My congregation voted successfully to leave the ELCA in 2023.  Reflecting on the past three years, here are three things I would encourage you to keep in mind if you choose to follow suit.

First of all, remember that, whether you stay in the ELCA or not, the priority is Christ.  He is the center.  The mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel of forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in Jesus Christ.  We voted to leave the ELCA because we came to believe that preaching the Gospel was no longer the priority.  Instead, we believed that another gospel, or other gospels, had taken the place of the true Gospel in the mission and ministry of the ELCA. 

One of the dangers of remaining in the ELCA and “continuing the fight” was that, in doing so, we would be distracted by the ongoing culture wars in our country and in the world.   Don’t assume that the temptation to focus on the culture wars will dissipate if you leave the ELCA.  The same forces that worked against the Gospel from within the ELCA, still do so from the larger culture.  The key is not to try to win the cultural wars, but not to let them distract us from the mission of the Church.

A second thing to remember is that the political right is not automatically an ally of the Gospel.  Several members of my congregation assumed that with a successful vote to leave the ELCA, we would begin to openly embrace the causes of the political right.  There is an old saying among progressives that says, “No enemies to the left.”  Don’t be tempted to turn that around by saying, “No enemies to the right.”  While we are disgusted by the antisemitism, gender and identity politics of the left, we should not forget that there are equally loud voices of antisemitism, misogyny, and identity politics on the right.  There really is a movement calling itself Christian Nationalism that is racist and sexist.  There really are popular voices like Nick Fuentes that encourage your people to embrace antisemitism.  Guard your congregation against these trends. 

There was an earlier split within Lutheranism in the 1970s.  In that case, it was people on the left who departed and formed a new denomination.  Eventually, they helped form the ELCA.  One of the mistakes that they made, in my opinion, is that they tended to assume that if their old denomination was against something, they should embrace it.  Many seemed unable to recognize that it is also possible to go too far to the left. 

My third warning has to do with the reality of spiritual warfare.  The devil loves to sow division.  Even on the human level, it can be observed that once a congregation experiences a division, it becomes easier for new divisions to arise.  The devil certainly knows that.  He will seek any opportunity to make small disagreements into church dividing ones.  He is also alert to any spiritual vacuum.  When a congregation leaves a denomination it is alone until it becomes part of a new denomination.  Mutual support among clergy and congregations, as well as ecclesial oversight take time to grow.  Beware of unexpected spiritual forces that may arise causing chaos and division. 

Whether you stay in the ELCA or seek to leave, remember that a successful vote one way or the other does not solve all of your problems.  You live in a sinful world.  Your mission is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Pray that God will help you to keep steadfast in His Word, amidst the trials and temptations that will inevitably come your way. 

Director’s Note: Many thanks to Bob Benne, esteemed NALC theologian and friend of Lutheran CORE, for his review of the history of the whole issue of “Bound Conscience.”

The 2022 ELCA Churchwide Assembly passed two resolutions that called for reconsideration of
the 2009 social statement, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

• Reconsideration #1 called for a review of specific text references in light of the 2015
  Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage and “public acceptance of marriage of
  same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”
  
• Reconsideration #2 called for a reconsideration 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 was appointed to work on these reconsiderations had recommendations for
the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1. They described these
recommendations as “simply editorial,” even though they amounted to no less than a complete
embrace of every form of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The task force is now working on its recommendations for Reconsideration # 2, which will be
voted on at the 2028 Churchwide Assembly. Given everything that is happening and the
direction in which everything is going, it is hard to imagine that providing a place of dignity,
belonging, and respect for traditional views and those who hold them will survive.

Most Lutherans know of Martin Luther’s famous appeal to “bound conscience” at the Diet of Worms in 1521.  He insisted: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason… my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”  His appeal to “bound conscience” meant that his theological and inner moral compass were not free but held captive by the authority of Scripture and clear reason.  For Luther, this wasn’t about subjective feeling but about obedience to God’s revealed truth, a profound conviction that led him to refuse to recant his writings, seeing it as right and safe only to follow God’s Word.   

There are no doubt many uses of the phrase in the history of Lutheranism since the 16^th century, but the use we want to examine is its use in the midst of a controversy in the ELCA over the nature of marriage and its attendant sexual ethics.  While we will focus on the ELCA since 1989, it is important to note that agitation to change traditional teachings on those subjects was already present in the merging churches—the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches—especially in their youth divisions, as well as in their seminaries.

The Past

In the first Assembly of the ELCA in 1989, I roomed with a Virginia pastor who later became the Bishop of Virginia. He was assigned to attend the newly emerging youth organization. Every evening he would sorrowfully recount to me the ways that the adult leaders were propagandizing the youth into accepting practicing homosexual pastors and homosexual marriage.  We could already see what was to come in the new church.

Soon thereafter there were theological gatherings to resist the revisionism pushed by the new church and its Bishop, especially the Called to Faithfulness Conferences held in Northfield, Minnesota. By the turn of the century the newly organized Word Alone led many congregations out of the ELCA as a protest against its agreement with the Episcopal Church that all ordinations must be in the “apostolic succession,” which generally meant that Lutheran ordinations had to have an Episcopal Bishop among the presiders.  Those churches then became Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.

Word Alone also sponsored the emergence of a protest movement against the moral revisionism of the ELCA.    I was present at its first gathering at St. Olaf College in 2003, which was organized and led by retired ELCA Bishop, Paull Spring.  Soon it took the name of Solid Rock and began organizing resistance to proposed changes in sexual ethics that would come about in the Churchwide Assembly of 2003. Solid Rock morphed into Coalition for Reform (CORE) with Roy Harrisville, Jr., as its executive.  Enough resistance was organized in both 2003 and 2005 that the revisionists did not get their way.  In 2005 a report noted that  “When Christians disagree about an ethical issue of this magnitude, one important category for determining the policy of the church may be the recognition that participants in this debate are disagreeing not out of pride or selfish desires, but because their consciences are bound to particular interpretations of Scripture and tradition. The careful way Luther approached moral dilemmas (e.g., in The Estate of Marriage [Luther’s Works 45: 17-49] or Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved [Luther’s Works 46: 93-137]) showed a genuine concern for the integrity of disputants.”  This report would become the groundwork for the “bound conscience” clause of 2009.

The Assembly of 2007 was supposed to be a truce concerning these issues, but at the end of the Assembly a Bishop proposed a successful amendment that no discipline should be used against those who were already disobeying church rules on sexual ethics.

After much work by a rather loaded task force on those issues, it proposed a social statement entitled Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, The statement turned out to be ambiguous about every crucial issue and passed by a single vote at 666.  The Assembly also passed provisions for allowing partnered gay pastors and gay marriage.

Though the task force that drafted Human Sexuality was loaded with revisionists, there was enough resistance that the “bound conscience” provision was inserted as a concession to the traditionalists and as a defensive move to prevent a wholesale rebellion in the ELCA.  It recognized four “conscience-bound” positions that Lutherans could faithfully hold on the matter of same-sex relationships, ranging from full opposition to full affirmation of same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy.

When hearings were held about the provision during the Assembly of 2009, I attended one and posed the question about whether it was simply a sop to traditionalist pastors and congregations at the local level to prevent wholesale losses, but that it would not protect traditionalists in any other facet of the church.  That has turned out to be true.  The upper levels of the church have been purged of recalcitrants.

