discusses some alternatives when there’s not a Communion service.

Cathy then gives a brief preview of the other topics that will be covered in more detail in future videos: the church year; lectionaries and how to navigate them as you plan worship over a season; hymn selection and getting the most from the hymnals; and selecting, writing, and praying intercessory prayers.  An outline of these things can be sent to you as an email Word attachment.  You can contact her at [email protected].

Summer 2025

Dear Friends in Christ –

Luke 8: 26-39, the Gospel Reading for June 22, the Second Sunday after Pentecost, tells of Jesus’ delivering the Gerasene demoniac.  This story is in all three of the synoptic Gospels and it occurred right after Jesus’ calming of the storm on the Sea of Galilee, which I believe is significant.  This was the first time that Jesus during His public ministry ventured into Gentile territory (the presence of pigs confirms that).  Satan tried to stop Him with a storm.  When that did not work, Satan tried to stop Him with a demoniac.  What are some of the ways in which you see Satan trying to hinder, disrupt, stop, and destroy the work of God today?  

Near the beginning of the account it says, “As He (Jesus) stepped out on land.”  Near the end it says, “So He got into the boat.”  It only mentions Jesus as stepping out of and getting back into the boat.  The disciples must have been too spooked – by the storm, by being in Gentile territory, and by the demoniac – to be willing to get out of the boat.  When have you been so spooked that you did not want to do the equivalent of following Jesus out of the boat?  With all the things that are happening in our country, in our world, and even in some parts of the church today, it would be very easy to be totally spooked and just want to stay in the boat.   

Notice the way in which Luke describes the demonized man.  “For a long time he had worn no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs.”  “Many times it had seized him; he was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.”  Mark adds, “He was always howling and bruising himself with stones.” 

Satan hates us.  Satan’s greatest desire is to hurt the people of God and to hinder and destroy the work of God.   How do you see Satan doing that today?  As I look around I see many ways in which Satan is active overtime trying to destroy the work of the church today.   

With all the turmoil happening in our world, it would be very easy to be totally afraid.  But here we see that the forces of evil immediately recognize the far greater power of Jesus.  When the demonized man saw Jesus, he fell down before him and shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me.” 

And then when Jesus asked the demon for its name, the demon replied, “Legion.”  The reason for that name is that many demons had entered him.  Jesus was establishing His authority over the demon by commanding the demon to tell Jesus his name.  Many who have a ministry of spiritual deliverance have said that demons have resisted telling their name.  A legion was the largest military unit in the Roman army and was composed of over 5,000 men.  By comparison, Mary Magdalene had only seven demons cast out of her (Luke 8:2).   

As I understand the Scriptures, God is omni-present, able to be everywhere all at the same time. Satan is a created being and therefore can only be in one place at a time.  Therefore, Satan has his various levels of followers – whom Paul describes as “rulers, authorities, cosmic powers of this present darkness, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6: 12).  These Satan assigns to specific people, places, and situations.  That is why the legion of demons begged Jesus not to order them to go back into the abyss.  They would be in deep trouble with Satan if they were to abandon their post and return to hell.

Then we come to what has been for many people the most difficult part of the story.  Why would Jesus give the demons permission to enter a large herd of swine, which would lead to the death of the swine?  Why would Jesus allow the destruction of the property of others as well as the livelihood of the swineherds?  Many Bible scholars believe that these pigs were being raised to be sacrificed to idols.  So Jesus is showing that His power is not only far greater than the Legion of demons, it is also far greater than all pagan gods.   

If that is the most difficult part of the story, we then come to the saddest part of the story.  When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran off and told people about it.  Rather than being overjoyed that the demoniac had been delivered, the people were afraid.  And because they were afraid, they asked Jesus to leave.  They asked Jesus to leave, and He obliged them by leaving.  The tragedy is not only that Jesus left – as requested – but there is no record that He ever returned.  Sometimes it seems that some parts of the church have so elevated other values and agenda priorities that they basically have asked Jesus to leave.    

