Editor’s Note: Dan Hetherington is the pastor at St. John Lutheran Church, Columbia, MD.

We have heard many stories from around the country about the problems some have faced in leaving the ELCA.  For us, at St. John, it was rather straight forward; however, a lot of the reasons why go back to leadership of previous years.

For many years, prior to my arrival at St. John, the staff and church council had refused to update their constitution and bylaws and so were operating under a different set of guidelines than most.  This was also before any regimented changes to bylaws from ELCA upper leadership.

The congregation of St. John has always been a ‘mixed bag’ when it comes to members’ political leanings.  For some, political affiliation has always been a leading influence on shaping values and beliefs, yet for others, Scripture has been the overriding authoritative source and norm for life. 

The straw which broke the camel’s back and led to the senior leadership beginning the conversation, and taking what they found to the Council, was what can only be described as movements towards universalism and, more concerning, paganism.

Once this was shared with the council there was deliberation on how this would be received among the congregation and what any fall-out might be.  Before anything was decided upon, we took our time to make sure that our membership roster was up-to-date and that only those who still have a ‘true’ interest in the mission of St. John would have a voice when it came to deciding our future.

Having things lined up, letters were sent to the congregation from the council president and from myself as the senior pastor, stating the requirements for discussing and ultimately voting, as well as sharing the primary concerns.

The bishop and his staff were very good.  He heard our grievance, spent time in speaking with members of the congregation, which brought us to the point whereby we could vote and then enter a process of discerning to which network we moved (either LCMC or NALC).

I have no doubt that the right decision was to leave the ELCA, and although this resulted in some people leaving the church, the major test for us was in our dedication to be who we said we were – and after voting to join with LCMC, keep to the statement of faith to which we agreed to uphold.

Being part of the ELCA had allowed for the church to be many things, and for a lot of our members, that was not Lutheran.  There were difficult discussions which resulted in people walking away over our stated beliefs and some of the practices which now held a stronger place in our worship.

All-in-all although the church membership is greatly depleted, and the active participation in worship even smaller, I believe that we are a mightier body than before.  The strength that I have seen from those who remain has given me great cause for celebration.  We don’t all agree on everything – there is still a divide in political alliance, and with that certain views on what some refer to as political issues and others moral issues.  But we stand together, and we hold the Scriptures as being the sole authority on which all things we decide to do must stand.

 

Please check out the new page on our website, “ELCA Focus,” which brings together in one place a large number of resources and articles regarding the ELCA.  It is intended to help pastors, lay leaders, and congregations become aware of and prepared for the dramatic changes that are anticipated from decisions that will be made and actions that will be taken by the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.  A link to that page can be found here. 

There are three sections to the page – “What Is the Issue?”, “Stories from Churches”, and “Relevant Articles.”

“What Is the Issue?” (LINK) contains links to the websites for the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, and the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  The page also includes a link to my evaluation of a communication from an ELCA synodical bishop where he totally dismisses the legitimate concerns that people have about anticipated coming changes.  You will also find a link to power point slides that were used by the Reformers group of one ELCA congregation to inform their fellow members regarding issues within the ELCA.

If you have not yet checked out the Lutheran Congregational Support Network, we urge you to go to their website – https://lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org/  Their goal is to provide a means to inform ELCA congregations of coming constitutional changes in the ELCA and to help congregations be prepared and know how they can respond. 

“Stories from Churches” (LINK) contains links to actual accounts of pastors, churches, and lay leaders that have experienced the heavy-handed tactics of synods.

“Relevant Articles” (LINK) contains links to articles previously published by Lutheran CORE.  I do not see how anyone could read several of these articles and not say, “Something is very, very wrong.”

We hope this resource is helpful for you and that you will share it with others.

 

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

• Reconsideration #1: A review of specific text references that “would consider the import that marriage legally is now a covenant between individuals;” review specific wording “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples;” and “consider references to diversity of family configurations.”
• Reconsideration #2: A fresh consideration of the “church’s current concept of the four positions of bound conscience” found on pages 19-21 of “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

The task force that has been appointed to work on these reconsiderations will have recommendations for the 2025 Churchwide Assembly regarding Reconsideration # 1.  They describe these recommendations as “simply editorial.”  After the 2025 Assembly the task force will begin work on Reconsideration # 2.  This work will include recommendations which have been described as substantive.

The task force has released draft edits related to the first reconsideration, and the public comment period on these draft edits is open until January 31.  The following resources can be found on www.elca.org/Reconsiderations.