The provision has been crucial for maintaining a painful compromise within the ELCA amid diverse views on human sexuality at the local level. Though hundreds of congregations left after 2009, those traditionalist pastors and congregations that stayed sheltered under the bound conscience provision. I have taught a number of such pastors at the Lutheran Institute of Theology, but they are worried about the future.  One has already transferred to the NALC.

The Present

What is going on to make such pastors and their congregations apprehensive?  The ELCA has already edited the statement and its rules to allow for same sex marriage language and is contemplating a more systematic application of the diversity, equity, and inclusivity ideology, which would definitely not include those traditionalists who cannot agree with the LGBT gender agenda. They are the oppressors and should be silenced or expelled.  Further, the elite of the ELCA have committed themselves to new fervid anti-racist policies that signal panic about the loss of black members even after decades of affirmative action, including the election of a black man as Presiding Bishop.

Those moves certainly signal that the bound conscience provisions are in grave danger.  Further, the task force that has been organized to examine and propose future policy has a majority of “progressives” that are likely to favor a withdrawal of the bound conscience provision.  But it seems that such a proposal is some distance in the future.  Meanwhile, traditionalist pastors and congregations are in uneasy limbo.

The Future

My hunch is that the bound conscience clause will go. There are certainly many level-headed members of the ELCA who prudentially see what will happen:  lots of losses of pastors and congregation with no gains.  More perceptive folks will see the further accommodation of the ELCA to secular progressive culture, much like sister liberal mainline denominations have done. Such accommodation means continued decline.

However, I think the “commanding heights” of the ELCA will push forward with their agenda, including the abolishment of the bound conscience clause.  The ELCA will continue down the slippery slope of accommodation.  When we in CORE were defeated decisively in 2009, we wagered that the ELCA would be unable to say “no” to anything in the sexual revolution. To confirm that wager, it has even made the grave error of propagandizing for transgenderism for children.

There is a long shot chance that the elite themselves will not push their agenda so quickly, or that synod representatives at the ELCA Assembly of 2028 will rebel and resist. But it is more likely that the Assembly will be managed well by the dominant elite, as it has been in most of them. They will make sure that their agenda will prevail.  And there will be one more step away from the Lutheranism whose teachings on marriage and sexuality are clearly grounded in Scripture and Tradition, to which our bound consciences yet cling.

Ever since I became a Lutheran pastor I have been fascinated with denominational statistical trends.  I have especially been interested—and concerned—with trends among Lutheran denominations in general and, starting in 1987, the statistical trends for the ELCA in particular.

The ELCA currently stands out as the Lutheran denomination dealing with the most dramatic rate of institutional decline.  Or perhaps “dealing with” is something of a misnomer.  Why?  Because I see no indication that ELCA leaders even acknowledge their precipitous decline, let alone “deal” with it.

However, as an NALC pastor, I don’t want to only speak to what’s happening in the ELCA.  I also want to address what the NALC—and the LCMC—can learn from the astonishing rate at which the ELCA is losing members.  So bear with me as I share some ELCA statistical realities.

Even attempting to discern the actual rate of decline for the ELCA has, admittedly, been a significant challenge for me.  The reason for this is because, by and large, ELCA leaders have chosen not to publicly acknowledge their staggering losses.  And this has especially been the case since 2010.

The most striking example of the failure of ELCA leadership to address this issue was their lack of response to an article published by Faith-Lead Magazine in September of 2019.  This article was written by Luther Seminary (ELCA) professor Dwight Zscheile, and was entitled, “Will the ELCA Be Gone in 30 Years?”  Needless to say, this title captured my attention.  (And keep in mind that Professor Zscheile was and still is a member of the faculty at Luther, the ELCA’s largest seminary.)  The two most salient points of this article were predictions of the loss in baptized members and regular worship attenders if the internal demographic trends for the ELCA in 2019 continued.  And here were those predictions:

1. The ELCA would only have a total of approximately 67,000 members nationally by 2050.  And…

2. The number of ELCA worshipers—nationally—on a typical Sunday in 2041 will be less than 16,000.

Furthermore, this article made clear that, if these projections turned out to be accurate, the ELCA would no longer be viable as a national church body in 2050.

Given that, back in 2010, the ELCA still claimed on their website that they had “almost” five million members, I was initially skeptical that a denomination of that size could essentially implode by the year 2050.  And I was also not sure how ELCA leaders would respond to this article’s conclusions.  So in 2019 I started monitoring the ELCA’s national magazine, Living Lutheran, to see what their response might be.  I found absolutely no response to or acknowledgment of the 2019 article; or for that matter, any article where an ELCA leader addressed the subject of the ELCA’s institutional decline.

Granted, the ELCA’s national denominational website has, over the last fifteen years been periodically adjusting downward their stated national membership total.  They now (as of late 2025) describe that number as “nearly” 2.7 million members.  This represents a loss of approximately 2.3 million members in fifteen years.  And this translates into a 46% drop in membership in those fifteen years!

My on-going investigation, since 2019, to obtain the full story regarding what’s happening in the ELCA finally “paid off” this last November.  That was when I discovered an internal study by the ELCA’s own Research and Evaluation Team, released in February of 2025.  The title of this document is, “The Future Need for Pastoral Leaders in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”.  Now while the staff’s assignment was to address the future need for more ordained pastors, part of this document is a section focused on “the present state of congregations” in the ELCA.  In that section of the report the authors acknowledged that congregational membership figures were typically out-of-date; and that being the case, they instead looked at average worship attendance as the more meaningful statistic.  What did they report when it came to the “present state” of ELCA congregations?  Between 2015 and 2022, congregations with fewer than 50 in average attendance almost doubled.  In 2015, 3 out of 10 congregations reported less than 50 worshipers on an average Sunday.  By 2022, there were nearly 6 out of 10 churches in that size category.  For medium-sized churches (worshiping between 151 and 250) the trend was similar.  Congregations of that size were 12% of ELCA churches in 2015, but only 4% in 2022.  And finally, large congregations (worshiping over 250 in 2015) were 9% of ELCA churches in 2015, but only 2% in 2022.  Here’s a direct quote regarding these “large” ELCA congregations: “To be exact, in 2022, only 167 congregations (nationally) reported an average worship attendance over 250.”  Keep in mind that this is only 167 “large” congregations out of the 8,500 “worshiping communities” the ELCA currently reports on their website!

One more quote from this study: “In summary, the decline in worship attendance in congregations has profoundly reshaped the makeup of the ELCA.  Only a few years ago, the ELCA was composed mostly of small to medium-sized congregations.  Today, it is mostly very small congregations.”  (Emphasis mine)

Now keep in mind that since these statistics were true as of the year 2022, they no doubt are an undercount of the ELCA’s total losses as of 2026, and consequently minimize the current, full extent of the ELCA’s institutional decline.

But How is the ELCA’s Decline Relevant for Congregations in the NALC and LCMC?

I assume that most readers of this article belong to NALC or LCMC congregations.  So let me be clear: The primary reason why the ELCA decline is so dramatic, while both the LCMC and NALC appear to be relatively stable, is because there continues to be an exodus of ELCA congregations through disaffiliation.  And virtually all of these churches leaving the ELCA end up joining either (or both) the LCMC and NALC.  And it’s also important to recognize that movement from the ELCA to the NALC and LCMC does not constitute evangelistic growth.  To use a tired phrase, this is nothing more than a “reshuffling of the saints”.