The story concludes by telling us that the man who had been delivered of demons begged Jesus that he might be with Him.  But Jesus said to him, “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.”  Naturally this person would want to follow Jesus because Jesus had liberated him.  But Jesus knew that he would be most effective in witnessing to people who had known him before he had been delivered.  I am very grateful for all the people who tell me that they are sharing our materials with others.  Who are the people who would be most apt to listen if they were to hear it from you?

The ELCA Churchwide Assembly will be coming up at the end of July.  We are deeply concerned about actions that will be taken, including further cementing DEIA values and Marxist critical race theory into the governing documents of the church, substituting a “gospel” of dismantling racism for the Gospel of forgiveness of sins through the cross, a fast-tracking of the approval process for amendments to constitutions, and a full embrace of the most extreme LGBTQ+ agenda.  Like with the townspeople in Luke 8, it feels like many in the ELCA are asking Jesus to leave. 

Thank you for your prayers, words of encouragement, and faithful financial support, all of which enable and strengthen us to continue to do our work of being a Voice for Biblical Truth and a Network for Confessing Lutherans.  Please find enclosed a form which you can use to give a gift towards our regular operating expenses.  Your prayers are especially important as we face all the changes that we anticipate coming from the upcoming ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  Please let us know how we can be praying for you.     

In the all-powerful Name of Jesus,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
P.O. Box 1741
Wausau WI 54402-1741

Easter 2025

Dear Friends in our Risen Lord –

The Gospel reading for April 6, the Fifth Sunday in Lent, is a powerful example of overwhelming love and deepest gratitude that express themselves in extravagant giving. John 12 starts out, “Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for Him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with Him.”

The previous chapter (John 11) tells the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. I believe that what is going on here in chapter 12 is that Lazarus and his sisters wanted to show their gratitude, so they invited Jesus and His disciples over for dinner. “Martha served.” If the account in Luke 10: 38-42 is any indication, when Martha served a dinner, she went all out. The meal and hospitality were over the top. There is a lady at the church where my wife and I are members who – whenever she is in charge of the food for an event – she goes all out. It is over the top. Whenever she – or the chef at a nearby Lutheran retreat center – are in charge of the soup for one of the Lenten soup suppers, you know that it is going to be very, very good.

What does Mary do? Verse 3 – “Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.” According to Judas in verse 5 this perfume could have been sold for three hundred denarii (what the average person would earn in a full year). Jesus responds in verse 7, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.”

Mary just had to do something extravagant to show her love for Jesus – to express her deep gratitude to Jesus – for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead. What is the most extravagant thing you have done because of your love for someone – because of your love for God?

The apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians –

8: 9 – “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich.”

9: 6 – “The one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”

9: 8 – “God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.”

9: 11 – “You will be enriched in every way for your great generosity.”

9: 15 – “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!”

You have shown your great love for God by your faithful and generous support of the work of the Lord, including the ministry of Lutheran CORE. Thank you for including Lutheran CORE in your giving. A major part of our work right now is evaluating and alerting you to what will be coming to and what will be acted on by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly this summer. Again this year we are supporting NEXUS, the ministry of Bible study, theological reflection, fellowship, and vocational discernment for high schoolers put on by Grand View University in Des Moines. We are again supporting the Cross Country Mission and City Mission work of River’s Edge Ministries in Mt. Airy, Maryland, which provide encouragement and practical assistance for rebuilding their lives for victims of natural disasters in various parts of our country, as well as outreach into inner city Baltimore. In the past we have provided financial assistance for four students at the North American Lutheran Seminary in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. We have now doubled that number to eight.

And yet we know that the work of Lutheran CORE – as well as the work of our ministry partners – will be severely criticized by those who see us as a threat to their relentless efforts to remake the ELCA and redefine its mission. I have already shared how I was removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group because my work with Lutheran CORE was accused of being hostile and abusive. And ELCA leaders are obviously threatened by the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network as shown by the document the ELCA prepared in rebuttal. If you have not already done so, I urge you to sign up to be on the email mailing list of the Network. You will find a link to their website on the ELCA Focus page on our website. It contains written communications as well as videos that discuss the anticipated changes to the ELCA Constitutions that are most alarming. It does not surprise us that there will be powerful forces that oppose us, just as one of Jesus’ disciples severely criticized Mary for what she did for Jesus.

