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.

 

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. 

How DEIA, Anti-Racism and CRT Are Becoming the New Gospel in the ELCA

Any meaningful discussion of these modern-day heresies absolutely must begin and end with scripture.  DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and now Accessibility – other letters are soon to come, I’m sure, as other intersectional groups demand recognition and victimhood status), Anti-Racism (which seems to actually be sort of reverse racism), and CRT (Critical Race Theory), which defines everything and everyone through the lens of racism. They ultimately divide the world into victims and victimizers, and if you’re deemed a victimizer, you must be destroyed at any cost. 

Although these ideologies are often dressed up in biblical/religious terms to sound Christian enough to mislead people, they actually are in direct opposition to scriptural admonitions, and in fact seek by their very nature to undermine the authority of Scripture and replace the Good News of the Gospel of God’s love poured out for us through Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the cross, with something truly vile and destructive. In order for these progressive idolatries (more on that term later) to be accomplished, people have to be convinced that the Bible is wrong and not to be trusted in matters of faith and life, that faith only matters if it is filtered through the DEIA, CRT and anti-racist ideologies – nothing else will be tolerated!

As background and foundation for this article, I ask that the following biblical references be kept in mind and heart. The biblical language is clear and must not be allowed to be subverted by the typical “theological word salad,” manipulative gaslighting tactics and fear mongering (“If you don’t agree with us, you’re a racist, homophobic, transphobic, or whatever ad hominem attack they can think of to cower people into silence) so often used by activists and race-baiters to stifle debate and confuse those who are not well-grounded in scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

Scripture for Consideration

Galatians 3:23-29, especially verse 28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (NRSV)

Colossians 3:5-11, especially vs. 11: “In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!” (NRSV)

1 Corinthians 12:12-13: “¹² For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. ¹³ For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (NRSV)

Rom 8:1-8, especially 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (NRSV)

The DEIA, Anti-Racism and CRT Replacement Gospel

One of the great gifts that Christianity has given to the world has been the cure for the destructive problem of “tribalism.” For the purposes of this article, I would define tribalism as the pitting of one tribe, nation, group or even gender and intersectional identity against another. When Christianity began to spread, something amazing happened: tribalism no longer defined the lives of people of faith, and that change affected their communities.  A new possibility for communal living began to emerge because people believed in, as THE defining characteristic of their lives, salvation and forgiveness through faith in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for them.  As people came to faith, the tribalism that had separated them and pitted them against one another began to fade away. The rebirth that comes through baptism and faith was incompatible with the old waring cycles of death and destruction, and light began to shine in the darkness as the Kingdom of God began to emerge. Although we begin to see changes coming in cultures and even governments because of the presence of those changed by faith, darkness, however, will always be a part of this broken and sinful world.

Despite all the happy rhetoric surrounding them, DEIA, CRT, anti-racism, and the victim-victimizer way of categorizing people actually turn people against one another, bringing back the tribalism that fell to the power of forgiveness, becoming ultimately profoundly racist and demonic.

Why? Because it skips the whole life-changing-relationship with Jesus part that CAUSED the changes and tries to go right to the end result. But since scripture and true faith are bypassed, the end result actually becomes the activists’ Utopian fantasy of a perfect world. This is where my use of the term idolatry comes in. They worship this vision and will destroy anything in the way of accomplishing it. Their goal, sadly, is a reflection of their own brokenness(as all idols are), and therefore HAS to accommodate virtually every kind of behavior forbidden by scripture (just keep adding more letters to the abbreviations!). God and scripture are, other than the occasional out-of-context reference to give some illusion of legitimacy, taken out of the equation completely. The resulting idolatry is then inside-out and backwards (I think the technical term is “bass-ackwards”) from what scripture invites us to experience. 

The Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church

Imagine the horror and embarrassment of ELCA leadership when it was discovered that after 35 years of mandated 10% quotas of people of color and people whose primary language is other than English, the ELCA actually became on average MORE Caucasian, with some figures being quoted as high as 97%!