Furthermore, it is imperative that we recognize that many of the institutional trends in the ELCA—such as plummeting numbers of baptisms and confirmations—and an aging membership, are also trends among many LCMC and NALC churches.  Just one demographic statistic that pertains to our country’s population as a whole: Between 2010 and 2020 the U.S. population of seniors 65 and over grew nearly five times faster than the overall population.  Not surprisingly, this trend has an impact on the overwhelming majority of our congregations.

However, to put it bluntly, I think we need to consider whether we can learn from the dramatic decline of the ELCA.  In other words, we need to ask whether the LCMC and NALC could be facing similar rates of decline in the not-too-distant future.

Now I’m convinced that part of the ELCA’s rate of decline is due to the increased politicization of the ELCA since 2009.  But I also believe that a second cause for this decline is an apparent complete disregard, by most ELCA leaders, of the importance of congregational evangelism.  So consider this a wake-up call for all Lutheran congregations: It’s time to make evangelistic outreach your top ministry priority.  And not just to stem the tide of future institutional decline.  Ultimately this is about our New Testament mandate to share the Good News; to witness to the increasing number of Americans who self-identify as “nones” when asked about their religious affiliation.  It’s about reaching out and connecting—as individuals and congregations—to those who do not yet know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Just trying to “keep the ship (your congregation) afloat” will no longer suffice.  The challenges we are facing are too significant for us to settle for a passive and/or reactive response.  Instead, we need proactive, congregation-wide strategies for reaching, evangelizing and discipling those in our community who are not a part of a Christian church.  In pursuit of that goal, I encourage you to consider the ministry strategies below.

Congregational Outreach Strategies

The single, overarching principle I advocate for is simply this: Creating new groups and ministries for new people.  And to pursue this principle in a comprehensive way, consider what this principle could entail in four areas of your congregation’s ministry.  (And if you can’t do all four simultaneously, choose one to start with, and try to excel in that one area of ministry.)

1. Small Groups and Bible Studies.  This could be your primary discipling (i.e., disciple-making) effort. It can be the best way to not only help members grow in their faith; it can also be a tremendous witnessing opportunity that will—incrementally—help motivate members to bring friends and acquaintances to your congregation.  Never forget the unfortunate reality with small groups that are only made up of already-committed members: they often become cliques.  However, small groups with a discipling emphasis can become effective ways to reach the unchurched; one person (or two) at a time. For published discipling small-group resources consider Sola Publishing.

2. Worship and Hospitality.  For your worship service to reach and assimilate new people it needs to be both participatory in its content and be characterized—before and after worship—by intentional hospitality.  Here’s the goal: Make your Sunday morning worship life the kind of experience that will motivate and inspire your members to invite and bring their unchurched friends and acquaintances to your service.

3. Community Outreach.  Do this primarily for the sake of those you serve.  But do it, in addition, so your members can use their gifts in such a ministry, and so your congregation will be seen, by your surrounding community, as the church that does far more than simply “take care of its own”.

4. Organizing and/or strengthening your ministries for children and youth; and for their parents.

This can be a huge challenge.  Some congregations are simply too small; and as a result don’t have any children or youth.  However, if you sense any potential at all to build this kind of ministry, be ready to invest the necessary resources to help make this happen.  Remember that for those congregations who end up without any nesting stage, active families, their future, long-term viability as a faith community is at risk.

If you have any questions regarding the details of these congregational outreach strategies, don’t hesitate to contact me directly by email.

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION AND MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

First Lutheran Church of Sioux Falls, South Dakota held their first vote to disaffiliate from the ELCA on September 28, 2025.  They will hold their second vote on January 25, 2026.  The results of the first vote exceeded the two-thirds that is constitutionally required for disaffiliation.

Prior to the first vote – on September 21, 2025 – Bishop Hagmaier of the South Dakota Synod came for the required consultation.  But she did not come alone.  She brought along a high-powered “Resource Team” of about twenty persons, some of whom are current or former members of First Lutheran.  The team included a representative from Luther Seminary, the president and senior campus pastor of Augustana University (an ELCA university in Sioux Falls), a Luther scholar, three previous bishops of the South Dakota Synod,  three previous pastors of First Lutheran, the bishop of another synod (who is also a member of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church), the vice president of the synod council, the synodical director for evangelical mission, the synodical director for candidacy and mobility, the dean of the local conference, the leader of the ELCA women’s organization for the local conference, and leaders and representatives from Lutheran Social Services, ELCA World Hunger, and Lutheran Planned Generosity.  That is a lot of people, some of whom traveled from considerable distance, especially Bishop Riegel from the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod. 

The format was that four of these resource people would speak, then there would be a time when people could ask questions of the bishop.  Then the various resource people were available for groups and/or individuals.  The reason given was so that people who did not have the courage to ask a question publicly could still have their question(s) answered.

Bishop Hagmaier obviously does not want to lose this congregation.  She put a lot into gathering this resource team.  I have not heard of any other synodical bishop who took the approach of so trying to overwhelm a congregation in a Bishop’s Consultation.

What I found most alarming about the Consultation were two things –

1. The way in which Bishop Hagmaier did not respect the integrity of the congregation.
2. The way in which Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of the Commission.

Here is a link to a YouTube recording of the Consultation – Bishop Consultation // September 21, 2025.  This link can be found on the congregation’s website under “About FLC-Church Governance Task Force.”  Therefore, it is publicly available.  Anyone who wishes to can watch the seventy-minute consultation and find out for themselves whether what I am saying is true.  Here also is a link to the power point presentation from the Governance Task Force –   Presentation TO CONGREGATION – Master Version.  The Task Force has done excellent work summarizing the issues and expressing their concerns.  Their presentation reflects actions taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

FEAR OR RUMORS VS. CLARITY AND TRUTH

Bishop Hagmaier began her part of the presentation by saying that the gathering would not be about fear or rumors but about clarity and truth.  And yet the president of Augustana University in her remarks told about generous scholarships that would no longer be available to young people from First Lutheran if the congregation were to leave the ELCA.  Also the leader of the conference women’s organization shared how the Women of the ELCA (WELCA) is constituted separately from any congregation.  Funds in a congregation’s WELCA treasury belong to WELCA, not to that congregation.  Therefore, if a congregation were to leave the ELCA, the funds would remain with WELCA, not with the women of that congregation.  One person – during the question-and-answer period – challenged the opening statement that the presentations would not be about fear or rumors given that those kinds of statements were made.  Also, when we come to the section where we tell about how the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was misrepresented, it should be obvious that that part of the presentation was certainly not about clarity and truth.

DISRESPECTING THE INTEGRITY OF A CONGREGATION

I found it shocking that Bishop Hagmaier invited three former pastors of the congregation to be part of the Resource Team (though admittedly none of them were among the initial four presenters).  The ELCA has made it very clear that pastors who no longer serve a congregation are not to be involved in the life of that congregation and doing so would be reason for discipline. 

During the question-and-answer period one of the members asked if it is appropriate for a previous pastor to contact members of the congregation regarding the disaffiliation issue.  The person asking the question then said that these kinds of contacts were being made.  This member asked since ELCA guidelines for discipline prohibit it, will a pastor who does it be disciplined?  Bishop Hagmaier affirmed ELCA policy and said that any pastor who violated the policy would be disciplined by the bishop in whose synod that pastor is rostered.  She said that there was a process for this discipline and that any complaints should be brought to her in writing.  I thought it was astounding that Bishop Hagmaier reaffirmed as a reason for discipline behavior and action that she had invited three previous pastors to be involved in.