Please find below links you can use to give a gift towards our regular operating expenses. Please also let us know how we can be praying for you. Thank you for your partnership in the Gospel, as we seek to live as the apostle Paul wrote – sowing bountifully, loving extravagantly, and thanking God for His indescribable gift.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE
P.O. Box 1741
Wausau WI 54402-1741

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS COMING FROM THE CHURCH COUNCIL TO THE 2025 ELCA CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY:

THE ELCA MUST NOT VALUE TRUST AND MUST NOT KNOW HOW TO BUILD TRUST

by Dennis D. Nelson

ELCA leaders must have heard enough about the work of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network that the ELCA Office of the Secretary has prepared a document entitled “Myths and Facts About Congregational Governance.”  Here is a link to that document – LINK # 1. 

The document contains a link to the proposed changes to the ELCA Constitutions for Churchwide, Synods, and Congregations that will be coming from the Church Council to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.  The Assembly will be held from July 28 through August 2 in Phoenix.  Here is a link to the proposed changes – LINK # 2.  The document also contains a link to the Rationale for the proposed changes.  This notification is in line with the requirement that the Church Council must act on proposed changes and transmit them to the synods at least six months prior to the Churchwide Assembly.

According to the document –

• There is nothing in the proposed changes that would eliminate, or even reduce, congregational autonomy and self-governance.
• The proposed changes to the “Model Constitution for Congregations” are minimal and do not reduce congregational autonomy in any way.
• The proposed changes do not affect congregational property ownership.
• There are no changes to the provisions related to synod administration or preservation of congregational property.
• There are no proposed changes to the disaffiliation process.

Synod preservation is the name for the process described in S.13.24 in the “Model Constitution for Synods” by which synods can move in and take over the property and functioning of a congregation if – in the eyes of the synod – the congregation has become too scattered and/or diminished and/or is no longer able to fulfill its function.  We have previously written about how two synods have used that provision against congregations – Metro Chicago and Southwest California.    

The document also states that recommendations from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church have been incorporated in some of the proposed changes, and even though the report of the Commission is not yet complete, none of the Commission’s recommendations advanced to date would do any of the things mentioned in the bullet points above.

I have read, studied, and analyzed the twenty-one pages of proposed changes and the ten pages of rationale.  Here is my response.

1.  Why would the ELCA have spent who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a thirty-five-member Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church and on hiring a law firm to do a DEIA audit of its governing documents if the results are no more than the constitutional changes that are currently being proposed?

2.  Do we really think that those who worked for the creation of the Commission are going to be satisfied if it accomplishes no more in advancing their goals – including the dismantling of racism – than what is included in the proposed changes?

3.  How can anyone imagine that the proposed changes call for something as major, involved, and expensive as a separate, reconstituting convention?  And will those who worked for the creation of the Commission be satisfied if there is no such convention?    

4.  We do not yet have the final report from the Commission.  The written summaries of each of their eleven meetings to date are very general and communicate very little.  And we do not know what will be included in their final report, which could very well contain recommendations that are more significant than what is included in the proposed changes.  But as we will see under the discussion of the amendments to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide,” the Commission has certainly prepared the way for the possibility (probability?) of their making and fast-tracking additional and more-far-reaching recommendations.     

My overall impression is this.  The ELCA does not value trust and does not know how to build trust.

1.   When the results of the DEIA audit were posted, which contained extensive recommendations for congregations which would consume the time and energy of any congregation that would try to meet them, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council came out with a statement regarding the status, implications, and/or ramifications of the audit. 

2.  Even though lack of communication creates fear and distrust, neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Church Council did anything to get the Commission to be more informative in their reporting. 

3.  The Presiding Bishop, Vice President, and Chairperson of the Conference of Bishops all totally ignored the communication from me regarding the bullying and abuse of power behavior on the part of the Metro Chicago Synod Bishop and Council in their using S.13.24 (synodical preservation) to take over and close a congregation.