• A copy of the entire social statement with draft edits underlined and highlighted
• A document with Explanations of the Draft Edits, which helps connect each draft edit to the authorization from the 2022 Churchwide Assembly
• A conversation guide for groups
• A survey for people to submit their feedback on the draft edits

The task force has also updated the FAQs on the webpage.  Most of the resources are available in Spanish and large-print.

The task force will review the feedback at its next meeting in mid-February.  You can email comments or questions directly to the task force at reconsiderations@elca.org, but they would prefer that people fill out the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8PMDXQM.

I am very grateful for the two opportunities I was given to have conversation via zoom with the two churchwide staff members who are working with the task force.  I found them very easy to talk with and very respectful of my views and concerns.  When I was asked what hopes I had for the process, I told them that I have no hopes for the process.  Rather it is obvious that from the beginning there have been powerful and preferred voices who have been working relentlessly to eliminate the provision for bound conscience and that if they do not succeed this time they will not stop until they eventually succeed.  Also I believe that when the ELCA does finally eliminate the provision for bound conscience, it will be committing a massive breach of trust. 

Please join with me in praying for the friend of Lutheran CORE who is a member of the task force.  Pray that he will be bold in his witness and clear, articulate, effective, and compelling in his contributions to the discussion.

I encourage friends of Lutheran CORE who are still in the ELCA to participate in this feedback process.  There are basically two things that I have to say about changes being recommended as part of Reconsideration # 1.  I have sent this communication to the leaders of the task force as my response.

Comment # 1

The original 2009 social statement was 48 pages in length.  The document containing recommendations related to Reconsideration # 1 is 51 pages in length.  True, the recommended changes are clearly highlighted and the “Explanation of the Draft Edits” is only 11 pages in length.  But why are ELCA social statements always so long, convoluted, and complex?  How many people – what percentage of people – do they really think will thoroughly and carefully read, analyze, and evaluate all those pages?  It is easy to wonder whether the reason for so much verbiage is to include things in all those words and pages that people will not catch.

Comment # 2 

I do not believe that the task force is being accurate when it calls the recommended changes in Reconsideration # 1 “simply editorial.”  Nor was a January 7 communication from the Theological Ethics Staff of the Office of the Presiding Bishop accurate when it described them as “small word changes that update the text without changing its meaning.”        

To support that claim I would point to the resolution’s calling for changes “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.”  The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same sex relationships.  The new wording being recommended goes beyond that as it considers “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples” (page 19 of the “Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits”).  On the same page it speaks of “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.”  A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”  That kind of change is far more than “simply editorial” and “small word changes” that do not change the meaning.    True, the recommended revised version still says, “The predominant historic Christian tradition has recognized marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, reflecting Mark 10: 6–9” (page 15).  It also states, “The Lutheran Confessions assume and reflect this understanding of marriage” (pages 15-16).  But it is neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions that inform the recommended changes, but “public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender-non-conforming couples.”  Those with traditional views knew that the ELCA would not stop with what was approved in 2009.  Nor will it stop with what is now being recommended in this revised social statement.         

 

This January marks the end of my term as President of Lutheran CORE.  I have been on the board of CORE since 2019.  In that time, my own congregation held a successful vote to leave the ELCA.  As a result, the fate of the ELCA will not have a direct impact on me and my congregation.  Nevertheless, with the 2025 ELCA Churchwide Assembly approaching, I wanted to share some final thoughts about the denomination of which I was a part for 35 years. 

When I think about the direction of the ELCA in 2024, the words “no way to slow down” come to mind.  In case you don’t recognize those words, they come from the song Locomotive Breath by the rock band Jethro Tull.  It tells the story of a runaway train.  The refrain says, “Old Charlie stole the handle / and the train it won’t stop going / no way to slow down.” 

I have begun to wonder whether the bishops of the ELCA are less like the engineer of the train, and more like the unwilling passenger.  In my interactions with bishops and various other church leaders over the years, they always seemed to have a standard response to any question about the future of the ELCA.  Whenever I would share a concern, the answer I would get was, “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.” 

Are you concerned that “bound conscience” will be ignored, or worse yet, rescinded?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that ELCA pastors will be required to preach and teach in accord with ELCA social statements?  “Don’t worry.  That will never happen.”  Are you afraid that the ELCA will close congregations and seize their assets to fund the church’s bureaucracy?  “Don’t worry. That will never happen.”