Bishop Hagmaier also clearly stated that the South Dakota Synod applies synodical administration (S13.24 in the model constitution for synods) only after a congregation has disbanded.  Only after a congregation has held its final worship service does the synod receive the keys to the property so the synod can make sure that the property is properly cared for.  I wonder how many synods apply synodical administration (S13.24) only under those kinds of circumstances rather than under circumstances such as we have described in other synods (including in the former synod of the current presiding bishop of the ELCA). 

MISREPRESENTING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR A RENEWED LUTHERAN CHURCH

I also found it shocking how Bishop Riegel of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod, who was also a member of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, misrepresented the work of that Commission.  Bishop Riegel was among the four initial presenters.  During his opening remarks he made the following comments regarding the Commission.

The “primary drive” behind the memorials from ten synods to the Churchwide Assembly that led to the formation of the Commission was “a sense that this church structurally is too big for itself.”

The focus for the original memorials was for “increasing flexibility for congregations and synods,” “loosening things up so that congregations and synods would have more ability to dictate to themselves how polity would be structured, how they would do things, so they could respond more nimbly to their context.”  The goal was “untangling some of the uniformity of the church” and “having greater flexibility.”

He also referred to the commitment to dismantle racism as merely a “proviso on the side.” 

Neither the final report of the Commission to the Church Council, nor the recommendations from the Church Council to the Churchwide Assembly, nor the actions of the Churchwide Assembly support his statements.

Contrary to what Bishop Riegel said, the commitment to dismantle racism was not a “proviso on the side.”  Instead it was a top priority of the process.  The resolution that was passed by the 2022 Churchwide Assembly that called for the creation of the Commission instructed the Commission to be “particularly attentive to our shared commitment to dismantle racism.”  Anything that any group is to be “particularly attentive to” is not a “proviso on the side.”    

Recommendation 1 from the Commission to the Church Council was entitled “Immediate Action on Dismantling Racism.”  It included these statements. 

“To ensure timely action, all constitution and bylaw amendments needed for the development and implementation of these accountability measures and compliance incentives must be developed and advanced in time for consideration by the 2028 Churchwide Assembly.  If by that time such measures and incentives have not been adequately identified or enacted, we recommend the ELCA Church Council call for a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to evaluate and enact necessary constitutional revisions that will enable and advance the ELCA’s commitment to anti-racism work.”

B-14 was a summary of memorials from several synods and was approved by the Churchwide Assembly 646-144.  The thrust of this motion was –  

• 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 request that the Church Council continue to work with the team to clarify the nature of mutual accountability as referenced in Recommendation 1 of the CRLC Report
• To direct the Church Council to add a timeline to its actions taken in response to CRLC Recommendation 1 and to provide progress updates to this church with a final report by Fall 2027, including possible constitutional changes, and
• To recommend that if this work is not accomplished by Fall 2027, the Church Council consider calling a special meeting of the Churchwide Assembly to enact necessary revisions to the governing documents of this church.

When you combine these actions with the development of a DEIA handbook and several pages of DEIA Recommendations for Congregations found in the DEIA audit which the Church Council had done of the ELCA’s governing documents, what you have is greater and enforced compliance and uniformity, not “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”

What has happened since then?  An October 9, 2025 news release from the ELCA reports that during the October 2-3 meeting of the Church Council the Council “received updates from its Executive Committee regarding a timeline of the ‘immediate action on dismantling racism’ . . . to develop mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA.”  Anything that calls for “immediate action” is not a “proviso on the side.”  “Mutual accountability measures and compliance incentives across all expressions of the ELCA” do not speak of “greater flexibility” and “loosening things up.”  Instead they speak of greater, enforced uniformity. 

And then another way in which Bishop Riegel misrepresented the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church was in his incomplete reporting regarding a proposed amendment to the ELCA Churchwide Constitution – 22.11.b.  As I reported in my analysis of the Churchwide Assembly (LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR – AUGUST 2025 – Lutheran Coalition for Renewal (CORE)) that amendment would have provided a way to fast track the approval of amendments that come from the floor.  According to the proposed amendment, they would no longer need to be ratified by a Churchwide Assembly three years later (hopefully after discussion in synods and congregations).  Rather they could be ratified by action of the Church Council within the next twelve months.  Bishop Riegel reported that he opposed that amendment, and he was correct when he said that it did not pass (though just barely).  But he did not say what happened next.  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. 

I thought it was very interesting that Bishop Riegel did not tell the rest of the story.  Rather he presented the actions of the Churchwide Assembly in a way that would “calm the nerves” of the members of First Lutheran.  I also do not understand if the final report of the Commission was no more than what Bishop Riegel said it was, why he would have dissented to it in full.

I have only limited information from other congregations regarding the consultation that they had with their synodical bishop before they held their first vote on whether to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  But none of them were like this one.  This Consultation certainly says two things –

• ELCA synodical bishops need to respect the integrity of congregations.
• ELCA church leaders need to tell the truth. 

Rev. John Lomperis is Director of Education and Development for Petros Network

Amidst Lutheranism’s many recent challenges, we must celebrate where faithful Lutherans continue making a great difference for Jesus Christ. 

The world’s largest, reportedly fastest-growing Lutheran denomination is the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY).  Its membership of 12 million is roughly twice as large as all American Lutherans and many more than all Lutherans in the historic strongholds of Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Iceland, and Latvia combined. The EECMY, also known as the Mekane Yesus Church, is in full communion with the North American Lutheran Church, and hosted the 2018 Global Confessional & Missional Lutheran Forum, where leaders of the EECMY, NALC, Lutheran CORE, and other faithful Lutheran bodies developed a declaration of shared orthodox Lutheran faith.

Meanwhile, Petros Network has developed a proven methodology of working with theologically orthodox Protestant denominations in Ethiopia to train and equip their church planters to make disciples and establish denominationally connected, financially self-sustaining congregations, entirely in “unreached” areas.  These are often places where people have never heard the Gospel.  On average, these new churches each plant 2.5 additional “second-generation” new congregations within a few years. 

Petros Network has launched some 200 church planters with the EECMY, one of our strongest early partners.  Together, we are seeing many members of Ethiopia’s large Muslim population come to Christ and become Lutherans.  Some Mekane Yesus church planters are themselves former Muslims.  One of this partnership’s female church planters, Kutebe, lost everything when she left Islam.  But she boldly spread the Gospel in a very difficult location, dominated by Islam and devastated by civil conflict, so that her Lutheran church plant grew from zero to 18 baptized members within just two years! 

The Mekane Yesus Church requires all of its church planters to affirm standard Lutheran doctrine (the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds plus the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Book of Concord, and Martin Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms). 

Bringing the Gospel into long-unreached areas means working in contexts of extreme poverty, malnutrition, isolation, and civil unrest.  Petros Network’s holistic approach alleviates both spiritual and physical poverty.  Through sustainably productive gardens and livestock projects, church planters are trained to multiply food security and income, training others and transforming entire communities.  For example, one Mekane Yesus church planter has led neighbors to start 16 new community gardens, through which 14 men, 18 women, and 11 children are now being trained in sustainable farming practices.  With the Mekane Yesus Church and other partners, Petros Network has trained over 17,622 individuals in sustainable farming, bringing holistic uplift that ripples through impoverished villages.

Church planters work in close connection with Petros Network’s humanitarian initiatives bringing micro-economic development, sustainable agriculture, health care, clean water, and provision for children in areas of desperate need.  One EECMY church planter helped establish a benevolent association to provide for elderly neighbors who often have no means of support.  One Petros Network women’s economic empowerment program meets in a church of the EECMY’s North-Central Ethiopia Synod.  This program benefits the whole community by equipping and training women to start successful small businesses so that they can sustainably provide for their families.  While there was much distress over the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) recently pulling back from this impoverished border region, Petros Network has remained there with our Mekane Yesus and other partners. 