Imagine the thought processes at work: “What can we do now? How can we FORCE the ELCA to become the church that we want it to be. The ‘racist’ ELCA must be destroyed and rebuilt in our image (but see Genesis 1:21 to see whose image is important!). We’ll call it ‘decolonization’ or ‘deconstruction,’ but we’ve got to completely destroy it. But how can we make the churches go along with all of this? I know! We’ll use guilt to do it! That worked before, right? We’ll throw enough Bible-sounding word salad at them to confuse them, but we’ve got to convince the 97% that THEY are the problem, condemned by God, that they are evil, racist, misogynistic, sexist, and that they are victimizers! THIS is the new gospel. ‘No condemnation in Christ Jesus’? Hah! We’ll HEAP condemnation on them! We’ll minimize Jesus’ death on the cross and salvation through faith in him. We’ll undermine people’s confidence in scripture, the confessions and the creeds, and we’ll guilt them into submission. Then they will actually help us destroy the church! Brilliant! And we’ll promise them a million new members who look just like us! All they have to do is shut up and get out of the way.”

In order to accomplish this on any level, ALL of the institutions of the church must be changed so that DEIA is the unquestioned operating procedure (done!), and they have to infuse DEIA into all of the constitutional documents of Churchwide, synods, and especially churches. Already on the ELCA website is the result of their DEIA audit and recommended changes to all of our constitutions. Being pushed by the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church, this represents the reworking of the framework of the ELCA, from top to bottom. Once the DEIA is fully unleashed, nothing can stop it, and I don’t think most of the leadership in the ELCA fully understands what hell they’re about to experience themselves. DEIA demands complete obedience with no tolerance for conservative or dissenting voices. Even bishops will be forced to conform. 

The one thing still standing in the way of full domination for DEIA is Bound Conscience. These positions, put in place apparently to gaslight people who disagreed with changes made in 2009, are what gives legal cover to those who would disagree with DEIA, CRT and anti-racism. Oddly, from a conservative and biblical point of view, these clauses are deeply flawed. We would say with Luther, that our consciences are bound to the Word of God. Oddly, that part is never mentioned in the Bound Conscience clauses.

However, when Bound Conscience goes (and it is being actively “reconsidered” now), nothing is left to protect conservative pastors and churches who still dare to disagree, and we will be subject to legal action, discipline and punishment for being racist or any of the usual phobics, and whatever other attacks that would be launched. That, I believe, will happen as soon as DEIA is fully implemented in our constitutional documents. DEIA leaves no room for disagreement. The change will be breathtakingly swift. The United Methodists are now discovering, with the departure of huge numbers of conservative pastors and churches, what happens when the conservative brakes are released. Even progressives there are showing some concern at how quickly their founding documents and positions are being abandoned – with not much of substance being put in their place.

I expect these changes to begin to be implemented at the 2025 Churchwide Assembly. Once DEIA changes are implemented, Bound Conscience will fall. Conservative pastors and churches will no longer be welcome in the ELCA, nor will we be safe.

Almost 30 years ago, I had my first introduction to the tactics of postmodern argumentation.  A professor at Texas Lutheran made the statement that he could not be racist because as a Latino, he had no power.  Racism was prejudice plus power.  I scratched my head.  I had been taught that racism was prejudice towards another person on the basis of skin color or a sense of moral superiority towards one’s own race.  Where did this other definition come from?

Since then, I discovered the origin of the professor’s definition, and I have also discovered that such shifting of definitions are a strategy to shift an argument to heavily favor one particular side by causing confusion, obfuscation, and, in the case of racism, an avenue where one does not need to examine one’s own prejudice towards those of a different color. 

There are times to call such obfuscation out and refuse to play the game.  There are times to say, “I simply refuse to engage your definition of that word because it is not the culturally agreed upon definition of that word.”  However, there are also times to do what apologists call “defeating an argument on the opponent’s terms.”

When you can show that an opponent’s definitions or stances will fail to accomplish what they set out to do, you can cut through the confusion and bring the argument around to your favor.

Such is the case with the definition of racism embraced by those of a more left-leaning bent.  Prejudice plus power is their definition of the word, so logically, if you get rid of either of those things, racism is dismantled.  Get rid of power or get rid of prejudice, and racism comes to a halt. 