That is what we are told.  However, I also remember being told that the group “Naked and Unashamed” was a fringe group that would have no influence on the ELCA.  I remember being assured that seminary faculties would not be purged of those holding to orthodox teaching on marriage, the Trinity, Christology, or salvation.  I remember being assured that ELCA Advocacy would defend the right of religious organizations to adhere to traditional teachings on marriage.  All of those assurances proved to be empty. 

In 2019, one of the primary demands of “Naked and Unashamed” was met.  The ELCA removed the requirement that unmarried rostered leaders remain chaste and abstinent from Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.  At least three seminaries have seen purges of faculty or staff take place.  ELCA Advocacy declined to publicly support the freedom of religious institutions to follow their bound consciences in regard to marriage. 

Why do bishops resort to such empty promises?  You could argue that they are simply dishonest.  That may be true in some cases.  However, I think that explanation is too easy.  I think it might be the case that the bishops are afraid.  They are afraid to tell people the truth.  First of all, they are afraid of what will happen to the ELCA if too many people decide to leave at the same time.  Secondly, they are afraid of what will happen to them if they tell the truth.  There is an unnamed group of people who will make life very difficult for any bishop that steps out of line. 

Who are these unnamed people?  I can’t say for sure.  All I can say is that there is a sense in which the ELCA is a runaway locomotive that is outside of the control of its bishops.  Someone else is at the throttle and the brake handle has been stolen.  Even if a wreck is imminent, some think it is better to keep the passengers calm.  That’s why groups like Lutheran CORE have to sound the alarm.

 

Response to

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church: Myths and Facts

Nov 23, 2024

By Bishop Michael Rinehart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The purpose of this communication is to inform you about a movement called the Lutheran Congregations Support Network.  Their goal is to develop a means to inform ELCA congregations of coming constitutional changes in the ELCA and to help congregations be prepared and know how they can respond.

The Network will not deal with theological or culture war issues.  Instead they will deal with constitution issues – what property rights and protections congregations have in the current ELCA constitution and how those rights and protections could be at risk in a new, revised constitution. 

A November 20 news release regarding the November 14-17 meeting of the ELCA Church Council reported the following as among the key actions taken by the Council –

• Approved amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were drafted in response to the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA) Audit. The audit report was presented to the council at its fall 2023 meeting.
• Recommended to the 2025 Churchwide Assembly certain amendments to “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the ELCA” that were brought to the council by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.

As has been typical, the ELCA is not communicating what those amendments entail, nor do they tell us how much advance notice they will give us prior to the July 28-August 2 Churchwide Assembly which will consider these recommendations.

As part of their goal and purpose of helping congregations protect their property and keep from being taken over, the Network is putting together a list of contract law attorneys that will help congregations think and act strategically. 

Here is a link to the website of the Network. 

lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork.org

This website will activate on Tuesday, November 26 and will contain links to three videos –

• interviews with pastors and congregations that have experienced ELCA tactics
• a description of the process by which a congregation can lose autonomy and come under institutional oversight
• publicly available information about the 2025 Churchwide Assembly.

May the Lord give you courage and wisdom as you consider this information.  Please help us get the word out to others.

Blessings in Christ,
Dennis D. Nelson
Executive Director of Lutheran CORE

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/lutherancongregationalsupportnetwork

Youtube:    https://www.youtube.com/@LCSN-us

Instagram: lcsn.social 

Email update signup:  https://mailchi.mp/f24b14632a56/subscribe-to-lcsn

Editor’s Note: Lutheran CORE is collecting and possibly publishing stories from our readers and congregations about the process they followed when they tried to exit the ELCA — successfully or not — including any abuse by church authorities towards their congregation. This article by Dr. Brian Hughes, Lutheran CORE Board Vice-President, is the first in our new Escaping Egypt series.

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.” Matthew 12:48-49

“One of the most common characteristics of adult children of alcoholics is that they tend to be very loyal. Despite all of the hardships that they went through, adult children usually stand by their parents regardless of the way they were treated.”

John A. Smith, Psychotherapist

Hi. My name is Brian and I’m an ACOA. I’ve had friends in ministry question why it took so long for me to finally exit the ELCA and roster with another church body, a fair question and one that needs to get lifted for those who are still inside. Make no mistake, as our director Dennis Nelson has begun to warn, the doors are likely to slam shut next August at the national ELCA Assembly.  So why are you and your congregation still inside, especially if you’re a moderate, grace filled compassionate confessional Lutheran?