The EECMY has further suffered severe financial limitations after its faith-filled decision to break longstanding ties with the national leadership of the Church of Sweden and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), over these former partners’ unrepentantly liberalized approach to Scriptural authority and marriage. 

Despite many challenges, our Mekane Yesus brothers and sisters remain eager to make the most of what resources are available to continue spreading the love of Jesus and growing confessional Lutheranism among some of the poorest, remotest corners of the planet.  As they pursue their holy mission, they welcome greater connections with North American Lutherans who have remained orthodox. 

Rev. Wagnew Andarge shares that the aforementioned North-Central Synod, of which he is president, “is profoundly grateful for our partnership with Petros Network, which has been instrumental in helping us to advance God’s Kingdom and make disciples among unreached people groups,” but that “a great need remains, especially among those who have not yet heard the Good News, including many Muslims and practitioners of traditional religions.” 

To learn more about the Mekane Yesus Church’s fruitful partnership with Petros Network and how you can get connected, please visit www.petrosnetwork.org/Lutheran

Back in the fall of 2009, shortly after the ELCA national assembly actions created so much controversy, my congregational members were already leaning toward disaffiliation.  In fact, my co-pastor and I took a quick Sunday-morning written survey in the fall of that year to confirm our sense that the majority of members disagreed with the new ELCA policies.  Sure enough, two-thirds disagreed with the national assembly’s actions.

However, the leaders of our church knew that two-thirds disagreeing was a “far cry” from eventually convincing more than two-thirds to vote—twice—to leave the ELCA.  Furthermore, we were part of the Oregon Synod, and in our synod only four out of its 110 congregations ended up even pursuing disaffiliation.  And our congregation—Our Savior’s—ended up being one of only two churches to eventually succeed in disaffiliating. 

So as we began a one-year education process on the relevant issues surrounding disaffiliation, the goal was to do everything possible to minimize our losses at our first official vote; which ultimately took place in February of 2011.  Below are the major strategies we pursued on the way to our congregational votes; both of which ended up being over 90% supporting disaffiliation.

The first strategy was to learn from the experience of other congregations that either succeeded, or failed, in their disaffiliation process during the year 2010.  For those who failed we learned the principle of not voting until you know, with a high degree of certainty, that you will have at least 80% of members supporting your exit from the ELCA.  Why 80%?  Because many of those who show up to vote against disaffiliation will in all probability eventually leave your congregation.  And we wanted to minimize the number of people we would lose due to this ELCA-instigated controversy.  Also, we wanted to acknowledge that a pre-vote guesstimate of the vote results on our part might prove to be overly optimistic.

So how did we insure—prior to the vote—that we would have at least 80% of members voting in favor?  By conducting an anonymous, mail-in survey where both members in support and in opposition would be motivated to participate in our survey.  This mail-in survey, conducted in January of 2011, resulted in 84% stating that they would, at a special congregational meeting, vote for Our Savior’s Lutheran to leave the ELCA.

And what did we learn from congregations that failed in their disaffiliation vote?  We learned that the traditional and quaint principle, “don’t count your chickens before they hatch” was applicable to this situation.  A case in point: One of the two Oregon Synod churches which had already failed in their effort in early 2010 had miscalculated in their assumption that an overwhelming percentage of their members were so upset with the ELCA that they were ready to vote for disaffiliation in January of 2010.  But this large congregation ended up—with about 400 members attending their special congregational meeting—just seven votes short of two-thirds!  In other words, the clear majority of the over 400 members voting ended up on the “losing” side!  So for us the lesson learned was the necessity for 1) an extended pre-vote education process, and 2) having a high level of confidence as to the vote outcome based on a thorough, advance mail-in survey.  (Note: for smaller churches, informal face-to-face surveys will usually suffice when it comes to an accurate prediction of your formal-vote outcome.)

A second major strategy related to our one-year education process.  We decided to focus on the centrality of Scripture in the life and teaching of the church, and not as much on LGBTQIA+ issues.  Our primary emphasis was on this fact: there was and is no scriptural support for the actions of the national assembly in the summer of 2009. 

     Our third strategy was emphasizing to our members that the ELCA national assembly actions were taken unilaterally, and without the support of a majority of ELCA congregations.  In fact, the only national survey of ELCA congregations, before the assembly vote, showed that a clear majority of the congregations were in opposition to the recommended policy changes.  And yet ELCA national church leaders went ahead and supported these changes anyway.

Our fourth strategy was—during the one-year pre-vote education process—to give those in opposition to disaffiliation opportunities to publicly share their views.  And we did this both at two annual congregational meetings, and in numerous adult forums.

     And our fifth strategy was to follow the “letter of the law” laid out in the ELCA constitution for those congregations pursuing disaffiliation.  This is especially important in those cases where congregations are putting their property ownership at risk by not carefully following those constitutional requirements.

Our disaffiliation process from 2009 to 2011 was an incredible challenge involving significant prayer—and stress—on members, congregational leaders, staff and pastors.  However, I have never, in the last fifteen years, regretted helping lead Our Savior’s out of the ELCA.

But what about ELCA churches considering disaffiliation in 2025/2026?  My sense is that the challenges of the disaffiliation process today are not quite as daunting as in 2010.  And this is true despite the fact that the current ELCA constitutional requirements for disaffiliation are even stricter than they were fifteen years ago.  Then how can I say that today this process is not as “daunting”?  I say that because of the increasing politicization of the ELCA since the assembly actions of 2009.  This politicization of the ELCA continues to alienate many of their congregations.  And this was, in my opinion, inevitable given that many if not most of the more moderate pastors and members who were part of the ELCA in 2010 have since left.  And where are they today?  Not surprisingly, most of them now belong to either the LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) or the NALC (North American Lutheran Church).  Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s I was part of an ELCA synod’s staff, and then eventually the national staff of the ELCA’s Division for Congregational Ministries.  In that capacity my assignment was to travel and eventually work with the synodical evangelism committees of 25 of the ELCA’s 65 synods.  In fact I ultimately worked with pastors and lay leaders from over 500 ELCA congregations.  Back then the ELCA was a national church body comprised primarily of biblical and theological moderates; the great majority of whom understood that Scripture was and should continue to be the very foundation of our national church’s life and mission.  In my humble opinion that understanding of the centrality of God’s Word is no longer an emphasis among those who currently lead the ELCA.

There were three linchpins that were integral to my departure from the ELCA. The first linchpin, the so-called “Bound Conscience” statements, kept me from leaving the ELCA for over 15 years with the belief in the lie that the ELCA was some kind of “big tent,” with room purposely made for biblical conservatives along with progressives. It was, of course, a lie intended to stop the mass exodus of conservatives and others, but it was convenient for me to believe and promote. I told myself that as long as I could preach and teach from a biblically conservative and confessional theological position without interference, I would remain in the ELCA. Why risk damaging a church when there was no interference or pressure? As the years went on, this self-deception wore thin and I felt less and less welcome and safe in the ELCA.

This Bound Conscience (BC) linchpin was exposed and readied for pulling at the 2022 Churchwide Assembly, when it was decided that BC needed to be “reconsidered.” Conservatives who already had diminished trust levels in the ELCA interpreted this as meaning that BC would be neutered or eliminated. When asked about what this meant, we were typically told that the language would be “updated,” “aligned with current understanding of issues,” or even “aligned with Federal DEIA guidelines” (except when it was pointed out that DEI was being eliminated throughout the federal government).