4.  Nobody has stepped in and intervened when a synod (such as Southwest California) fights a war of attrition against a congregation.  Because of their closing congregations and selling properties, synods have the resources to fight long, protracted, legal battles against congregations, while individual congregations can only keep going for so long to try to protect themselves. 

With all of these dynamics, I do not understand why the Church Council and Conference of Bishops do not realize that there has been a crying need for greater communication all along.

Having shared these overall impressions, I would now like to highlight several specifics from the proposed changes and rationale which illustrate what I am saying.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND RATIONALE

The proposed amendments to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include the addition of several references to participants in Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities (SAWCs) to “expand inclusion and leadership opportunities.”  SWACs consist largely of community outreach and social justice-oriented groups.  Because they are established by synods and their ongoing existence is dependent upon synodical approval, they would not be able to resist synodical influence as a congregation could, if it so chooses.

Changes to the “Constitution for Churchwide” include one being recommended by the Candidacy Working Group of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church –

7.31.03.  This amendment is intended to produce a more flexible, competency-based discernment and formation process for candidates for the ministry of word and sacrament.  As stated in the Rationale, “By moving certain bylaws to the policy level in the Candidacy Manual, which can be approved by the Church Council after consultation with the Conference of Bishops, revisions that respond to changing realities could be made more swiftly than they can by constitutional amendment.”  In other words, the formation process for your future pastor could more easily be changed to match new ELCA agenda and priorities.      

Churchwide 7.31.07 and 7.61.07 – The Task Force on On Leave from Call and Specialized Ministry (as called for by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly) is recommending that the existing policies whereby synodical bishops can unilaterally deny a request for On Leave from Call status for rostered ministers be replaced by a new protocol in which synodical bishops make recommendations but the final decision is made by the synod council following a consultation process.  I assume this change is because of the disaster and uproar in the Sierra Pacific Synod back in 2021.

A more pronounced change is the addition in several places of a mandated or desired level of participation of persons from “historically underrepresented groups.”  The ELCA views historically underrepresented groups as including persons of color, diverse gender identities, and diverse sexual orientation.  I assume this change is the result of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  Please note that this requirement and/or goal is in addition to a mandated or desired level of participation of persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.    

For example, proposed amendments for the “Constitution for Churchwide” include –

• 41.11.e. – In addition to their regular number of voting members for the Churchwide Assembly, synods may elect one additional voting member who is a member of a historically underrepresented group and one additional voting member who is a person of color and/or a person whose primary language is other than English.
• 21 – In selecting staff members for the Churchwide organization, a balance is to be maintained of members of historically underrepresented groups as well as women and men and persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English (please note that there are no mandated percentages here).

Here is a mandated proposed amendment for the “Model Constitution for Synods” –

S6.04.02 – It is to be the goal of every synod that at least 10% of the voting members of the synod assembly, synod council, and synod committees and organizational units be members of historically underrepresented groups in addition to at least 10% being persons of color and/or persons whose primary language is other than English.  The synod council is to establish a plan for implementing this goal.   

Another example is 10.21.03. in the “Constitution for Churchwide” which says that the ELCA is to foster organizations for persons of all gender identities. 

The only recommended change in the “Model Constitution for Congregations” relevant to Chapter 7 (Property Ownership) is in C7.03 – to change the language from “transfer” to “relate” to another Lutheran church body.   

 Certainly so far the proposed amendments do show ELCA values and priorities.  But I do not see how they would require a special, very expensive, reconstituting convention.  For me what are most alarming are the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the “Constitution for Churchwide” which would fast track the approval process for any additional amendments that may come to the floor – including from the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – without requiring a second, separate, full Churchwide Assembly.  These amendments to Chapter 22 were recommended by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church. 

A change in 22.11.a. would allow for the possibility of a special assembly amending the constitution in a single step, following recommendation of amendments proposed by the Church Council.    According to this amendment, the Church Council proposes an amendment and then sends official notice to the synods at least six months prior to the next (the word “regular” is eliminated) meeting of the Churchwide Assembly.