 So why DID I hang on so long? I served as Assistant to the Bishop of the Sierra Pacific Synod in the early 2000s when the advocates came after me, tried to destroy my career because I was merely a moderate and not a champion for their movement of change.  As I like to say, I didn’t know what the words slander, libel and defamation meant, but my attorney wife did. I left that call, moved to the other side of the country (Maryland) and helped continue building out a prevailing ministry, but still in the ELCA until finally retiring early and leaving January 2020.

Welcome to the world of ACOA (adult children of alcoholics).  We give prodigious loyalty long after it’s not warranted or deserved.  We’re hard wired to hang in there no matter how bad it gets.  We also tend to overachieve and become Type A personalities which can lead to other issues like stress induced cardiac problems.  Someday ask me about the heart attack I had underwater while on a shipwreck. It’s a great story.  It helps to explain why some of us aging confessional Lutherans hung on despite all we experienced, all we observed, all we came to understand about the trajectory of the ELCA. Undeserved loyalty.

Like many of his generation, my dad never talked about his experiences in WWII.  Later in life I came to know he was a medic in the European Theater and, through education and pastorally interacting with middle east deployed veterans, I have come to understand the impact PTSD has on them. I can only imagine the horrors my dad witnessed during his generation’s war, but as a child I didn’t understand why he drank so much, physically abused our mom and yelled at me and my sister.  With these ingredients properly measured and poured into the cauldron of development an ACOA was formed.

So brothers and sisters still inside, why are you still there and what are your hopes going forward?  My moment of decision to go was when, in 2018, the ELCA at their national youth gathering put a chemically and surgically mutilated child on stage and celebrated God’s handiwork in creating a trans child. And at that moment it was clear they were not my brothers and sisters and likely not disciples of Jesus either. The pull of loyalty was broken.  How about you?

As a friendly commenter noted, my last article needed some serious editing. It is never good for me to find myself writing too close to a deadline; the result is always technically correct but dense, jargon-heavy prose that obscures what it seeks to clarify.  My apologies to all.

To restate succinctly what I was driving at in my last installment, in contrast to what any group might claim, we can tell what that group truly holds sacred on the one hand by what things, actions, and speech they extol and prescribe, and on the other, those at which they take offense.  Sacredness is defined for a group by what they revere and what they revile.  That which is prescribed constitutes the group’s dogmas or orthodoxy.  That which is proscribed or treated as blasphemous is like a photographic negative of the same thing, defining the sacred by contrasting it to its inverse, the profane.  This is a sociological and functional, not theological, definition of the sacred.

I ended my last article by saying, “Progressive Christianity quickly ceases to be formally Christian precisely because it holds different things to be sacred than does the Biblical, Apostolic faith … it represents a different religion, not a different way to be Christian.”

Though I differ with his work on many points, one thing that the enormously popular psychologist Jordan Peterson has helped me understand is that human thought is intrinsically and inescapably hierarchical.  Believing that we can actually think in a truly egalitarian manner is not merely logically, but neurologically incorrect; our brains could literally not handle the amount of incoming sensory data presented to it by the rest of our nervous system if it did not prioritize some information over others.  Thinking hierarchically is identical to thinking at all.

In a hierarchy, whatever occupies a higher position determines the relative value of everything beneath it.  Why in CPR training do they use the acronym “ABC”—airway, breathing, circulation—to anchor the care provider in the moment of crisis?  Because while the heart is needed to pump oxygen to the rest of the body, the lungs must be filled with oxygen before it can get to the heart, and the lungs can only be filled by artificial respiration if the airway is in turn clear.  The operation of that which is lower in the hierarchy is contingent upon the proper function of that which is higher.

What is true in an operational hierarchy is equally true in a conceptual hierarchy.  In fact, you can determine an idea’s place in a conceptual hierarchy precisely by identifying whether another idea is dependent upon or foundational to it.  Within a religious schema, this translates to what is holy, holier, or holiest.

While in seminary, one of my professors quoted one of his own graduate school mentors, lauding to us the sage wisdom that “your theology can never be any better than your anthropology.”  I made a phone call that afternoon to a mentor of my own, a double Ph.D. whose own generous but well-defined orthodoxy had catapulted him to a position of great responsibility in his own Christian tradition as an ecumenical theologian, to check whether my response was too reactionary.  “That,” he said, confirming my intuition in the carefully measured tone of voice I had come to associate with him at his scholarly best, “seems to me to be precisely backward.”