It took me a long time to understand that the phrasing of BC as “Conscience Bound Belief” was itself actually a trap. Scripturally conservative pastors and believers would never say that we were “conscience-bound” to a belief. We would rather say that, like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound to the plain language of Scripture. Our consciences are not simply bound to an easily dismissed social construct. Even with this problem, BC provided at least some legal and denominational cover for conservatives, while being incredibly offensive to progressives.

The concept of Bound Conscience as an important factor for conservative pastors and churches was difficult to explain to the lay people in my congregation. None had heard of it. Explaining it and what the loss of it would mean to conservative pastors and churches was critical in preparing my congregation for disaffiliation.

The second linchpin in my disaffiliation journey was the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC). This is where the “quiet part was said out loud.” I was providing sound and video support for a pastors’ conference in 2023 where I got to hear first-hand what they were planning to do to the denomination. I have never felt so unwelcome and unsafe in my entire ministry. It was as though I had fallen into a DEIA-based cult, where Jesus wasn’t really needed and scripture was only quoted to make what was being done sound vaguely religious, or to confuse anyone who dared object to anything being proposed, all presented with this kind of sanctimonious smirk intended to intimidate or shame any who disagreed. After three days of listening to their plans, I knew I had to get out of the ELCA prior to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. There absolutely was no place for a conservative pastor – or church – in the ELCA.

If there was any doubt about my concerns, they were put to rest when the final report of the CRLC was released by the ELCA Church Council. It was so much worse than I had understood. DEIA, along with anti-racism and Critical Race theory, were now to be the central “operating system” of the ELCA, and it was now in writing. I was surprised to see that much of what the CRLC was proposing was already approved through Continuing Resolutions (requiring no vote) or was being passed on for approval. The fix was already in and the traps to catch conservative pastors and churches were now set.

Walking my congregation through this very well constructed maze of traps was interesting. It all assumed that, of course, DEIA was in place and would be implemented on every level: Churchwide, Synodical AND in congregations. The problem was that congregations still had some level of autonomy. Much of the CRLC’s plan involved implementing DEIA policies fully in congregations and congregation councils. Plans were put in place to do that, but congregation constitutions needed to be brought into line with the Churchwide and Synodical constitutions, and to do that, a constitution convention would need to be held. That wasn’t approved at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly, but all of the groundwork had been done to implement DEIA, CRT, anti-racism and all the rest of it fully into every aspect of the ELCA. For a more complete discussion on this, click here to see my Lutheran CORE article from July of 2024.

The last linchpin in my journey was the results of the ELCA’s DEIA audit that has been on the ELCA’s website for some time (found here and here ). It’s in two parts and has largely been adopted for implementation along with the CRLC’s final proposals. The DEIA audit is another fascinating “saying the quiet part out loud” document that is so disrespectful of conservative pastors and churches, literally mandating DEIA policies and training for all pastors and church councils. It’s breathtaking in its scope, and it describes the tenuous autonomy that congregations have as an obstacle to the full implementation of DEIA policies.

With all three of these linchpins about to be pulled, the wheels are about to fall off of the ELCA, at least with regard to all conservative pastors and churches. How? It’s a really clever trap. There is, as ELCA representatives insist, no directly stated threat to congregational autonomy. There is no “Do this or else” language. However, if a congregation or pastor refuses to adopt and implement these policies, they will be branded as sexist, racist and misogynist, and put under discipline or removed for failing to fall in line. When there is a pastoral transition, congregations will only be given candidates chosen to bring them back in line with current ELCA DEIA polity, or worse, given interim pastors whose job it is to weed out the “problems” with the church. And conservative pastors? Good luck with mobility or support. Any refusal to go along with the progressive agenda will be viewed as hate speech. See this video of a SWCA synod council member doing just that to motivate the 2023 synod assembly into voting to put a congregation under synodical preservation.

What Our Disaffiliation Process Looked Like

With the very helpful advice of the Lutheran Congregational Support Network YouTube videos (here) we focused ONLY on the issue of congregational autonomy. I was heading in this direction on my own, but this really helped clarify the issue. The “big tent” lie, while still being promoted by the ELCA, is easily dismissed as a manipulative tactic to keep churches from leaving. The question for me is simply, “Are conservative pastors and churches Welcome and Safe in the ELCA?” That phrase, “Welcome and Safe,” became my main emphasis as I worked to educate my congregation. If you focus on DEIA or LGBTQIA issues, you end up in endless, circular and manipulative arguments that the ELCA is very well prepared to win, or at least, to distort the issues and gaslight people into confusion. Focusing on the congregation autonomy question is the only route to take, and it is easily understood and grasped by congregation leaders and members.

Once I understood fully what was coming and what the issues were, I began the education process in my congregation – first with the council leadership, then with broader leadership, and then with the congregation as a whole. Education and information are key. Members have to fully understand the issues.

The first vote we took was with the church council, moving to ask the congregation to vote on whether we should begin the disaffiliation process at the congregation’s annual meeting. That passed unanimously.

The next vote was at that annual meeting, to decide to move forward with the disaffiliation process. There we set the official disaffiliation vote dates according to the ELCA’s model constitution for congregations. This also passed at over 95%.

Even though our formerly ALC congregation was operating under a church constitution from 1977 (!), I decided to follow the ELCA’s current process guidelines for former ALC congregations to the letter. This made little difference to us, and it removed an ELCA objection point.

It’s important to note that we engaged a conservative Christian legal firm (Tyler Law, LLP, out of Murietta, CA) to walk us through the process. Even though I was confident that I understood the process, I wanted legal backing to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I wasn’t. A representative from the firm was present at each of the two mandated disaffiliation votes to verify that the process was conducted properly, and all correspondence went through our legal firm. We had used this firm before for issues with the City of Los Angeles and some HR issues. The total legal cost to us for this process was just over $11k. I would not recommend going into this process without a legal team.

I can’t stress enough the importance of fully preparing the congregation for disaffiliation, making sure they understand completely what the issue really is. Because my congregation was well-prepared, both votes were above 95% in favor of disaffiliation. The Bishop’s Consultation meeting actually solidified the results.

Because I had a good working relationship with the current and previous synodical bishops (I provided a lot of sound and video support for them, as well as serving as a Conference Dean for many years – and having served in this synod for 32 years), the process was not contentious or adversarial. I understand that this is probably the exception rather than the rule as these things go. I do feel utterly cut off from former friends and colleagues in the synod, however. That seems par for the course.

In this disaffiliation process, I prepared extensive documentation and educational materials for my congregation. I am happy to share these with pastors or congregations considering this process. Just email me with your questions and concerns. I am also open to phone conversations on this.

Our congregation is now a part of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). We are now a part of an organization that truly honors Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. It feels like we came home.

Once the endless meetings, insulting slurs, character attacks, hurt feelings, and procedural difficulties involved in leaving one ecclesial community and entering another are over, the remaining congregation members are often fatigued. Yet they are often galvanized by the process’ inevitable conflicts and are more committed as disciples of Jesus Christ than ever. They hope that the Lord will reward their faithfulness by swelling their ranks, securing their sometimes-tenuous finances, and allow them to return once again to whatever is identified as the golden age of the congregation’s life.