So, here is the question to ask in regards to power: has there ever been a system of thought or practice that gets rid of power?  You really shouldn’t have to wait long for an answer.  The self-evident answer is no.  Even that professor from Texas Lutheran was a bit misguided when he said he had no power.  He handed out grades, after all.  One simply cannot get rid of power structures.  They emerge no matter what, and as power shifts and prejudice remains, you simply shift who is racist and never eradicate racism.

Therefore, you must look at the prejudice part of that equation.  How does one get rid of prejudice?  Can one pass any sort of legislation which will eradicate it?  Again, the answer is no as prejudice pertains to the state of a heart and mind.  In order to change prejudice, a heart and mind must be changed.  What is the most effective way to change a heart?

From a Christian standpoint, it is the power of the Gospel which brings to fruition the baptismal promise: “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

As far as I can tell, and please tell me otherwise if not, this particular approach completely dismantles those who would like to excuse racism by changing the definitions, and it brings the discussion to a place where Christianity offers the best answer to truly tackle the problem of racism.

Recently, the ELCA posted the results of a DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) Audit¹ which was authorized by the Churchwide Assembly.  The audit laid out its findings and made numerous recommendations for the church to implement practically and constitutionally.

It would seem as though a move towards DEIA would be uncontroversial.  If you take the traditional meaning of each of those words, arguably every congregation would seek to be: diverse as the Gospel is for all people; equitable as God is just and fair; inclusive as, again, the Gospel is for all people; and accessible as we are called to be hospitable and welcoming.  However, one of the great tricks of the postmodern world is to take common words and redefine them to mean something different.  DEIA in the current secular fashion is less about including everyone and more about pushing out those who are labeled oppressors—usually heterosexual, white men.  And while the audit does go to great pains to try and urge a DEIA policy which is rooted in biblical thought², I cannot help but see a Trojan horse which seeks to formalize secular DEIA within the church.

I believe this to be the case as I see these recommendations centering the church’s focus on DEIA and moving it completely away from its God-given mission to spread the gospel.  I hope to show this in four points.

#1. The approach is top down.  Don’t take my word for it.  I quote the DEIA report itself, “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”³  Right off the bat, we see that this implementation is not a grass roots movement which most lay people embrace and are calling for.  This is an imposition of thought and practice that begins at the top and is forced upon the whole church, including recommendations for punitive measures for those who do not comply.⁴  Such practice does not exactly have a good track record of success historically and actually ends up being divisive and counter-productive. 

#2. It shifts the primary focus of the church inward instead of outward.  Not that many churches have escaped the problem of naval gazing, but this movement reinforces the tendency to focus on “us.”  What do we look like?  Are we making sure we have proper representation across all groups within our church?  One might argue that this will force the church to look outward in order to check the appropriate boxes.  It is a legitimate argument, but its practical application has been an abject failure within the ELCA for decades already.  What makes us think it will change this time?

#3. It’s the wrong metric to measure congregation viability and engagement.  Here is a suggestion from the audit: “Those incentives might include granting congregations with stellar DEIA achievements greater voting power at the Assemblies, as a form of enhanced membership, or conditioning any grants or other financial assistance to congregations on compliance with the Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards.⁵”  Grant incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores, but not to congregations who are actively feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and visiting the prisoners?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores instead of congregations who are growing in number?  Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who are actively engaged in their communities and truly making an impact in those communities through their ministries?  This is a bit more worldly, but…granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who give big benevolence dollars to the synod?  Need I go on?

#4 And probably the most damning.  When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel, a very interesting scenario plays out.  As Samuel approaches the sons, he gazes upon their appearance and makes judgments.  Time and again, Samuel is met with this response or a similar one, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”  This is not simply a truism of the Old Testament.  It particularly is emphasized in the New Testament as the result of encountering the overwhelming grace and love of God.  The human heart changes from looking inward (classical definition of sin) to looking outward towards God and neighbor–in that order.  DEIA does not look upon the human heart, but upon outward characteristics.  It completely reverses the stance God takes throughout the Scriptures.  It must be rejected on this basis alone.  To continue down the path of implementation will resort to nothing less than a disaster.