Changes in 22.11.b. would allow amendments introduced on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly to be ratified unchanged by a 2/3 vote of the Church Council within 12 months of the assembly, instead of waiting three years for the next Churchwide Assembly.   According to this amendment, 25 or more members of the Churchwide Assembly can propose an amendment.  It states, “The proposed amendment shall be referred to the Committee of Reference and Counsel for its recommendation, following which it shall come before the assembly. If such an amendment is approved by a two-thirds vote of members present and voting, such an amendment shall become effective only if (the words are changed from ‘adopted’ to ‘ratified unchanged’) by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at the next (again the word ‘regular’ is eliminated) Churchwide Assembly.”  The amendment then adds “or a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the Church Council taken within 12 months of adoption by the Churchwide Assembly.” 

In the same way, Amendment 22.21, which also was recommended by the Commission, would allow for bylaw amendments to be approved by a special assembly, not only by a regular assembly.

Obviously, the Commission is planning on introducing amendments in addition to those that were given to the Church Council early enough so that the Church Council could send them out to the synods six months prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. 

SUMMARY

We do not know what else the Commission will be bringing to the Churchwide Assembly, though they obviously have prepared the way for their submitting more.  There appears to be a deliberate strategy so that recommendations still to come from the Commission can be approved and ratified quickly and easily.  We do not know what actually might happen at the Assembly.  Assemblies can take on a life of their own.  But we do know that it will not stop there.

* * * * * *

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Many thanks to Larry Becker, member of the board of Lutheran CORE, for his analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document, which he has sent to his congregation.  A link to his letter can be found HERE. 

HERE is a link to the analysis of the ELCA’s “Myths and Facts” document from the Lutheran Congregational Support Network.  They also have a video on the same subject, a link to which can be found HERE.  As I mentioned at the beginning, they are the organization whose work probably motivated the ELCA to produce that document.  If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you go to their website (LINK) and sign up to be on their email mailing list.  On their website you will also find a just-released video regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22 of the ELCA Constitution for Churchwide.  Future videos will review other proposed changes coming from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly.  The Support Network very intentionally approaches issues related to the ELCA not in terms of theology, and not in terms of cultural issues and Biblical moral values, but in terms of the ELCA’s Constitutions and the whole matter of congregational autonomy. 

Finally, because theology is important, HERE is a link to an account from Steve Gjerde, LCMC pastor and former vice president of the board of Lutheran CORE, of the process of his congregation’s leaving the ELCA and their theological reasons for doing so.  Steve particularly emphasizes their understanding of Holy Communion as informing and motivating their decision. 

* * * * * *

VIDEO MINSTRIES

“MY LIFE WITH CARL BRAATEN AND PHIL HEFNER” by ROBERT BENNE

Many thanks to Robert Benne, Professor of Christian Ethics at the online Institute of Lutheran Theology, for his very warm and personal reflections and memories of two former colleagues.  A link to his video can be found HERE.

Professor Benne writes, “One of the blessings of my life was to share a significant portion of it with those of two major Lutheran theologians, Carl Braaten and Philip Hefner, both of whom have died recently.  We not only shared fifteen years of teaching together at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, but extended our friendships for many years before and after those Chicago seminary years.  In the following video I will go through some of the memorable moments I shared with both of them. Of course, since they were theologians, I will touch on their theological contributions.  But many of the memories I will share have to do with other dimensions of our lives.  The video is meant to be something of a historical record of a special time in Lutheran history, but also a winsome tribute to two Lutheran theologians who also happened to be my friends.” 

Director’s Note: The contents of this post were provided to Lutheran CORE’s director by the Lutheran Congregational Support Network (LCSN).

The ELCA Office of the Secretary has produced a document in response to what they identify as “rumors that have been circulating regarding supposed changes to ELCA governance…” This document is being shared by ELCA bishops and synod leaders in what appears to be a response to information on the LCSN website.  

Myths or Facts: We want you to decide!