The Lord, in His mercy, rarely does this, at least in any easily recognizable, straightforward way.  The process of reaffiliating for the local congregation is always, to a larger or smaller degree, a traumatic one.  Before a congregation is ready to properly disciple a significant number of people, there is usually work the Lord needs to do within us first.  There is a gap between what we were and what we will need to be for the mission the Lord has planned for us.  I want to encourage anyone facing this to GO intentionally into that GAP:

Go deep with God:  Lutherans confess that the Spirit uses God’s Word and Sacraments to create and sustain saving faith in the hearts of people and thereby constitutes the Church.  As Luther avers, it is only in this way that we are “called, gathered, enlightened and sanctified.”  Don’t do generic Bible studies but do some focused on God’s promises and power related to healing, mission, and yes, even vengeance upon those who persecute His people (having one’s character assassinated by people you love is a real, though mild, form of white martyrdom).  Let the Lord’s Word be a branch thrown into the oft unspoken tension, pain, and ennui of the bitter waters of church hurt and make them sweet.

Open your heart to the new thing the Lord wants to do:  Paul’s ministry changed radically after he was called by Jesus.  Your congregation has been called by Jesus too, and it is not likely that He has called it to do basically what it has done in the past, just with purer doctrine.  This is not because local traditions are bad or change is good, but because if Jesus has called you into a new denominational affiliation, it is for the purpose of mission, and the mission field is always in flux.  Indeed, learning that the mission field lies at our doorstep rather than in other countries is a radical thing for many long-established congregations.  Please note that what I am issuing here is not a call to radical change, but rather to radical openness to God’s leading.

Get to know your mission field: Don’t assume you know your community’s spiritual needs.  Remember, when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.  As a Gen X’er I typically assume that Christianity’s chief rival is atheism.  For those under 40, it is paganism.  Does your congregation’s ministry take this into account?  What are the socio-economic pressures with which your visitors are dealing?  What are the most common family dynamics and dysfunctions?  Learn what people will need in your context to become good Christian disciples apart from orthodox doctrinal commitments.

Align yourself with what God is already doing: Ministry changed for me and my congregation when we stopped having a plan to reach people and started recognizing what the Lord was already doing with those He was gathering, then putting our time, talent, and treasures behind that.  “Unless the Lord builds the house, the laborer works in vain.”

Patiently wait for God, then move decisively: Don’t let anxiety about the future push your congregation to waste energy on mission to which the Lord is not calling you.  The Church’s only mission is the Great Commission, but your congregation is not the Church.  Your congregation is a church, and God is not calling you to do everything.  Instead of trying to reach some group or create some ministry that leadership thinks is essential to the congregation’s long term survival, trust the Lord with your future.  It may be that the ministry everyone thinks critical must have the foundation the Lord wishes to provide now.

GO into the GAP without fear, for it is not the valley of the shadow of death, but rather God’s way of teaching you trust on the way to the green fields and still waters for which He has claimed you.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.   –John Donne

I remember reading and discussing this poem during my freshman year of college at a Lutheran university.  The professor, and many of us students, lauded Donne’s insight into our connectedness.  But as time has passed, and, hopefully, as wisdom has grown, I now look at this poem differently. 

As someone who has conducted many funerals (which Donne is referencing with the tolling bells), I can confidently say that the bell is not tolling for me.  It is tolling for the deceased person, and to somehow try to include myself in that tolling is nothing less than diminishing the life and memory of the person for whom the bell tolls.  To put it into another manner, I do not attend a funeral to grieve myself; I am not the center of attention.

Interestingly enough, Donne is trying to convey that point in this poem, but he actually concludes with the very thing he wishes to avoid: self-centeredness.

As I contemplate the ELCA’s continued foray into Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, I believe the results are the same.  There is a good intention to bring about a church that reflects the world and the communities in which churches reside, but the end result is simply self-centeredness; self-focus; an inward turning of the heart (incurvatus in sei).

To steelman the DEIA argument: in theory, DEIA initiatives will help the church become more diverse in parallel with the communities around.  In theory, the church will first look outside, observe the diverse nature of individuals in its community, look inward to see what the church looks like, and then strive to make the inside of the church look like the outside of the church.  The pathway to this is to place as many individuals of “under-represented groups” in as many positions of leadership and power as possible.  With more of these individuals in places where they are seen, churches will draw others from their communities until the church’s demographics match the community’s demographics.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.  But the question is: how does it actually work?

I’ve been in the ordained ministry for 25 years, and I still remember the ELCA’s inception in the late 80s.  I remember how excited some in the church were because we had placed a mandate on ourselves to become more diverse—to have at least 10% of our membership be people of “under-represented groups”, although the terminology certainly was different back then.  The national church plucked as many leaders as possible from “under-represented groups” and placed them in positions of leadership and power.  Although it was not called such, we have had almost 40 years of DEIA initiatives in practice.

And the results have been?  Well, we are still right around where we were back then as far as membership demographic is concerned.  And we are still looking at ourselves and bemoaning the fact that we look nothing like the rest of the country.  We have not become outwardly focused at all; in fact, we are constantly looking inward and taking stock of what we look like.  Narcissus did exactly that when he kept looking in the mirrored pool until he died.  And since the ELCA’s membership is less than half of what it was in its inception, arguably we are doing the same exact thing Narcissus did.  In short: nearly 40 years of DEIA has been a miserable failure.  Good intentions have produced awful results.  There is a desperate need to change focus.

There are multiple ways to change focus to get the ELCA out of this inward focused reality, but I would like to name two.  First: a reorientation towards the Gospel of Grace.  God’s justification of undeserving sinners by grace through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ changes a heart from inward to outward focused.  It brings about a death of self so that one lives for God and then for neighbor.  Then, living that life leads one to become Great Commissioned focused to reach out to anyone and everyone with the Gospel.  I have personally seen and experienced many non-denominational and Pentecostal churches do exactly this, and their diversity far, far exceeds the ELCA’s.  (When I pointed this out to my bishop, she didn’t exactly have much to say.)

Which brings me to my second point: changing our view of the church so that we are not simply defining ourselves by individual congregations or individual denominations.  We need to understand the church in its universal sense.  While our individual congregations (or denominations) may not look representative of the society, the Church catholic does.  There needs to be no existential angst at the fact that we are not representative of the entire society—in fact, I am sure the African Methodist Episcopal Church (and others) are losing no sleep over not having enough white members in their midst.  We can serve God and seek the lost as best as we can knowing that integrative change comes very, very slowly.

We know that institutions that look inward die.  That is an established fact.  We’ve actually been trying DEIA for a very long time.  It hasn’t worked.  It has only led us to look inward.  It’s time to stop navel gazing and instead actually reform.  Perhaps one day, we in the ELCA will actually add the rest of the clause to semper reformanda.  Secundum.  Verbum.  Dei.  Great Commission focused churches that adhere to the Word of God will see much quicker demographic transformation than those caught up in the DEIA disaster.

Note from Lutheran CORE’s Executive Director: We thank God for His faithfulness and blessings as we observe the Twentieth Anniversary of Lutheran CORE.  Many thanks to Mark Chavez, first Executive Director of Lutheran CORE, for his many years of providing inspiration, guidance, and leadership for our ministry.  Pastor Chavez also previously served as Director of the WordAlone Network and NALC General Secretary and now serves Reformation Lutheran Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (NALC). 