---

1.  REPORT ON THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OF THE ELCA. Fox, Swibel, Levin & Carroll LLP.  Chief Author: N. NEVILLE REID.  November 2023. 

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_1.pdf

https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf

2. Ibid.  p. 4, 6-7.

3. Ibid. p. 3.

4. Ibid. p. 3.

5. Ibid. p. 8.

Many thanks to Kevin Haug for his very insightful article about the DEIA audit which the ELCA recently commissioned a law firm to do of its governing documents.  I hate to think of how many of your benevolence dollars the ELCA spent on this effort.  You will find Kevin’s article in this issue of CORE Voice.  It is a word of warning to all in the ELCA.  You do not need to take my word for it that these recommendations actually are being given as part of this audit.  You can check it out for yourself at DEIA_Report_Part_2.pdf (elca.org)

I am an ELCA pastor who has been retired for nearly ten years.  When I read these recommendations, my first thought was, “I am glad to be retired.”  The immediate response of one ELCA pastor in his early 60’s when I shared these recommendations with him was, “How soon can I retire?”

I thought of the strong, negative response I am certain I would have received if and when I would have shared these recommendations with the congregation council of the church where I was the pastor.  I then thought, “We are already facing the challenge of trying to do everything that we are currently doing.  How am I now supposed to get everyone on board, enthusiastic about, and actively engaged in fulfilling these recommendations?”  And what will be the consequences for us in our synod if these recommendations become requirements and we do not meet them?  If congregations that are DEIA-compliant are rewarded with such things as having extra voting members at synod assemblies and greater access to grants and other financial resources, how will congregations that are not DEIA-compliant be punished?  For example, will they not be given any names of possible candidates for call if the congregation is looking for a pastor? 

Here is just a sampling of the audit’s Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards for Congregations.  A question for all ELCA pastors and congregational leaders is this:  Is this what you want to spend a considerable amount of your time, energy, and resources on? 

1. Upgrade all personnel policies to reflect DEIA values.

2. Require annual DEIA training for all pastors, church staff, and lay leaders, using an Approved (approved by whom?) Provider.  At a minimum this training will cover the following topics:

a.  How does DEIA advance the values of the Kingdom of God?

b.  Is this particular congregation perceived as hostile or unresponsive to members of historically marginalized groups, and if so, how might this congregation reverse that perception?

The ELCA defines “historically marginalized groups” as groups that have for some significant period of history been excluded from participation or leadership in the church on the basis of certain characteristics.  They include racial and ethnic minorities, persons whose primary language is other than English, low income persons, persons with disabilities, gender non-conforming persons, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.  (I have asked ELCA leaders who are so concerned for “historically marginalized groups,” what about “currently marginalized groups”?  Which I would say includes older, white, cisgender, heterosexual males with traditional views.) 

This mandatory, annual DEIA training is also to consider such questions as these –

a.  What additional initiatives can this congregation pursue to promote DEIA values?

b.  What financial resources does our congregation commit to promoting DEIA values and programs, and should we commit more and if so can we do so on an annual basis?

c.  What is Christian White Nationalism, what causes people to adhere to it, and is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings?  How might members of historically marginalized groups be offended by Christian White Nationalism?

d.  What is Black Lives Matter, is it consistent with Jesus’ teachings, why are people drawn to it, what human needs does it address, and can the church do a better job at meeting those needs?

3.  In addition, each congregation is to identify at least one other congregation with opposite or at least very different demographic characteristics and commit to starting at least a one-year relationship with them.  This relationship is to include the following:

a. Periodic meetings between the pastors to discuss ways in which the congregations can get to know each other better and plan joint activities to strengthen mutual understanding on DEIA issues.  These activities may include joint DEIA training sessions with an Approved (again, approved by whom?) Provider and joint Bible Studies or Biblically based book studies on DEIA topics.

b.  Monthly meetings between the lay leaders to plan and administer activities, joint discussions, and ministries.

c.  At least six joint worship experiences, followed by a fellowship social hour.

At best these recommendations will be time and energy consuming.  At worst they will be one more way in which the ELCA is relentlessly being pushed to the extreme left – in the direction of critical race theory and DEIA ideology.