Start by:

• Reading a response to the “Myths and Facts” sheet found on LCSN’s website.
• Watching the videos of the synod assemblies of the Metro New York Synod and the Southwest California Synod as they apply synodical administration to viable congregations.
•  Connecting with LCSN if you have questions or need clarification.

We are simply providing information made public by the ELCA.

Read and engage in the discussion.

Stay tuned!

More videos will be coming soon…

Please reach out to us with any questions by replying to this email or contacting us directly at [email protected].

This isn’t about politics. It’s not about theology. It’s about autonomy.

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

CANCEL CULTURE STRIKES AGAIN

Last month there was a discussion in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group where one person mentioned concerns that had been shared by a member of the congregation regarding last summer’s ELCA Youth Gathering in New Orleans. Specifically this member was disturbed over the promotion of LGBTQ ideology and the presence of drag queens. I responded by stating that a video had been shown at the gathering which argued on the basis of the creation account in Genesis for the possibility of more than two genders. I also reported that one of the summary videos for the event showed a group of young people with some drag queens.

Soon afterwards someone posted the question whether I am the Dennis Nelson who works with the NALC. I responded by saying that I am the Dennis Nelson who is the executive director of Lutheran CORE. That did it. Within a few minutes I found that I could no longer access the Facebook group. Several friends who are members of the group telephoned or sent me an email that confirmed that it had been reported by one of the administrators that – for the safety and well-being of the group – I had been removed. One of these informants sent me a screen shot of the announcement of my removal and the ensuing conversation. Some of it was quite nasty.

Here is the email that I then sent to the administrator who announced that I had been removed from the group.

* * * * * * *

Dear –

I was surprised to find out that I had been removed from the ELCA Clergy Facebook group when all I had done was to supply verifiable, publicly available information in response to a discussion regarding last summer’s ELCA youth gathering. I did not initiate the topic. Rather I merely contributed to the discussion by sharing that a video had been shown at the gathering which stated that the creation account in Genesis allows for the possibility of more than two genders and one of the recap videos showed some youth and drag queens.

I am a rostered ELCA pastor (retired) and am a member in good standing of an ELCA congregation where I do not cause disruption but instead contribute to the ministry. I serve as executive director of Lutheran CORE. Contrary to what was said in the conversation thread in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group, Lutheran CORE is not a ministry of the NALC. We are an independent, pan-Lutheran, reform and renewal movement. Our constituency comes from all three Lutheran church bodies – ELCA, LCMC, and NALC. Also contrary to what was said, Lutheran CORE is not the founder of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network. When we learned about that organization the board made it a priority to inform people of their work. We value what they are doing and the tone with which they are doing it.

You stated in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group that Lutheran CORE has “repeatedly demonstrated hostility and abusive behavior towards the ELCA and its clergy.” You said that I have “crossed boundaries targeting and undermining the very clergy this group exists to support.” You accused me of “targeted intolerance.” One member of the group said that it was important that I be identified by name “to prevent additional abusive (sic) from this individual.” Another member accused me of “tearing down ministries and churches.”

I would challenge you to identify any time when I have said anything hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group.

I would also challenge you to identify any time when I have been hostile, abusive, targeting, undermining, intolerant, or tearing down in any of my writings for Lutheran CORE. All of my writings are publicly available on Lutheran CORE’s website. Everything I report can be verified through the links I provide to ELCA primary sources. I feel that not I, but the discussion about me in the ELCA Clergy Facebook group has been hostile, abusive, and targeting. The only way that I can interpret the words that were said about me and the action that was taken against me is that you people are so skittish and easily threatened by opinions and information that do not fit with your preferred narrative.

We of Lutheran CORE feel that an important part of our work is alerting pastors, lay leaders, and congregations to what is happening in the ELCA as well as evaluating the significance of those dynamics. Since Lutheran CORE seems to be the only organization that is doing that, we feel that ours is a very valuable ministry. We are very concerned that people know about the possible changes that may be coming because of the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents, and the work of the task force that is reconsidering the human sexuality social statement. What motivates us is love for Jesus, the Gospel, and people, and concern for the ministry of the Church. We are not driven by anger, hatred, and a desire to undermine ELCA clergy and tear down ELCA ministries and churches.