We also thank him for writing this account of the sequence of events that led to the formation of Lutheran CORE.  As we think of the passion, commitment, and hard work of so many, including Mark Chavez, retired ELCA bishop Paull Spring, and Jaynan Clark, former president of the board of the WordAlone Network, we are reminded of the words of the writer to the Hebrews.  “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.” (Hebrews 12: 1-2)

Lutheran CORE formed in November 2005, but the seeds for its formation were planted many years prior. The seeds were sown in 1982 when the Lutheran Church in America, the American Lutheran Church and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches established the Commission for a New Lutheran Church (CNLC). Seventy representatives from the three churches developed the proposal for the new church, now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

The 70 leaders were almost evenly divided on the authority of Scripture over all matters of faith and life. Some upheld the authority of Scripture and others put themselves in authority over Scripture. The proof of that came in February 1984 when the CNLC met in Minneapolis, MN to work on the draft constitution for the new church. A layman representing the AELC proposed editing the first sentence in the draft Confession of Faith. It read, “On the basis of sacred Scriptures, the Church’s creeds and the Lutheran confessional writings, we confess our faith in the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . .” He proposed substituting “faith in the triune God” for “faith in the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” He opposed using masculine language with reference to the persons of the Trinity, thereby rejecting God’s revealed, proper name.

His motion was supported by 30 CNLC members, and opposed by 33. Thus the three churches forming the new church were each internally divided on the authority of Scripture. It was an ominous sign of how deeply divided the ELCA would be at its start in 1988, and in fact the division surfaced quickly.

The ELCA Conference of Bishops issued a pastoral letter in 1989 admonishing ELCA pastors to baptize only “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The bishops were alarmed that a growing number of pastors, taught by a growing number of seminary professors, were intentionally baptizing using words without masculine references to the Trinity.

The next year the ELCA appointed a sexuality task force with 16 members in favor of sexual relationships well beyond the biblical norm of one man and one woman for life. Only one member, the Rev. Dr. Larry Yoder, supported the biblical norm, and he was a late addition to the task force

The warning signs were so obvious that in 1990 more than 1,000 ELCA members – bishops, pastors, theologians and lay leaders – attended “Call to Faithfulness,” a theological conference sponsored by three independent Lutheran theological journals affiliated with the ELCA at St. Olaf College in MN. Almost all the attendees were concerned that the Word of God was being silenced in the ELCA.

A longer account would provide more details of the fundamental division in the ELCA, and attempts by a number of groups and individuals to call attention to the crisis. For now it is sufficient to note that it was only a matter of time before a reform movement like Lutheran CORE would emerge in the ELCA.

Jumping ahead to 2003, one man, retired ELCA Bishop Paull Spring, planted the seed that would become Lutheran CORE. He was a visitor at the August 2003 ELCA Churchwide Assembly (CWA) in Milwaukee, WI. The leaders of the WordAlone Network were also visitors at the Assembly. Bp. Spring approached Pr. Jaynan Clark, WordAlone President, and asked if the WordAlone Network would be interested in forming a coalition to oppose the ELCA’s sexuality recommendations that would be presented at the 2005 CWA in Orlando, FL.

The ELCA, as it had done in 1990 with the first sexuality task force, stacked the second sexuality task force heavily in favor of approval of sexual relationships beyond the biblical norms in 2002. The task force was charged with making recommendations to the 2005 CWA, so Spring knew the recommendations would oppose the authority of Scripture.

Bp. Spring’s initiative was remarkable because he had been one of the most prominent ELCA leaders in support of the full communion agreement between The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the ELCA. WordAlone led the opposition to the full communion agreement, first at the 1997 CWA in Philadelphia, and then the 1999 CWA in Denver, where he and Pr. Clark were on opposite sides.

However Bp. Spring knew that he and WordAlone agreed on the authority of Scripture. He met Pr. Clark in fall 2002 at a Christian sexuality conference hosted by Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church in Kansas City, MO. About 350 people were at the conference. WordAlone members accounted for a third of the attendees. The main concern of the attendees was upholding the authority of Scripture in the ELCA as the norm for sexuality and sexual relationships.

Clark accepted Spring’s offer to form a temporary, single issue coalition that would address only the sexuality recommendations going to the 2005 ELCA assembly. They agreed to invite significant ELCA members to a meeting to see if it were possible to form a coalition across the line of division over ecumenism. Bp. Spring invited the leaders he thought should be there and WordAlone did the same. The people invited were retired bishops, theologians and pastors. They represented all the confessional Lutheran camps in the ELCA, from the high church Evangelical Catholics to the low church charismatic Lutherans.

More than 35 people were invited, 25 of whom attended the meeting at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN September 19-20, 2003. Despite their disagreements on some matters (ecumenism, worship style and piety), within 90 minutes there was strong consensus that they could work together to form a coalition that would work only until the conclusion of the ELCA’s 2005 CWA. The coalition was named Solid Rock Lutherans, and the Rev. Dr. Roy Harrisville, III, was chosen to serve as its Director.

Solid Rock was successful in organizing opposition to the sexuality recommendations presented to the 2005 CWA in Orlando, FL. The recommendation to approve of ordained and lay ministers in same-sex relationships was defeated 490 – 503. However, an ambiguous recommendation on the blessing of same-sex unions was approved 670 – 323, which was a strong indication of where the ELCA was headed on the sexuality issues.

Though Solid Rock was focused only on the sexuality issues, as people in the coalition got to know each other, they realized they shared other concerns about the ELCA. One concern was the ELCA’s Renewing Worship project, which also made recommendations at the 2005 assembly.  People in Solid Rock Lutherans called attention to the editing of the Psalms and hymns to avoid using masculine pronouns with reference to the three persons of the Trinity in the Renewing Worship materials. Voting members associated with Solid Rock Lutherans at the 2005 CWA called for a delay of considering the Renewing Worship project until the 2009 CWA. However the CWA overwhelmingly approved moving forward with the project, which eventually led to the new hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship.

Because of the good experience in Solid Rock Lutherans, after the 2005 CWA Bp. Spring asked if the WordAlone Network would be interested in forming a new coalition that was not single issue and not temporary. He proposed a coalition for reform that would address the major biblical and theological errors in the ELCA. WordAlone responded positively, and invited Spring and other leaders in Solid Rock Lutherans to its Fall Theological Conference in Brooklyn Park, MN, November 6-8, 2005.

Prior to that conference, Solid Rock Lutherans held its final meeting at Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church in Kansas City, MO September 27-28, 2005. Spring’s proposal for a new coalition generated much discussion and debate. There was still a fair amount of suspicion and distrust of the WordAlone Network because of the disagreement over the full communion agreement with The Episcopal Church. The conversation was candid and healthy. Working through the disagreement was critical because Spring’s intention was to form a coalition “with and within the WordAlone Network.” (Dec 2005 letter from Lutheran CORE steering committee)

Bp. Spring had gained the trust of all at the meeting, so his leadership was crucial in convincing people to move forward with the new coalition. Spring came to the WordAlone conference in November with a resolution calling for a coalition for reform. His proposal was nearly unanimously endorsed by the attendees, which included WordAlone members and leaders from Solid Rock Lutherans. Lutheran CORE was formed as a coalition of pastors, laypeople, congregations, and reforming movements within the ELCA with the goal to reform the church under the Word of God and according to the Lutheran Confessions.

Lutheran CORE or a movement like it might not have emerged without Bp. Spring’s foresight and leadership. His initiative to form Solid Rock Lutherans was critical in bringing together disparate reform groups within the ELCA. Many of the people in those groups had never met the people in the other groups. Solid Rock Lutherans brought them together, creating the trust and good will needed to form Lutheran CORE. Praise the Lord for Bp. Spring’s leadership.