The sentiment commended by my professor placed humanity (or humanity’s assertions about God) above God’s revelatory self-disclosure.  In fact, its effect was to negate any possibility of the latter by placing humanity above God epistemologically.  This professor’s spouse, when presiding at the Eucharist during the final worship service I attended at that school, began the Lord’s Prayer with the unbiblical and self-congratulatory phrase, “Our father and mother in heaven.”  I refused to receive Communion that day not because her ego was out of control (the sins of the presider do not invalidate the grace of God) but because I was no longer sure it actually was the Eucharist, and that was because I was no longer sure the Christian God, the God that commanded His people to “have no other gods before Him,” was in fact being worshiped in that space.

If Christ is not “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), if it is not true that “if we have seen [Jesus], we have seen the Father” (John 14:9), and the Bible is not in fact a revelatory portrait of that Christ to us, something—in this case humanity—must replace the Triune God in the highest position within the religious hierarchy, whether historically Christian vocabulary is used to describe it or not.

By definition, that is some other religion than Christianity.

 

Structural and governance changes will most certainly come about from the work of the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  An all-encompassing redefinition of mission and ministry will most certainly result from the recommendations, expectations, requirements or whatever that will be laid upon congregations because of the DEIA audit which the ELCA had done of its governing documents.  The provision for bound conscience will very possibly be eliminated as part of the review and re-evaluation of the 2009 human sexuality social statement.  As I keep up on the latest of what may be coming for unsuspecting ELCA congregations, I realize that conflict within congregations might only become more severe leading up to and after the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August 2025. 

In June of 2013 – just a little over a year before I retired – the synod in which I was rostered, Southwest California, elected the ELCA’s first openly gay synodical bishop.  That election threw the congregation where I had already been serving for thirty-nine years into total turmoil and conflict, and that was a conflict that continued throughout and beyond my final twelve months there.  And I found that since I had already announced my retirement because I would be leaving after forty years there, I was totally unable to provide leadership, guidance, and stability in the situation.  That was a situation that the congregation would have to work through without me.  I was not in a position to help them in any way during my final year there.

Friends of Lutheran CORE who are a part of ELCA congregations will find themselves in many different kinds of situations in regard to the upcoming changes in the ELCA.  Do any of the following describe your situation?

• In some ELCA congregations there will be strong agreement among the pastor, leaders, and members that the time to leave the ELCA is now and action needs to be taken as soon as possible in case the coming changes in structure and governance make it even more difficult if not impossible even for former ALC congregations to leave with their property.

• In some congregations there is no way that a motion to disaffiliate from the ELCA will prevail.  Even if a majority are in favor of leaving, they will not be able to achieve two separate votes with at least two-thirds of those voting approving a motion to disaffiliate. 

• In some congregations the pastor has kept information regarding what is actually happening in the ELCA from the people.

• Some friends of Lutheran CORE are the only one in their congregation (or one of very few in their congregation) that is aware and concerned.  They have faithfully sought to inform others, but their efforts fall on deaf ears. 

• Some former LCA congregations and mission congregations started by the ELCA believe that they would never receive permission from their synod council to leave with their property and/or would not be able to pay back to the synod the mission start funds expended by the synod that the synod would demand be repaid.

• Some congregations are too diminished and/or the membership does not have the energy left to deal with the issue.  If they are aware of S13.24, they are just hoping that the synod will not use that provision in the model constitution for synods against them to justify the synod’s moving in, taking over, and possibly closing the congregation.

• I know of a vibrant, Biblically faithful, Spanish language ministry where the synod owns the building and most of the salary of the pastor is paid by the synod and churchwide.

There are Biblically faithful, confessional pastors in the ELCA who do not believe that the right approach for their congregation would be to seek to disaffiliate from the ELCA.  There are many reasons for this.  Some feel that a motion to disaffiliate would not prevail.  Some fear that it would only be disruptive in the life of the congregation.  Some believe that they can keep the changes coming in the ELCA from impacting their congregations.  We need to be praying for these ELCA pastors and their congregations.  

We are very grateful for the friends of Lutheran CORE who are members of other Lutheran church bodies who are concerned about and regularly pray for their fellow Christians still in the ELCA. 

With the changes that are certainly coming and the wide variety of situations that friends of Lutheran CORE find themselves in, Brian Hughes is planning a series of webinars for upcoming months.  The themes for the webinars will follow the life of Moses and his leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt through the wilderness into the Promised Land.  Here are the planned topics.