Lutheran CORE’s website shows that we are not a hate group that cares nothing about ministry. Our goal is not to disrupt congregations. Rather we provide many valuable resources for pastors, lay leaders, and congregations, including worship aides, daily devotionals, and weekly lectionary-based Bible studies and children’s messages. We have a support group for seminarians and are one of the sponsors of a program that challenges high schoolers to consider God’s call on their lives. We offer webinars on various topics related to church leadership and provide guidance for congregations in the call process as well as for congregations that are coming to the realization that very likely there will not be an ordained pastor available for them to call. We support cross-country mission trips to help people who have suffered a disaster, as well as local mission trips in the Baltimore area. We have held annual Encuentro events in the Chicago area for congregations that are already involved in as well as congregations considering becoming involved in Spanish language and/or bilingual ministry. The majority of those attending as well as presenting at those events are ELCA. All of the above show that Lutheran CORE provides valuable resources to pastors, lay leaders, and congregations.

I believe that as the administrators and members of the ELCA Clergy Facebook group you need to ask yourselves why you are so threatened by opinions and verifiable, factual information that does not fit with your preferred narrative. Through the things that you have said about me you have shown that you are the ones whose words are hostile and abusive.

In Christ,

Dennis D. Nelson
Retired ELCA Pastor
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

* * * * * *

Later that day I received a reply from the pastor/administrator. There are several things I would say about his response. I did not reply to him because I did not see the purpose or point of continuing the conversation. But I did want to let you know how he responded and I wanted to show you how fragile, inconsistent, hypocritical, and intolerant they are.

First, he said, “Your work with Lutheran CORE has long been a source of division and pain within the ELCA.”

It is not Lutheran CORE that has caused division and pain within the ELCA. Instead it is the LGBTQIA+ agenda. The election of the ELCA’s first gay bishop in the synod in which I was rostered before I retired caused total conflict and turmoil within the congregation where I had served as pastor for thirty-nine years, and that conflict continued throughout and beyond my final year there. The LGBTQIA+ agenda has caused pain in my life in a way in which I never have caused pain in their lives. Also, before the ELCA changed its policies in 2009 regarding the blessing of same sex relations and the ordination of persons in same sex relations, people who wanted those policies to change disrupted a Churchwide Assembly, defied ELCA standards, and were very blatant and brazen about doing so.

Second, he said, “The organization’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to encourage congregations to leave the ELCA, often under the guise of reform, have left deep wounds.”

Reform is not a “guise” that we hide behind. Instead it is central to our work. Our purpose and mission is not to get congregations to leave the ELCA. Rather it includes alerting persons and congregations that are still in the ELCA to what is happening in and to changes that could be soon coming to the ELCA. We fully realize that for many congregations, leaving the ELCA would not be possible and/or would not be the right or best decision.

Third, he said, “The shaming and mischaracterization of LGBTQIA+ individuals, who are beloved children of God, are especially harmful and stand in opposition to the inclusive love of Christ.”

We do not engage in shaming or mischaracterizing LGBTQIA+ individuals. We agree that they are beloved children of God. We love them and are concerned for them because we believe that

they are living a life that is not pleasing to God. We are also deeply concerned as we see that it is only non-binary and LGBTQIA+ ideology that is being promoted at the ELCA youth gatherings. The young people there never hear anything that supports and encourages a traditional view of human sexuality, even though the ELCA still says – in its 2009 human sexuality social statement – that traditional views still have a place of dignity and respect within the ELCA.

Fourth, he said, “When individuals or organizations repeatedly engage in actions that cause division, foster animosity, or promote intolerance – especially towards marginalized communities – it becomes clear that their participation is not aligned with the group’s purpose.”

During the years leading up to the 2009 decisions, during the time when traditional views still prevailed – though always by an ever-decreasing percentage amount – those with traditional views always bent over backwards to make sure that all views – including revisionist views – were treated respectfully and were heard. After revisionist views prevailed in 2009, those with traditional views were not afforded the same kind of courtesy that they had extended for years. It felt like we were being pushed over the cliff. It is not the LGBTQIA+ community that is marginalized. Instead they are a preferred and empowered community. It is those with traditional views that are marginalized. Evidence for this is in the fact that ReconcilingWorks has a voice but no vote position on the ELCA Church Council while the same courtesy is not extended to any group with traditional views.

Fifth, he said, “This decision is not about being ‘threatened’ by different opinions, as you suggest. It is about setting boundaries that foster a supportive, respectful environment for ELCA clergy. Intentionally divisive contributions, no matter how they are framed, detract from that goal.”

Nothing that we say or do is ever “intentionally divisive.” Rather it is motivated by the deepest of love for and commitment to Christ, people, and the mission of the church. For these people any dissent from the “preferred view” is considered disloyal, divisive, and disruptive.

And then he concluded by saying that he has “a deep pastoral responsibility to protect this group as a safe space for clergy who seek encouragement and support rather than conflict.”

In my contribution to the most recent discussion which got me kicked out of the group – as well as in all my other contributions in this Facebook group – I have never said or done anything disruptive, divisive, or conflict producing. Rather I merely pointed out information that would be available to anyone who went to the primary sources.

* * * * * * *

VIDEO MINISTRY

“CRACKING OPEN THE HARD PARTS OF THE BIBLE”

by Ken Coughlan

Many thanks to Ken Coughlan for his video review of his book, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible.” Ken is a Christian apologist and religion teacher at St. Paul’s Lutheran School in Glen Burnie, Maryland. A link to Ken’s review can be found HERE. A link to our YouTube channel, which contains fifty-five reviews of books and videos on topics of interest and importance, can be found HERE.

Regarding the book Ken writes –

Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? Did he order genocide? Does he value men more than women? Isn’t the Bible filled with contradictions, especially in the stories about Jesus’ birth or his death and resurrection? If you believe most atheists today, you’d answer all of these questions, “yes.” But you’d be wrong. Equally useful as a six-week group Bible study or for individual reading, “Cracking Open the Hard Parts of the Bible” doesn’t just give answers to some of skeptics’ favorite targets in Scripture. It also provides six “interpretive principles” that will help you find the answers whenever you come across someone who says they’ve found something “wrong” with a Bible passage, or when you read something you find puzzling or troubling yourself. Not afraid to “crack open” those verses that are commonly thought to be the most problematic for the Christian faith, this book will give you the answers you seek and a strategy to tackle future conversations yourself.

* * * * * * *

LATEST ISSUE OF SIMUL

The latest issue of SIMUL, the Journal of St. Paul Lutheran Seminary, on “Free Will vs. Bondage of the Will” is now available. Click here: https://issuu.com/stpaulsimul/docs/issue_13_v5

Editor Dennis DiMauro writes –

This edition goes to the heart of the matter by exploring whether human beings actually have free will. In this volume, Roy Harrisville tells us what to do when those pesky door-to-door evangelists come calling. And Paul Owens explains what you should say when surrounded by a dozen free will preachers at the local pastors’ lunch.

Virgil Thompson takes another look at Gerhard Forde’s The Captivation of the Will to understand how freedom leads to bondage, but also (and paradoxically), how bondage leads to freedom. Marney Fritts provides a beautifully written and well-researched study on Luther’s Bondage of the Will.

Dennis finishes out this issue with a book review on Michael Massing’s 2019 tome Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther and the Fight for the Western Mind. Can the lives and experiences of these two great humanists shed light on their theologies about free will?

SIMUL can be read three ways. One can enlarge and read through the flip book on the top of the webpage (there is a full screen button that can be clicked on the lower right-hand side of the flipbook, and you can double-click or use the zoom slider at the bottom of the page for even more magnification), or one can scroll down and read each individual article. This second option

allows readers to share individual articles (that can be read on a cellphone) without sending the entire issue. You can also download a pdf to your device and keep it forever!