November – Conflict Management

Groaning under Egyptian captivity; understanding what is coming in the ELCA and the stages and types of church conflict that might engender and how to navigate them without burning out

February – Vision Casting

The hope of the Promised Land; effective ways of pointing to a preferred future

March – Grief and Change

Loss and renewal in the wilderness; understanding the process of transition and how to maintain momentum and forward direction

April – Organizational Structure and Succession Planning

New rules for a new reality; constitution and bylaws for the mission field

Stay tuned.

 

Editor’s Note: Our prayers and words of thanks go to the Reformers group of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church.  They have been tireless in their efforts and courageous and faithful in their witness.  

The “Reformers” are a group of members from St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, Brenham, Texas,  who began to meet to discuss the need for more Biblical enrichment during services and the lack of engagement among members:  attendance being down; no adult or children’s Sunday School; financial struggles of the church; the lack of involvement by a broader group of members, primarily because of not being asked to serve in leadership roles like church council or key committees. Our concerned group sought the truth, transparency and a dialogue about our church’s and the ELCA’s missions, impacts, and beliefs in the Holy Scripture.  Our group leaders met with our church council leaders first to discuss issues and then with the council, but our requests to bring these issues to the congregation were denied.  Without our leadership’s support, we petitioned, according to our constitution, to hold a congregational meeting to vote on a resolution to call a vote to terminate our affiliation with the ELCA. (This meeting must be called in order to have a discussion and inform the congregation of our findings.) The meeting date was determined by the council, and we had 27 days once notified to inform the congregation. We held four meetings and presented researched and referenced documentation, sent out mailers with documentation, and posted our full story and timeline on Facebook. (“The Reformers of St. Paul’s, Brenham”) Total votes cast were 393, with 158 for disaffiliation, 235 against disaffiliation, and 15 denied and given provisional ballots. In summation, 40% wanted to leave, but with 2/3 or 263 votes required for the first vote, the process ended. There were 677 confirmed members before. Latest numbers are unknown. Since the vote, the council sent members an email naming only singular nominees for important positions, and council adopted new resolutions for membership.

Following are actions of our synodical bishop, church council, and pastors to control the process and outcome:

• Our pastors each preached sermons—despite not meeting with us to discuss issues first—about a group dividing the church and spreading rumors and lies.
• Council and pastors stalled actions they were required to take according to our constitution.
• We asked for a membership list at different times and received inaccurate and not up to date information. Members had been removed without following our constitution. New members were added. There were no membership processes or actions made known to the congregation.
• We were told the “voting member” list would be used, despite the “voting member” list not being used previously for quorum at yearly congregational meetings. The church leadership determined the “voting member” list. We asked for the list, but were denied. Basically, it was a secret list seen only by ELCA church leadership.
• Contrary to keeping the voting member list secret, the qualifying petition signed by members and presented to council was made available to members outside of the council. Petitioners were called or visited by leadership, retired St. Paul’s /ELCA pastors (7+ are members), and supporters to sway them.
• The Interim Lead Pastor sent an email “Church Rumors and the Eighth Commandment” to the congregation. It contained partial truths and warned against “false and misleading” information.
• The council denied our request to hold informational meetings on our own church property.  Many members did not want to be seen or were intimidated to not attend our meetings since we were denied access to church property despite being members.
• Senior citizen members attending a “Game Day” fellowship event–elder members worship, communion, dominoes/cards, and dinner –were confused to believe if they voted for disaffiliation, they would no longer be members or be Lutheran, and would have to leave our church. 
• The ELCA leadership did not allow comparisons to other Lutheran affiliations or an examination of the ELCA.
• At the informational meeting with our synodical bishop, our questioning members were cut off, our information laughed at, and attendees commented “why don’t you just leave.” No attempt was made for this to be a fair discussion.

In summation, we were thwarted in our efforts to get accurate member information, and to give all members information needed to make an informed choice about the ELCA. The  ELCA leaders controlled the process and changed the rules as we went. Assumptions and accusations were spread about our group and documentation.

Concerning the work of the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, our synodical bishop denied knowing of the existence of the DEIA audit and report until recently, and minimized the significance of the audit stating “And none of it’s going to be implemented at all.” He said it has nothing to do with the CRLC, even though the CRLC talks about it in written summaries of their meetings: Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  All this was said in spite of the fact that the ELCA Conference of Bishops recently issued a statement about the need to speak the truth, rather than normalize lies and deceit: ELCA Conference of Bishops Analyzes Churchgoing Trends in Planning for Future – ELCA.